# Downing Street Memo 2.0: Bush told Spanish PM he was set on war, UN resolution or no **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 26, 2007, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580 "2007-09-26T18:42:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/21 "2007-09-26T21:28:16Z")
Goodness, **Martin** , you’ve put an awful lot of work into arguing this. Wouldn’t have it been easier for you to dismiss the allegations on the grounds of it being printed in “a country of fuck-ups and incompetents”. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/22 "2007-09-26T21:43:14Z")
Thanks, guys, but its OK. Always been a little touchy about that, but **Martin** don’t know shit from Shinola, and can’t figure out why his shoes stink so bad. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/23 "2007-09-26T21:47:20Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] There’s still never been any solid evidence that Bush lied about WMDs, there’s only evidence that Bush received bad intelligence about them. Anyone who remembers all the speeches Bush gave in the run-up to war remembers that Bush’s sole _casus belli_ was not the presence of WMDs. But rather it was a combination of issues (like Saddam’s refusal to cooperate fully with inspectors, and Saddam’s glaring human rights abuses.) WMD became the center point of the left’s opposition to the war because it was the one part of Bush’s laundry list of reasons for invading they could actually counter. No one on the left could even begin to counter Saddam’s blatant disregard for the terms of the cease-fire or his humanitarian abuses. As usual, though, the left is willing to allow mass murder as long as it has the chance of scoring them points on the home front or as long as their support for it is part of some greater opposition to America (as anti-Americanism is one of the cornerstones of leftist ideology.) [/QUOTE] Dude…it’s OK. Let it go. It’s alright. Bush isn’t special in any way, only in his more blatant posturing compared to people like Bill Clinton or Reagan. We’ve been an imperial power for one hundred years. This is the way the game is played. Are you sad because of the Republican veneer over this whole ideal? Because your team is losing? Well, don’t worry about it. When Hillary Clinton is appointed, she’ll bomb and torture just as much as Bush, it just won’t be as up front, and you’ll be able to start threads about it. We’re not in Iraq for good reasons. Just disconnect yourself from it emotionally and it’ll be good, there’s nothing we can do about it. As for the WMD claims and the “everyone knew he had them” canard…I’ve seen people try to dissuade you from this notion before and it obviously had no effect. I can only recommend the following works: Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq The One Percent Doctrine Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone I do agree though…I don’t understand **BG’s** fascination with impeaching Bush. Talk about a symbolic gesture. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/24 "2007-09-26T21:52:57Z")
Symbolic gestures tend to get underestimated. Imagine the reaction: “The Americans chucked out Bush!” “Why?” “He was a shitwit and a fuck-up, so they fired him!” “They can do that?” “They can in America, I guess. Kinda cool, when you think about it…” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/25 "2007-09-26T22:25:23Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] Newsflash: **BrainGlutton** ’s mind is so open to new avenues of attack against Bush, that in these matters it has more or less fallen right out of his head. The only real reason to participate in these threads is to laugh at how stupid he is in his hilarious belief that Bush will some day be impeached. [/QUOTE] Well, now it’s going to be for people to poke fun at you for pulling out the patriotism card. Good job! ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/26 "2007-09-26T22:51:48Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Symbolic gestures tend to get underestimated. Imagine the reaction: [/QUOTE] It’s symbolic and wholly meaningless because we would then turn around and vote for someone like Mrs. Clinton, Obama, or Romney. The only reason Iraq is a domestic problem is because Bush fucked it up so bad. If he was competent, we’d probably be talking about getting rid of the 22nd amendment. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/27 "2007-09-27T23:46:09Z")
[QUOTE=marshmallow] It’s symbolic and wholly meaningless because we would then turn around and vote for someone like Mrs. Clinton, Obama, or Romney. The only reason Iraq is a domestic problem is because Bush fucked it up so bad. If he was competent, we’d probably be talking about getting rid of the 22nd amendment. [/QUOTE] I think the only way to not have “fucked it up” would have been to not invade. We might have handled it better, but I don’t think there was a way to avoid some kind of mess. There just wasn’t a good way to invade Iraq, unless we were to install a US-friendly dictator. Someone who could keep the country together by force, but do so in a way that wasn’t a cruel as SH’s method. If that’s even possible. But would that have been acceptable to the American people? Maybe, maybe not. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/28 "2007-09-28T02:08:07Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] There just wasn’t a good way to invade Iraq, unless we were to install a US-friendly dictator. Someone who could keep the country together by force, but do so in a way that wasn’t a cruel as SH’s method. [/QUOTE] [A plan considered, but rejected.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8962836&highlight=palast#post8962836) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/29 "2007-09-28T07:05:23Z")
Its an interesting alternative question, I admit: what if the Bushiviks hadn’t screwed the pooch with such enthusiasm, might the situation be salvaged. I agree, probably not, very close to certainly. Take disbanding the army, often pointed out as the biggest fuckup. If they were not, they would have served as an instrument of civil order, but most likely an instrument of Shia authority. De-Baathification would have served to remove unfriendly officers at the top, and from there on down. The Shia governance would have even less reason to negotiate and compromise. We might well be gone by now, the Shia admin of Iraq might prefer not to have any interference as the negotiations with the Sunni enter the delicate “payback” phase. The withdrawal of our troops would have been fulsomely hailed as a victory parade, with the appropriate opportunities for a grateful nation to praise The Leader. If they moved quickly, the might have had the confetti swept up before Baghdad blew sky high. ---
**Author:** ![essell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@essell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/essell)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/30 "2007-09-28T09:12:15Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I think the only way to not have “fucked it up” would have been to not invade. We might have handled it better, but I don’t think there was a way to avoid some kind of mess. There just wasn’t a good way to invade Iraq, unless we were to install a US-friendly dictator. Someone who could keep the country together by force, but do so in a way that wasn’t a cruel as SH’s method. If that’s even possible. But would that have been acceptable to the American people? Maybe, maybe not. [/QUOTE] If I’m wrong please correct me, but isn’t that how Sadam _got_ into power in the first place ? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/31 "2007-09-28T09:32:13Z")
[QUOTE=jjimm] Goodness, **Martin** , you’ve put an awful lot of work into arguing this. Wouldn’t have it been easier for you to dismiss the allegations on the grounds of it being printed in “a country of fuck-ups and incompetents”. [/QUOTE] And since **Martin** probably doesn’t know this, in a newspaper that’s linked to the socialist party. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/32 "2007-09-28T09:33:46Z")
[QUOTE=essell] If I’m wrong please correct me, but isn’t that how Sadam _got_ into power in the first place ? [/QUOTE] He was helped into power indirectly by the CIA backed 1963 coup that put the baathists in power. Saddam later staged his own coup with CIA aid and support. [CIA & Saddam](http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html) > [@](#): > > "The coup that brought the Ba’ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States. > > The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba’ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition. > > US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, “I knew all the Ba’ath Party leaders and I liked them”. > > "The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba’athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don’t get that chance very often. > > “Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn’t bother us”. > > \ > > On February 8, a military coup in Baghdad, in which the Baath Party played a leading role, overthrew Qassim. Support for the conspirators was limited. In the first hours of fighting, they had only nine tanks under their control. The Baath Party had just 850 active members. But Qassim ignored warnings about the impending coup. What tipped the balance against him was the involvement of the United States. He had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. In 1961, he threatened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), > the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq’s oil. In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. “We really had the ts crossed on what was happening,” James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, told us. “We regarded it as a great victory.” Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. “We came to power on a CIA train,” admitted Ali Saleh Sa’adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. CIA assistance reportedly > included coordination of the coup plotters from the agency’s station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be eliminated once the coup was successful. Then we got right behind him and turned a real-politick blind eye to his evil, occasionally opening it to give him a kind look. [aiding Saddam](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/cron.html) > [@](#): > > In one of the largest ground assaults since World War II, Saddam sends 200,000 troops across the Iranian border, initiating what would become a bloody eight-year conflict. > > When Ronald Reagan becomes president in 1981, he endorses a policy aiming for a stalemate in the war so that neither side emerges from the war with any additional power. But in 1982, fearing Iraq might lose the war, the U.S. begins to help. Over the next six years, a string of CIA agents go to Baghdad. Hand-carrying the latest satellite intelligence about the Iranian front line, they pass the information to their Iraqi counterparts. The U.S. gives Iraq enough help to avoid defeat, but not enough to secure victory. And then of course there was the whole Iran/contra thing where the USA effectively ended up arming both sides in the war, so prolonging it. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/33 "2007-09-28T23:06:47Z")
[QUOTE=Nava] And since **Martin** probably doesn’t know this, in a newspaper that’s linked to the socialist party. [/QUOTE] And yet neither the PP’s own hyper-rightist _ **ABC** _ and/or the sensationalist and also right-leaning _ **El Mundo** _ have been able to rebut the story. Nor has anyone else for that matter. Just thought I’d add a bit more info for the xenophobic, fascist, asshole. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580/34 "2007-09-29T01:26:58Z")
Weird thing, politics. Some conservative bloggers are claiming that the transcript [actually EXONERATES Bush](http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/09/bushaznar_preiraq_war_conversa.php) and proves his critics wrong! Yeesh. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downing-street-memo-2-0-bush-told-spanish-pm-he-was-set-on-war-un-resolution-or-no/420580.md?page=1)