This is interesting. Bush and Blair really did intend war.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Today's online edition of The Guardian offers this headlined story: Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html). Some choice extracts: Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.

[snip]

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

[snip]

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily".

Caveat: The source? The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith. So this may fairly be said to be a source not free of bias. And he's got a new edition of his book to flog. Nevertheless, Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: "The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003." It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. "Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister's conversations with other leaders." So, the memo cited appears to be genuine, and Downing Street's response to the implications of its content is, shall we say, an exercise in sidestepping of the main point.

And now, the Pitting: You fucking apologists for the Bush administration, you who insisted they weren't lying to us, they really did believe there were WMD and that's why the invasion was necessary, who lapped up Colin Powell's UN speech, who've spent the last couple of years sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "BUSH DIDN'T LIE" -- gonna brush this one off too? Got any more contortions you can twist yourself into to explain this away? How about it, huh? At long last, have you enough decency to admit you were wrong? That the fix was in, Bush wanted his Iraq adventure no matter what it took, even to "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours"?

You diehards are contemptible.

[Gangster Octopus]

Nevertheless, So, the memo cited appears to be genuine

It's called a Jump to Cnclusions mat!

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Hey, I said "appears", given Downing Street's not disavowing it. I also pointed out the likely bias of the source. Got evidence to discredit the document or the author? Bring 'em on, I'd like to know how much reliance to place in this, because if it's genuine it is damning.

[jlzania]

Here's my thinking on the Bush apologists, EFT
Let's assume you originally support the invasion of Iraq in good faith because you believed everything you were told unquestioningly.
As the evidence that you were lied to piles up, you have two choices.
Choice the First: Admit you were duped.
Now, no one likes to admit that they've been fooled (although being fooled is certainly not the same thing as being a fool).
However, with your admission comes the knowledge that your support of the war has gotten over 2000 Americans killed and unknown number injured.
That's a large burden of guilt to bear and requires direct action to end the war.
Which is why Choice the Second is much more palatable to many Bush supporters-deny, deny, deny.

I've seen this with families that have lost their childrenin Iraq.
They're furious but they direct their anger at the peaceful anti-war protestors.
Why?
Because it's a whole lot easy thanacknowledging that they supported a lie and now their child is dead forever.

[GIGObuster]

That's a large burden of guilt to bear and requires direct action to end the war.
Which is why Choice the Second is much more palatable to many Bush supporters-deny, deny, deny.
This is compounded by the maneuver that it is silly to pretend it was not planned also before hand: Constantly "catapulting the propaganda" that adds the foolish Iraq war to the justified war against terror in Afghanistan. As the last state of the union address showed, the administration is still demagogically homogenizing the two wars and they calculated that no republican of consequence would ever raise a peep against conjoining the different wars.

[kaylasdad99]

Here's my thinking on the Bush apologists, EFT
Let's assume you originally support the invasion of Iraq in good faith because you believed everything you were told unquestioningly.
As the evidence that you were lied to piles up, you have two choices.
Choice the First: Admit you were duped.
Now, no one likes to admit that they've been fooled (although being fooled is certainly not the same thing as being a fool).
However, with your admission comes the knowledge that your support of the war has gotten over 2000 Americans killed and unknown number injured.
That's a large burden of guilt to bear and requires direct action to end the war.
Which is why Choice the Second is much more palatable to many Bush supporters-deny, deny, deny.

I've seen this with families that have lost their childrenin Iraq.
They're furious but they direct their anger at the peaceful anti-war protestors.
Why?
Because it's a whole lot easy thanacknowledging that they supported a lie and now their child is dead forever.Oh, lordy, lordy.

How many people think that the bulk of the Bush apologists that come into this thread, rather than address the allegations of the OP, will attack jlzania's post with accusations of "broad brush," and "mind reader"?

[jlzania]

You know, this is my thinking on the issue based on a number of personal observations.
I may well be slammed but heh-comes with the territory, doesn't it?
However, I wasn't trying to deflect attention from the OP and if I did, I apologize.

[World Eater]

Sunk cost fallacy. We've come too far to quit. :rolleyes:

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

You know, this is my thinking on the issue based on a number of personal observations.
I may well be slammed but heh-comes with the territory, doesn't it?
However, I wasn't trying to deflect attention from the OP and if I did, I apologize.
On the contrary, you've offered the only rationale for the apologists that incorporates any excuse for it, IMO. I can understand that the agony of grief would overthrow the ability to think clearly about why such a cruel loss had to happen.

Anyone got the over/under on when an apologist drops in to post:

":rolleyes: Ho-hum, another BUSH IS TEH SUXXOR!!!11one thread. :rolleyes: "

[El_Kabong]

Seems like as good a time as any to mention this one again.

During the run-up to the invasion, a good friend of mine was chief financial officer of a major wild-well control contractor based in Houston. In October 2002, representatives of his company, and several others, were invited to a US Army headquarters in Florida (Central Command?) where an Army general and a couple of civilian staff from the Bush Administration gave a presentation on the possible scenarios for a Kuwait-style sabotaging of Iraqi oilfields by a retreating Iraqi army, and to hammer out contingency contracts should the well control companies be needed.

So far so good; unlike some other aspects of the invasion, the administration was at least considering contingencies, right? Well, the thing that gave me pause, and that struck my friend to the point that he commented on it, was that the officials, to a man, took the invasion as a given; that is, it was going to come off no matter what.

OK, granted this is anecdotal, third-hand, and I can't personally verify the story from another source. Nevertheless, I am firmly convinced that anyone who believes the Bush Aministration's claims that they only went into Iraq as some sort of last resort, must be very naive indeed.

[kaylasdad99]

You know, this is my thinking on the issue based on a number of personal observations.
I may well be slammed but heh-comes with the territory, doesn't it?
However, I wasn't trying to deflect attention from the OP and if I did, I apologize.No apology necessary, IMHO. I'm hoping that they'll be too embarrassed to be so transparent, now that I've mentioned it.

The past so often does turn out to be precedent, though, doesn't it? :( <le sigh>

[kaylasdad99]

By the way, ETF a tip o' the slow guy's hat on the way your thread title parallels ol' Humpy's so nicely. :D

[Hamlet]

Here's my thinking on the Bush apologists, EFT
Let's assume you originally support the invasion of Iraq in good faith because you believed everything you were told unquestioningly.
As the evidence that you were lied to piles up, you have two choices.
Choice the First: Admit you were duped.

<snip>

Choice the Second is much more palatable to many Bush supporters-deny, deny, deny.


<snip>I believe you're may be overlooking another, more classic reaction: the ends justifies the means. Whatever lies, misinformation, poor intellligence, or the fact the government was simply looking for a reason to invade Iraq, is of little or no consequence because Saddam was removed from power and democracy was spread to the middle east. By only looking at the ends, it makes the means less important. This seems to be the thinking of a majority of conservatives I've talked to about these things.

And they do have an iota of a point. Saddam was a murderous, evil tyrant and the world, and Iraq, are better off without him in power (at least for now). And the more democracy in the world better (at least for now). So, some good was accomplished. The problem I see with this view is that it ignores the costs, in money, world peace, and, most importantly, American lives. But most conservatives I speak with seem to take solace in the fact that the true outcome of this war in Iraq won't be known for another couple decades, so the lead up to the problems leading up to the war becomes less and less important.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Oh, lordy, lordy.

How many people think that the bulk of the Bush apologists that come into this thread, rather than address the allegations of the OP, will attack jlzania's post with accusations of "broad brush," and "mind reader"?

Nah. That only happens to me.

[Metacom]

Saddam was a murderous, evil tyrant and the world, and Iraq, are better off without him in power (at least for now).
Are the people in Iraq better of now then they were under Saddam?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Good to see you in here, Airman Doors -- you're a rare (in my experience) example of someone who strongly defended the invasion at first, then over time looked at the evidence, thought it through, and made the difficult decision to change his mind. I wish more of the war's defenders would/could do the same.

Hamlet, you make a good point. Mighty convenient for the war supporters, isn't it, that the true worth of the ends won't be known for so long after we've expended the means.

Hey, kaylasdad, thanks. That was a carefully framed title.

[On preview] Metcom, with every day's fresh reports of bombings, killings, kidnappings and other horrors in Iraq, your question becomes more pertinent. Just how much more shit must those people suffer before the balance shifts?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Good to see you in here, Airman Doors -- you're a rare (in my experience) example of someone who strongly defended the invasion at first, then over time looked at the evidence, thought it through, and made the difficult decision to change his mind. I wish more of the war's defenders would/could do the same.

Isn't it obvious?

Wait, I already know the answer to that, but I just don't see how anybody can still say that we did the right thing without temporizing.

[Der Trihs]

Saddam was a murderous, evil tyrant and the world, and Iraq, are better off without him in power (at least for now). Tell it to people sitting in the dark, afraid of being killed by either passing American troops or some faction. Tell it to the women who now have fewer rights. Tell it to the jobless, who have watched America rape and warp the Iraqi economy, or been forbidden jobs because they are Iraqi.

The problem I see with this view is that it ignores the costs, in money, world peace, and, most importantly, American lives.Because, of course, the far higher Iraqi death toll doesn't matter. As foreigners, they are simply cattle for our use.

But most conservatives I speak with seem to take solace in the fact that the true outcome of this war in Iraq won't be known for another couple decades, so the lead up to the problems leading up to the war becomes less and less important.Besides, "conservative" pretty much equals "sociopath", as far as I can tell. They don't care about the harm they have caused

[KidCharlemagne]

Are the people in Iraq better of now then they were under Saddam?

They think so.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Besides, "conservative" pretty much equals "sociopath", as far as I can tell. They don't care about the harm they have caused

:rolleyes:

I'm a conservative. I don't care? Tell me another one.

[GIGObuster]

They think so. :rolleyes:

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html
23/10/2005

...


The Sunday Telegraph disclosed last month that a plan for an early withdrawal of British troops had been shelved because of the failing security situation, sparking claims that Iraq was rapidly becoming "Britain's own Vietnam".

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it.

Under the heading "Justification for Violent Attacks", the new poll shows that 65 per cent of people in Maysan province - one of the four provinces under British control - believe that attacks against coalition forces are justified.

The report states that for Iraq as a whole, 45 per cent of people feel attacks are justified. In Basra, the proportion is reduced to 25 per cent.

The report profiles those likely to carry out attacks against British and American troops as being "less than 26 years of age, more likely to want a job, more likely to have been looking for work in the last four weeks and less likely to have enough money even for their basic needs".

Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water.

That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.

[Sevastopol]

most importantly, American lives. .

Least important, less important than dirtied doormats. Totally unimportant. A positive boon to global wellbeing. An ongoing campaign of just punishment.

[Der Trihs]

Least important, less important than dirtied doormats. Totally unimportant. A positive boon to global wellbeing. An ongoing campaign of just punishment.Agreed.

[GIGObuster]

Posted too soon again. In any case, my last post was a quote from the link, except the roll eyes.

This is a good place to mention the best timeline regarding how we were misled to the Iraq War:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/timeline/

[Hamlet]

Tell it to people sitting in the dark, afraid of being killed by either passing American troops or some faction. Tell it to the women who now have fewer rights. Tell it to the jobless, who have watched America rape and warp the Iraqi economy, or been forbidden jobs because they are Iraqi.It was an argument that many conservatives are making. Personally, I'm not sure. It's worse now for women and children, but better for the Kurds and the prospects for long term freedom seem to be better. I honestly don't know.

Because, of course, the far higher Iraqi death toll doesn't matter. As foreigners, they are simply cattle for our use.Ignoring your hyperbole, you have a damn good point. I'm ashamed that, in listing the costs of the war, I left out the cost in Iraqi lives. It was inexcusable.

Besides, "conservative" pretty much equals "sociopath", as far as I can tell. They don't care about the harm they have causedAgain, ignoring your hyperbole, I agree that the costs of this idiotic war are horribly ignored by this administration and its lackeys.

[Metacom]

Despite the dire numbers in that poll, Gigobuster, the Iraqi's may be better of (or at least consider themselves so) despite all that--perhaps they think that their current state is better then living under Saddam, because it's a transition to a better government?

Have there been any polls along the lines of, "Do you wish the US would never have invaded?"

That would be a truly interesting poll.

[Der Trihs]

Ignoring your hyperbole, you have a damn good point. I'm ashamed that, in listing the costs of the war, I left out the cost in Iraqi lives. It was inexcusable.It was mockery of your ( apparent ) sick attitude toward Iraqi casualities, not hyperbole. I'm glad it was an error, and not callousness.

[duffer]

Least important, less important than dirtied doormats. Totally unimportant. A positive boon to global wellbeing. An ongoing campaign of just punishment.


You are such an unbeleivable unfathomable piece of shit. I'd state my true feelings, but the mods would punish me for being honest while letting you get away with breaking one of the most enforced rules on the boards.

Der Trihs, you're just as worthless.

Can't write "STFU" in MPSIMS without an official warning, but this shit flies straight and narrow? Fuck this.

[Der Trihs]

You are such an unbeleivable unfathomable piece of shit. I'd state my true feelings, but the mods would punish me for being honest while letting you get away with breaking one of the most enforced rules on the boards.

Der Trihs, you're just as worthless.

Can't write "STFU" in MPSIMS without an official warning, but this shit flies straight and narrow? Fuck this.Really ? I've never killed anyone, yet I'm a bad person for disapproving of mass murder/theft/conquest, and those who engage in it ?

Pardon me, if I'm less than crushed by your disapproval.

[GIGObuster]

Despite the dire numbers in that poll, Gigobuster, the Iraqi's may be better of (or at least consider themselves so) despite all that--perhaps they think that their current state is better then living under Saddam, because it's a transition to a better government?

Have there been any polls along the lines of, "Do you wish the US would never have invaded?"

That would be a truly interesting poll.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1423308&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Bush Leaves Out the Bad News in Iraqi Poll

....

Among the findings:

More than two-thirds of Iraqis surveyed face-to-face opposed the U.S. presence, but only one-quarter of respondents wanted American troops to leave right away.

44 percent said their country is better off than before the war.

...

Half said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was wrong, up from 39 percent in February 2004.

So the official poll shows Iraqis lost a lot of that wish too.

But there is good news.


I saved 15 percent on my car insurance by switching to Gei... ...urk

[Strangling noises]

Ah, good! [Tosses the gecko that sometimes gets into the room into the trash]

Sorry, where was I?

Oh yes, the good news is that the latest poll did report that more than two-thirds said they expect things to get better in the coming months. Taking into account that Iraqis in this poll knew it was coming from the western press IMO the results are skewed more towards wishful thinking. In other words, I do think the Iraqis are still more like the ones revealed in the secret poll. (Not to mention that the last bit of good news is literally based on wishful thinking)

[choie]

Gosh I hate to actually address the OP...

Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach {of UN resolutions}".

Jesus, if this is true, it's fucking heinous and I hope gets the attention it deserves. How does the UN feel about Bush being willing to use them as the spark for his own little Reichstag fire? How will Americans react to yet more proof that this son of a bitch masquerading as patriotic leader is a warmongering, amoral liar who so desired a war that he was ready to provoke a war into existence -- no matter what lies he needed to tell, no matter how many lives he needed to sacrifice?

Oh who am I kidding. No one will care no matter how much lefties scream. Righties will roll their eyes and say "big fucking deal, he can do what he wants, he's president, TERRA! TERRA! FREEDOM ON THE MARCH! SADAAM = EVIL!" and the media will yawn and return to browbeating James Frey for crimes against humanity, I mean against Oprah.

I'm a gentle person by nature -- honest, I am! -- but I must say, the past five years have taught me how to hate. This bastardly administration is contemptible.

[Zoe]

At what point will Iraq be democratic enough to vote us off the island if they choose to?

Who will be awarded the voting machine concession? Will a paper trail be required? Will political t-shirts be allowed within 100 yards of the polls?

Will there be someone to lead a choir in singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic? (Please, please. Can we do the Mormon Tabernacle Choir arrangement? I like that part where the tenors sing, "Truth is marching...Truth is marching...")

[Zoe]

Sorry, I should have addressed the OP.

I'm not at all surprised that evidence keeps turning up about Bush's intentions. I never really doubted that we would invade -- even though I thought that there would be WMD. Let's just say that Bush has lived up to every expectation that I had of him.

But I am always disappointed when I continue to be disillusioned about the PM. I had a genuine liking for him. Did I just misjudge him all along or did Bush manage to corrupt a good man? Is there some other explanation?

[duffer]

Sevastopol. Der Trihs. May I see you for a moment? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357222).

[duffer]

Really ? I've never killed anyone, yet I'm a bad person for disapproving of mass murder/theft/conquest, and those who engage in it ?

Pardon me, if I'm less than crushed by your disapproval.

Come to the Pit. You're approving American's dying. It'll be fun.

Apologies for the distraction to the rest of you. It'll be handled there.

[Kimstu]

Come to the Pit.

Pssst duffer---this already is the Pit. ;)

[duffer]

Pssst duffer---this already is the Pit. ;)

But mine is much warmer. You can go topless!

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

But mine is much warmer. You can go topless! :dubious:

Are you sure that's wise? Aesthetic standards differ, duffer.

:p

[Kimstu]

Well! Thanks so much, ETF! ;)

[Frank]

Least important, less important than dirtied doormats. Totally unimportant. A positive boon to global wellbeing. An ongoing campaign of just punishment.
I've been mulling over this post for some time, trying to figure out how to word this.

Sevastopol, you're out of line here. Remarks indicating your indifference to American battle deaths are, in general, acceptable. The remarks you have made here are not only inflammatory, but are verging on trolling. Please desist.

[Sevastopol]

I've been mulling over this post for some time, trying to figure out how to word this.

Sevastopol, you're out of line here. Remarks indicating your indifference to American battle deaths are, in general, acceptable. The remarks you have made here are not only inflammatory, but are verging on trolling. Please desist.

I humbly differ: But firstly let me say that American battle deaths are tragic and unwelcome, so that is clear. Moreover, I've recently become aware of a pit thread to which I may break ranks and read, possibly responding, so forgive me if I make points here, already there mentioned: Let's have a look at what I was responding to:

And they do have an iota of a point. Saddam was a murderous, evil tyrant and the world, and Iraq, are better off without him in power (at least for now). And the more democracy in the world better (at least for now). So, some good was accomplished. The problem I see with this view is that it ignores the costs, in money, world peace, and, most importantly, American lives. But most conservatives I speak with seem to take solace in the fact that the true outcome of this war in Iraq won't be known for another couple decades, so the lead up to the problems leading up to the war becomes less and less important.

Most importantly to American lives? ... Pause ... The US made a deliberate, considered and deceptive decision of public policy to visit war, that is death and destruction en masse, onto a country at peace and its unwilling population. It's hard to compose this in an even tone but the underlying facts are uncontroversial.

Hamlet rates as a nullity the costs in the lives and property of 10's of thousands of entirely innocent Iraqis. They don't even rate a mention. Whereas the instruments of death with which the US now proudly rapes the Iraqi nation; these people are the most important loss in this war? And I'm the one trolling? Well excuse me. 'They're just ragheads and they bombed our buildings, fuck'em', is that it?

It was the decision of the US to hazard the lives of its own and without provocation to take the lives of others. There was no cause here. Hamlet's a lawyer and is familiar with the idea that the loss should be borne by the party in breach, that is the US. So I'm inclined to believe his/her post was thoughtless rather than malevolent. But I've seen too much of the latter to let this pass. I'll repeat though, regrettable as the loss of US servicepeople is, it was the decision of the legitimate US government to put those lives in hazard and inflict that hazard on unwilling others. I will not stand to see US lives valued above others' or indeed their property, where the loss to lives and property is devised by Americans.

On a conciliatory note, I recognise that a large part of the US effort is now directed to creating a state at peace and that there are people in its service of the highest calibre and honour.

[AFAIKnow]

I humbly differ: But firstly let me say that American battle deaths are tragic and unwelcome, so that is clear.

On a conciliatory note, I recognise that a large part of the US effort is now directed to creating a state at peace and that there are people in its service of the highest calibre and honour.


"Least important, less important than dirtied doormats. Totally unimportant. A positive boon to global wellbeing. An ongoing campaign of just punishment." = tragic and unwelcome? Quit being such a coward, worm. Either fess up or acknowledge what you said came out of your ass and take it back if you didn't mean it, puss.

[Frank]

Most importantly to American lives? ... Pause ...
Had you posted what follows this, rather than what you did post, I would not have warned you.

[Sevastopol]

"Least important, less important than dirtied doormats. Totally unimportant. A positive boon to global wellbeing. An ongoing campaign of just punishment." = tragic and unwelcome? Quit being such a coward, worm. Either fess up or acknowledge what you said came out of your ass and take it back if you didn't mean it, puss.

Neither coward, nor worm, but prone as all people are to human error. As I have done in the open pit thread, I again unreservedly apologise for allowing that meaning, quite reasonably, to be found in my post.

As you may see, I've elaborated my full meaning in the preceding post.

[Sevastopol]

Just to note that Hamlet has apologised, in dialogue with Der Tris, which I assume was also directed to me and welcome.

[Starving Artist]

Bush apologist checking in here. Despite the fact that a couple of posters here on the other side who I am particularly fond of are quite worked up over all this -- and despite the fact that I'm loathe to aggravate them further -- I feel that I must respond lest it be assumed by all and sundry that I've slunk away somewhere to hide until this all blows over.

Frankly (and here comes the part that will surely engender further rage on the part of my hopefully not erstwhile friends), I don't see much of a big deal at all in the comments quoted in the OP. Allow me to respond point by point...

The Guardian says: "Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.

"A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme."

I see no problem whatsoever in the fact that Blair told Bush that he was solidly behind U.S. plans to invade Iraq at the time he did. To my non-Bush-enraged eye, it appears merely to be a case of one leader of an allied nation assuring the leader of another allied nation that he would stand behind him in the event of war.

Further, from whom was Blair to have sought "advice" about the invasions legality? I'm unaware of a definitive body whose authority over the matter is sufficiently strong (i.e., not the U.N.) to prevent such a close ally of the U.S. to withhold its support in event of war. The question of the war's legality has been a matter of debate ever since the war started. Additionally, Blair could have withdrawn his country's support at any time had he become convinced the war was either illegal or morally wrong; the fact that his assurance came two months before the war began is totally meaningless to me in regard to being proof of anything illegal or underhanded. It seems to me that lining up help during the run-up to a war, and assurances of support from allies, are pretty much SOP I would think.

In regard to assurances being made in the absense of a second U.N. resolution, it appears to me that Bush and Blair felt the same way I do and that they were unwilling to wait any additional time for the U.N. to back up its words regarding Hussein and Iraq. Bush and Blair's overriding concern (and mine, as well) was that for a variety of reasons Hussein was too dangerous to our national security, and given that there was a ten or twelve year history of U.N. impotence in dealing with him, the risk of continuing to do nothing was just too great to continue to allow Hussein to remain in power.

The Guardian says: "The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

I would be interested in knowing why this alleged statement by Bush is told anecdotally rather than by direct quote, unlike the part of the statement regarding U2 planes. But let's assume Bush said what Prof. Sands alleges...why do you suppose Bush wanted to fly U2 planes over Iraq? According to most of you here, Bush was determined to go to war anyway...and to acheive this nefarious end by "lying" to us about Iraqi WMD. So why the urgent desire to send U2 planes? Could it possibly be that he was worried that Iraqi WMDs were perhaps on the move, either out into the countryside or perhaps into neighboring countries? Could it be that perhaps he was carrying out his responsibilites as President -- responsibilities intended to protect American and allied citizens -- and making every effort to accurately and definitively determine the whereabouts of WMDs that virtually every country in the world thought Hussein possessed? It is my belief that such is the case.

As far as disguising the planes to look like U.N. planes, well, what can I say?...war is hell! Trickery goes on on both sides: just like spying, shooting, taking prisoners, etc. You might disagree about the moral aspect of using trickery against our enemies, but for myself, I'd much rather employ trickery if it means saving American lives.

And the remark about Iraq's being in violation of U.N. resolutions by firing on the planes is totally meaningless in regard to showing any negative culpability on Bush's part. Iraq had routinely violated U.N. resolutions (including firing on our own clearly marked planes flying legally in Iraq's airspace) for years and years. Why would they all of a sudden by afraid of violating them during the lead-up to the war...and why, when they needed U.N. support in order to prevent U.S. action would they want to fire on U.N. planes anyway? The whole scenario alleged by Sands doesn't make sense to me...but like I said, even if it's true I don't see anything particularly significant about it.

The Guardian says: "Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

Looks to me like Bush was in error in his assessment (as happens to every president, especially when it comes to war), and that Blair -- aware that he, too, was not capable of exactly predicting the future -- didn't argue the point. Again, I don't see much here to get excited about.

The Guardian says: "The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily".

Which we did.

Hussein was given forty-eight hours to pack up his reprehensible sons and go to some other country where they would pose less of a threat to the U.S. and its allies. Regardless of whether or not Bush knew whether Hussein was likely to accept, the fact remains that Bush -- supposedly so determined to go to war in order to enrich his buddies and to indulge his evil, murderous personality -- would not have invaded Iraq, and the war would never have taken place, had Hussein simply packed up and left. Bush did not have to give Hussein a way out -- and whether or not he 'knew' Hussein wouldn't take advantage of the opportunity -- the fact remains that Bush stated before the entire world that military action would not occur if Hussein left the country. To me, a gamble like this sounds highly unlikely for someone so determined to go to war for oil; friend-enrichment; daddy-revenge; evil, murderous intent; etc., etc.

The Guardian reports: "The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith."

Sounds like semantic trickery to me. 'Doubts' shared by Foreign Office lawyers...and 'advice' from the AG...hardly sound binding upon the leader of a country anticipating going to war. Leader ask for opinions and advice; they are not bound to take it...and their decision not to take it in no way shows criminality or dishonesty on their part.

The Guardian says: Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: "The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003." It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. "Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister's conversations with other leaders."

Do you 'admit' to having dinner last night, Mrs. Jones?

Semantics again, playing to the anti-war crowd with accusatory jargon. Who says Downing Street tried to deny the existence of the memo? If so, there's no evidence of it here.

Further, events transpired just as reported above. What's the problem? The tentative decision to use military action was in place should the final attempt fail, and the final decision was indeed not made until Hussein's forty-eight hours (the final attempt to avoid military action) were up. I see absolutely nothing in the paragraph quoted above that is in the least bit wrongful.

[crowmanyclouds]

As far as disguising the planes to look like U.N. planes, well, what can I say?...war is hell! Trickery goes on on both sides: just like spying, shooting, taking prisoners, etc. You might disagree about the moral aspect of using trickery against our enemies, but for myself, I'd much rather employ trickery if it means saving American lives.How far are you willing to let them go with this?
This sounds just like Operation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods) Northwoods (PDF) (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf) Not PDF (http://www.geocities.com/tetrahedronomega/) .

THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
WASHINGTON 25, D.C.

13 March 1962

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Subject: Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba...

1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):(1) start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10) {This implies that (10) would/might include the deaths of American sailors}).b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned {This implies that a would be a manned ship}) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

5. A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We know that Castro is backing subversive efforts clandestinely against Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua at present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. "Cuban" B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane-burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arm which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach.

6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio
stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

9. It Is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.{RED} and bold=CMC

This isn't a question of using trickery, it's lying to trick us into war.
Are you willing to go to war on a lie when it means losing American lives?
This is not about this war or this President, it's about American values.
Do we lie, Starving Artist?, is that now a part of our national character?



Their is an inverse relationship between the time it takes to construct a post and the degree to which it contributes to a discussion. (Hentor the Barbarian's Law of Posting Composition) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7063251&postcount=20)

[Lute Skywatcher]

Anyone got the over/under on when an apologist drops in to post:

":rolleyes: Ho-hum, another BUSH IS TEH SUXXOR!!!11one thread. :rolleyes: "Brutus isn't here anymore. :D