Conspiracy theories begin with a premise and then search for evidence of that premise. But as any C+ student of basic methodology can tell you, evidence does not equal proof. There is some evidence that the moon-landing was fake, yet such evidence is overwhelmed by masses of counter-evidence. At some point the evidence becomes such that any still believing in the conspiracy have gone beyond all rational discussion, are no longer involved in a search for the truth, and have become faith-based zealots believing in a premise that gives their lives meaning.

The Left's obsession with the Downing Street memo is a perfect example of a faith-based conspiracy theory in search of proof. This faith begins with the assumption that the war in Iraq could not have been for the stated reasons but rather that there is a hidden agenda to the Iraq conflict. From what I gather, the Left is divided over the specifics of this hidden agenda (the theories, though, usually center on some sort of Imperialistic grab for power in the Middle East, which will eventually lead to a US war against Syria and/or Iran) but they do agree that a conspiracy existed at the highest levels to lie to the American people as to the real reasons for going to war.

Via Duncan 'Atrios' Black this post by Digby is indicative of such conspiracy theories:

I honestly don't know why there is any question that the Downing St Memo is the most important historical document to emerge showing that Bush and company took us into Iraq on false pretenses. It's true that there have been many hints --- the biggest of which is that, uh, there weren't any f*cking WMD --- but this is clear proof that they lied prior to that....

It is a full-on game plan for obfuscation and "rolling out the product" that proves they knew that Iraq wasn't a threat. ....

They may never be able to admit all that. But in that it officially documents the fact that the administration knew there was no threat and knew there was no connection to terrorism, the Downing Street Memo gives the press the chance to ask, finally, why we really invaded Iraq.

Another part of this particular conspiracy theory is the notion that it's not enough that members of the Bush and Blair administration are involved but that leading news organizations, such as The New York Times, are also part of the plot to mislead the American people. For instance this post by Kevin Drum and this one by Nico over at Think Progress. Both begin with the premise that the conspiracy has objectively (I mean objectively in the epistemelogical sense, that is that the authors believe as an objective fact rather than as a matter of opinion this view) been proved in the Downing Street memo. Thus with the conspiracy proved, anything short of front-page coverage at The New York Times is evidence that the publication is part of the conspiracy.

The problem with Digby, Atrios , Nico, and Kevin Drum's assesment of the Downing Street memo is the same as with all conspiracy theories: they begin with the conspiracy premise, selectively use evidence, and disregard any evidence to the contrary. So, the Downing Street Memo is seen by these conpiracy theorists as 'the smoking gun' which 'proves' that Bush has ulterior motives for going to war.

Such thinking disregards hundreds if not thousands of statements, both public and private, that the reasons (there were multiple reasons, if you don't have amnesia) for going to war were exactly as stated. Further, such thinking disregards hundreds if not thousands of statements, both public and private, that the decision to go to war was not finally made until shortly before the invasion.

This does not mean that most people, President Bush and Tony Blair included, did not think that the invasion was not inevetable. To assume that Blair and Bush did not believe war was coming is to think that they were idiots. Of course they thought war was coming and were making the necessary arrangements. Duh, this is what governments do! A conspiracy theory about the real reasons for going to war is not needed to explain the Downing Street memo, as Michael Kinsley, to his credit, points out here:

But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It states that war is "now seen as inevitable" by "Washington." That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Even if "Washington" meant administration decision-makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, C was only saying that these people believed that war was how events would play out.

Did the Bush and Blair administrations believe that a day of reckoning was coming with Saddam Hussein? All indications say yes. But so what? Plenty of times in history the same sort of writing has been on the wall. In June of 1941 did the Roosevelt administration believe a conflict would soon be coming between the U.S. and Japan? Of course it did! Sanctions were not working to get the Japanese out of China and there was a lot of saber rattling on both sides. But that is not proof that some sort of grand conspiracy existed to start a war with Japan. Did Lincoln believe that a war was coming between the North and the South? Yes! Fifty years of history all pointed to such a conflict. But that is not proof of some sort of grand conspiracy by Lincoln to start a war.

The Left's obsession with The Downing Street memo is not borderline paranoia, it is has become full on paranoia. The truth of the matter is that the paranoid obsession with the grand Bush conspiracy theory runs so deep among the Left today, that no amount of evidence to the contrary could make them disbelieve.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:24 PM | Comments (84) | Add Comment
Post contains 1104 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Shorter Jawa: If I close my eyes and plug my ears really really hard it will all go away. If I close my eyes and plug my ears really really hard it will all go away. Lalalalaa. . . star wars. . . lalalala.

Posted by: Ragdrazi at June 13, 2005 12:45 PM (lNFQ2)

2 Rusty, I thought it was more about the "facts being fixed" that has been getting everyone's panties in a bind, no?

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 13, 2005 12:51 PM (buka0)

3 Yes, but it's seen as 'evidence' of some sort of grand conspiracy.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 13, 2005 12:53 PM (JQjhA)

4 Speaking of conspiracy theories, there's more than a whiff in the air that many on the Left don't really believe the Downing Street memo conspiracy. They simply see partisan profit in promoting it, laughing up their sleeves at the Dem sheep stupid enough to believe it.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 13, 2005 12:55 PM (RHG+K)

5 I agree it is the "facts being fixed" that is doing the panty bunching. I personally don't care that they had vaguely decided it was going to happen. I do care that the memo implies they "selected" intelligence to back up their policy. (Much how conspiracy theorists select information to back up their crazy theories) But since we're on the subject, Why DID we go to war Jawa Man? It seems like you object to the conspiracy theories but, I'm curious as to what you think the actual reason was? Was it WMD? Terrorist camps? The French?

Posted by: Shinobi at June 13, 2005 12:56 PM (0jJ6Y)

6 Well, all I can say is that I'm not about to jump into any bandwagon over the authenticity or meaning of this document. It's so easy to manufacture anything these days from the left to the right. Way too easy. Want me to produce a video of Bush and Blaire having hot sex on the oval office room floor? Give me a couple hours...hold the pretzels. In the meantime, you've all been lied to about Bush's intentions. Here is the real State of the Union Address...hehehe: http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater188.html

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 13, 2005 01:08 PM (buka0)

7 We did we go to war? I thought the Left knew the answer to that one. Herr Chimp Bush and Nazi followers need the Middle East's oil? And also, to wipe out those ties to old family friend Osama BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 13, 2005 01:11 PM (x+5JB)

8 Come on guys, give these lefties a break. This "memo" is their Red Swingline stapler.

Posted by: Editor at June 13, 2005 01:17 PM (adpJH)

9 It is pretty rich getting a lecture on "evidence" and "proof" from you. So where are those WMDs? 9/11 ties? Nukes? Save it.

Posted by: Max at June 13, 2005 01:20 PM (HFKAk)

10 "give these lefties a break" As the Right-wing warmonger once said, "Which arm?"

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 13, 2005 01:22 PM (x+5JB)

11 Poor Max, wishing that freedom-loving pacifist Saddam were still around. I miss him, too.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 13, 2005 01:26 PM (x+5JB)

12 Why are we still arguing about why, when the fact is we are at war. In my opinion Sadam had it coming anyway. He thumbed his nose at the international community, supported terrorism, Gave safe haven to Musab Al Zarqawi, and Murdered his own people. The reasons for the war were many. Indeed I questioned the wisdom of going to war myself. But Mr. Bush is bold and has already made that decision. We just found bunker last week so the idea that some such weapons may still or did exist is plausible. To keep on dragging out the same old arguments serves no one. Your country is at war. You have to ask yourself do you want to win that war or come dragging your ass back home with your tail between your legs. This serves no one. You ought to be thinking about what comes next. W. will be gone in 2 1/2 years, then what?? Where are you going to find anyone else with the balls to execute this war properly? Win we must regardless of how we got here. If one little memo is all you got compared to all the other reasons for war good luck you won't change my mind.

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 01:32 PM (D3+20)

13 Well said, Howie. And then there's the clown from North Carolina--the "freedom fries" chump--who thinks we've gone over the casualty figure he thought was appropriate and now the whole thing's not worth it. What does that say about the initial casualties? That it was okay they were killed? And the guys who may get killed starting tomorrow are in the wrong war? Talk about not supporting the Commander-in Chief and the armed forces.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 13, 2005 01:41 PM (x+5JB)

14 I am upset that no one has yet to blame the Jews for this. What has this blog come to, I ask?

Posted by: Wine-aholic at June 13, 2005 01:42 PM (Wsn+K)

15 Wine-aholic : Miss ol greg do ya?? YBP: Yep I suppose if a Democrat ends up having to prosecute this war later on I'll have to support him too. That is within reason. 20 reasons to go 20 reasons not, the tough descision has already been made. If one of either 20 turns out to be a little shaky well.... so what.

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 01:47 PM (D3+20)

16 Howie, I agree it's best we kick ass and resolve this whole war properly (though some differ on what properly is) but I'll tell you the sooner W is gone, the better. He may be bold, but I don't think he's the right leader for us. I wouldn't exactly call the Iraq war a success so far, and I don't see any easy solutions. I don't think you can really "win" a war like this. There won't be a day when we've conquered all the evil in the world, not to mention the real 9/11 mastermind is still chillin' in a cave laughing at us as I write. I guess what I'm saying about your post is: I think we have the right attitude, but the wrong leader.

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 13, 2005 01:48 PM (buka0)

17 Why is George W. Bush the wrong leader?

Posted by: Chris Short at June 13, 2005 01:56 PM (A12F8)

18 Osama: Damn had an answer for ya and lost it all. Fiber cut. Mr. bush seems willing to take the heat for what he believes is right. I've got to respect that. Must do real work now. Have a good one.

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 02:08 PM (D3+20)

19 All just hearsay anyways.

Posted by: Jonathan at June 13, 2005 02:29 PM (M7kiy)

20 We went to war because of a perceived security threat, period. It was the only rationale that would get a majority in the Senate, and rightly so. The problem is that there wasn't any security threat. That's right, we got it wrong, and nobody in the administration has ever admitted that the rationale that counted was.. wrong. Instead, we've been treated to a farrago of half-reasons that simply don't pass the smell test for a war. We may love the idea of Iraqi democracy, but W wouldn't have gotten 20 votes for his war resolution if that were the proffered reason. Nope, we screwed up gigantically, and we should admit it in private even if we are unwilling to admit it in public. Forget defending the president, defend the country. The two aren't synonymous.

Posted by: SLE at June 13, 2005 02:31 PM (hsrIx)

21 >>>"Rusty, I thought it was more about the "facts being fixed" that has been getting everyone's panties in a bind, no?" Culturally illiterate Liberals are fixing another faking scandal. The Brits don't use the word "fixed" the way we Americans do. To a Brit, to "fix" something is to bolt it down, to tie it down, to make it secure--- NOT to fake it, as we define it here in America. Another scandal due to willful Liberal ignorance. Imagine that!

Posted by: Carlos at June 13, 2005 02:32 PM (8e/V4)

22 Oi! Carlos, interestin' point you made there, chap. Top drawer, indeed! I didn't even think for a second that any tosser with yellow crooked teeth and fetal alcohol syndrome would have a different manner of speech. All-right then...cheerio!

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 13, 2005 02:45 PM (buka0)

23 The focus on the Downing Street memo reveals that the opponents of the war are still vainly attempting to find even one fact to support their ravings. Again, they've failed. Nothing in the memo supports the claims for it. They are left with misrepresentation and quoting out of context. As for osamawhatever's comments about President Bush and the Iraq War not going well ... its frankly astonishing. The Iraq war is going better than anyone could reasonably expect, and those who claim otherwise do so by comparing our progress to some sort of fantasy-land outline. Just bizarre.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at June 13, 2005 02:52 PM (xauGB)

24 And here I thought the Downing Street Memo stuff was how Churchill tricked FDR into adopting the "Europe First" strategy. After all, Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor and was no security threat to the US. And Mussolini? He was a joke. So why did we invade Italy, or North Africa for that matter? And what of the Nazi nuclear program Einstein and others sold FDR on. Where were their WMDs? I think the absence of their WMD completely deligitimizes our invasion of Europe. Eisenhower and Patton should have been on trial for war crimes before Spanish judges steeped in the traditions of international law going back to Vittoria. And of course, hundreds of billions of dollars and sixty years later, we're still stuck in that quagmire.....

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at June 13, 2005 02:52 PM (eVpBU)

25 One word ... "Rathergate" Could this be the sequel ?

Posted by: Jonathan at June 13, 2005 02:53 PM (M7kiy)

26 Howie...it happens to us all. Let me know when you aren't distracted by work. Chris Short: I don't just pick on W, but other POTUSes as well. I think W lacks foresight. I also think he's too closely tied to Saudi Arabian oil business to be properly unbiased enough to really deal with the fact that the majority of people involved in 9/11 are Saudi Arabians. I think there's a lot more that we don't know about how those people were involved. I also think that while some think Bush is steadfast, he is also extremely stubborn and not willing to admit to major mistakes. I don't offer a solution, as I've said in many posts we need a really good leader. I just don't think he's it.

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 13, 2005 02:53 PM (buka0)

27 Robin Roberts: It's not so astonishing, actually. I'm not in fantasy-land. Who's expectations are you referring to? The general public as a majority is not too confident of what's going on with the war or Bush's job performance. I am hopeful about the outcome and support the troops, but I simply think a better leader would have yielded better results by now.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 13, 2005 02:59 PM (buka0)

28 osama, oh you ignorant Blue Staters. Yet another fixed fake scandal. fix - 1. To place securely; make stable or firm: fixed the tent poles in the ground. See Synonyms at fasten. 2. To secure to another; attach: fixing the notice to the board with tacks. 1. To put into a stable or unalterable form: tried to fix the conversation in her memory. 1. To set or place definitely; establish: fixed her residence in a coastal village. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fix

Posted by: Carlos at June 13, 2005 03:17 PM (8e/V4)

29 I suggest that anyone wanting to see what a Democrat says about the progress of the war needs to look at Senator Mitch McConnell's comments after recently returning from iraq. I read it did you??

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 03:19 PM (D3+20)

30 OOoops.

Posted by: hOWIE at June 13, 2005 03:23 PM (D3+20)

31 Carlos, you know I was just making fun of you...now stop that dictionary shit or I'll have to fix you! Howie...if you got a good link, drop it on me.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 13, 2005 03:26 PM (buka0)

32 Oh yeah...Carlos, like I've said before: I don't trust the memo as any sort of fact either. Way to easy to manufacture. So who you callin' ignorant!?

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 13, 2005 03:28 PM (buka0)

33 Osamawhatever, absent a raygun that when applied to Iraqi's turns them into good little Missouri Democrats, any expectation that we could have better results than we've had in Iraq to date is pure fantasy.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at June 13, 2005 03:32 PM (xauGB)

34 Well I just brain farted and assigned Mr Mconnell to the wrong party. Maybe I should wait until I have time. It was in my local money stretcher. Basically he said it was going fairly well. It should be think first then click, not spout off then think. My apologies.

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 03:35 PM (D3+20)

35 My horoscope for today: I should have known. Just the facts, man. Investigate and nail down specifics today to get things done

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 03:48 PM (D3+20)

36 Robin, thanks for the new handle! Anyway, I see your point. My point is: If we had a better leader, I really do think we'd have more progress to date. Better leadership = better results is no fantasy. We can disagree and it's no big deal. Plus I have no ray gun, so we're out of luck there. I'd rather have a global thought bomb that goes off and resets everyone's memory about religion and racism.

Posted by: osamabinwhatever at June 13, 2005 04:23 PM (buka0)

37 Well work is over. I'm going home to do more work. But first for your entertainment pleasure I'm going to attempt the most dangerous walking and chewing gum at the same time. Let's see if this goes better than writing cobol and blogging at the same time. Drum roll please........ (papers crinkling) (footsteps) Crash bang bam, Oh my freaking leg I think I broke it!!!!!.... Uh duh,

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 05:01 PM (D3+20)

38 C'mon, admit it, you're trying to get some of those fat dollars that the fruitloopians shovel out to serial liars like Coulter and Limbaugh, right? You're doing well referring to anyone who opposes Grand Supreme Imperial Commander Bush as "leftist." After all it is exceedingly important that the meanings of words be reversed.

Posted by: just pete at June 13, 2005 05:05 PM (5RQyu)

39 just pete, So you don't want to bother to deal in facts either? Pathetic.

Posted by: SPQR at June 13, 2005 05:22 PM (xauGB)

40 Actually, Pete...I've been called Left or Lib by people in here and many people in here agree with me partially or completely on many subjects. Labels can be misleading. State your case because you haven't convinced me. By the way, Rush needs a blowjob so he'll stop being jealous of all those imaginary teenage oral sex parties he's jerking off to.

Posted by: osamabinwhatever at June 13, 2005 05:48 PM (buka0)

41 The problem with your argument is that the ADMINISTRATION's CASE about Iraq and Saddam was built the exact same way. Bush and Co. built their whole case against Saddam upon conspiracy. Oh yeah, but they didn't believe their own lies- I guess that is different.

Posted by: Paida at June 13, 2005 05:57 PM (sNQmQ)

42 Doctor Shickleford, It hurts when I read your blog. What should I do? I know, I know, I shouldn't read your blog if it hurts when I do it, but it's not the reading it that hurts. It's that I laugh so hard when I do it. Uncle Milty P.S. If you see Henny why don't you ask him to take your wife.

Posted by: Milton Berle at June 13, 2005 06:18 PM (qMxTg)

43 Ah, the good, ol' faithful I-don't-have-anything-to-add-so-I'll-throw-out-an-insult line. Good job, Uncle Milty. I'm sure our military is proud to serve your lousy ass. The intelligence didn't have to be "fixed". We found graves, lots and lots of graves. We found Salman Pak. We found mucho weapons NOT declared. We found oil-for-food scandals. We found torture dens. We found reams of paperwork outlining names and dates of all sorts of terrorism ties; paper work that is still under the translation process. We have pictures of Saddam's checks to terrorist's families for their "martyrdom". We have Saddam's scientists who are talking like parrots. We have irrefutible evidence of Iraqi officials meeting with members of al Qaeda in Sudan in '98. Believe me, it was not without Saddam's knowledge. Saddam was actively seeking an alliance with bin Laden. He was dangerously close, if not already being accepted. I have only to remember Muhammed Amin al-Husseini and his years long quest to seek recognition and acceptance from Adolf Hitler in the thirties. He finally got what he wanted in 1938 and began actively recruiting Muslims for Hitler's military. I imagine Saddam looking dreamy-eyed at pictures of bin Laden waiting for the day he would be accepted. Those who say, unequivocally, that Saddam would "never" had worked with bin Laden because they were so different need only to remember the six degrees of separation rule. Their are many more degrees between Amin al-Husseini and Hitler than there were between Saddam and bin Laden. You ignore that at your own peril. I'm not even going to give links. If any leftie has any doubt, he or she will seek out the truth. The urge for lefties to sit back and have conspiracy theories spoon feed to them is simply too great to overcome. Conspiracies are just too much fun to resist, aren't they? This "memo" is a "memo". It's one man's idea of what he "thought" was being discussed. I think Rusty explained it pretty well.

Posted by: Oyster at June 13, 2005 07:57 PM (YudAC)

44 Time to redeem myself. I did go out to Senator MConnell's website and get this. MY apoligies to the good senator for my earier thoughtless attempt to remove all doubt that I'm and idiot. Here is a link to his statement on the entire trip. http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=238830&start=1 “Given aircraft mechanical problems, our visit to Iraq was somewhat abbreviated. Nonetheless, we departed Baghdad with an unmistakable conclusion: 2005 is a critical year for the future of democracy in that country – and for our own country’s efforts to help the Iraqi people secure the blessings of liberty". “In Fallujah, we met with a task force of Marines determined that the heroic combat operations required to take the city should be followed by successful reconstruction efforts. They told us that Iraqi forces are combat ready, and determined in the face of enemy opposition. Recent press reports regarding Operation Matador, and the discovery of an insurgent underground bunker system, reveal only a small part of the great work that our forces are doing in Anbar province".

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 08:35 PM (D3+20)

45 Paida, that's completely false. The belief that Saddam had ongoing WMD programs was based on his past behavior as well as numerous intel sources. It wasn't a "conspiracy" theory and it wasn't a lie. Time for you to grow up.

Posted by: SPQR at June 13, 2005 09:58 PM (xauGB)

46 Just for kicks I polled my own senator DICK (oops cap lock stuck there..) Durbin to see what he thinks. Who knows?? I voted for Simon a couple times. Budget Committee and that lovely tie(MGRHS). I'll have to study up on Mr. Durbin. Any links??

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 09:58 PM (D3+20)

47 Ok, I'm going to end all these conspiracy theories right now. I have proof. PROOF DAMMIT! Bush is actually a cyborg chimp/human hybrid clone from one of Nixon's pubic hairs. He is remote controlled by aliens... I intercepted a transmission of his recent rehearsed press statements from the moon Charon, orbiting Pluto. They beam it right to his head, but the latency causes him to speak in half sentences. NASA is working around the clock to cover this shit up, but I've got the proof, dammit. PROOF! The aliens have also implanted an electrode cattle prod device in Cheney's hemorrhoid (pacemaker? yeah, RIGHT) which is why he makes those awful gnashing faces all the time. The aliens are impatient with the current administration over the progress of the master plan and they keep zapping Cheney to remind him who's boss. They have constant control over Bush, and the only time Bush's brain got bad reception was when he choked on a pretzel. Anyway, if I'm not killed by a death ray tonight it'll be all over the NY Times tomorrow. PROOF DAMMIT! You'll see...

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 14, 2005 12:03 AM (buka0)

48 I agree with everything you said Rusty. Especially with "The Left's obsession with The Downing Street memo is not borderline paranoia, it is has become full on paranoia" I would say though that this is just the latest conspiracy theory that they think will "bring down the EVIL BushCo. Admin.". And when this one doesn't work they will say that the reason it didn't is that the media is all Corporate Rightwing controlled, and that if they could get a fair hearing they could prove that Bush is guilty. Oh, and it's proof that he's a dictator, too. And then they will be on to the next conspiracy theory. The interesting thing though is that a number of the Dem senators and house members are buying into all this. Conyers specifically. They lose more credibility with me every day.

Posted by: sue at June 14, 2005 02:04 AM (WMcIU)

49 This is rather humorous but if this is what passes for content on the right, there is a good reason I don't spend much time with it. We have one side resorting to the very same "methodology" they accuse the other side of resorting to, in an effort to propagate and perpetuate two separate and competing "full blown, paranoid conspiracy theories". But Oyster has created the pearl of all paranoia to cast before the swine of the non-believers. "I have only to remember Muhammed Amin al-Husseini and his years long quest to seek recognition and acceptance from Adolf Hitler in the thirties. He finally got what he wanted in 1938 and began actively recruiting Muslims for Hitler's military. I imagine Saddam looking dreamy-eyed at pictures of bin Laden waiting for the day he would be accepted. Those who say, unequivocally, that Saddam would "never" had worked with bin Laden because they were so different need only to remember the six degrees of separation rule. Their are many more degrees between Amin al-Husseini and Hitler than there were between Saddam and bin Laden. You ignore that at your own peril. I'm not even going to give links. If any leftie has any doubt, he or she will seek out the truth. The urge for lefties to sit back and have conspiracy theories spoon feed to them is simply too great to overcome. Conspiracies are just too much fun to resist, aren't they? This "memo" is a "memo". It's one man's idea of what he "thought" was being discussed. I think Rusty explained it pretty well." I am glad Oyster thinks Rusty explains it all pretty well, and will await the leaks of this information, in a similar fashion to the documents under discussion. This entire juvenile exercise in sophistry should be worth a chuckle when reviewed in say, six months to a year. Rusty would know this if he wasn't so young. This is just the tip of the iceberg. As the iceberg starts to melt, the leaks turn to a deluge as time passes.

Posted by: Dr. Strangelove at June 14, 2005 05:37 AM (qMxTg)

50 I have a question for some of our Democrat Senators and Congressmen. If you're so easily "fooled", maybe you're not suited for the job you've been elected to do. How many times do people have to say that "everyone" had the same intelligence to read from. And it wasn't all created by the CIA. Other countries contributed theirs as well. Interesting that the countries who "interpreted" the intelligence differently and were against the war were the most most corrupt. France Germany and Russia had their hands, up to the elbow, in the oil-for-food cookie jar.

Posted by: Oyster at June 14, 2005 05:41 AM (YudAC)

51 Oyster seems to think that because Democrats voted for the war, that absolves our president from responsibility for his false statements about the capabilities of the Saddam regime. Why wouldn't it simply suggest that a bunch of people were political cowards or dupes? The countries that interpreted the intelligence differently may have been venal, I don't know, but they sure got it more right than the White House. Why can't supporters of the president simply admit that he got it colossally wrong? Why does it always have to be qualified? Simple answer: George Bush likes to sit in judgement, but doesn't like to be judged. That is the very definition of a hypocrite.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 07:01 AM (hsrIx)

52 SLE, you put words in my mouth. What I "seem" to think is your idea. What I "do" think may be something entirely different. What you "seem" to think is that every other point (besides WMD) in the reasons for going to war are irrelevent. I'm glad you have an opinion. But that only means you're thinking. It doesn't mean you're right. And Dr. Strangelove, if facts are paranoia then call me paranoid. It still remains that if left unchecked, Saddam would continue to seek an alliance detrimental to all. If you think it was a better idea to just leave him be, then fine. I don't think it was good to keep ignoring it.

Posted by: Oyster at June 14, 2005 07:53 AM (YudAC)

53 >>>"I'm glad you have an opinion. But that only means you're thinking. It doesn't mean you're right." LMAO!!! I dig that one. Can I borrow it sometime?

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 08:29 AM (8e/V4)

54 No question that the other reasons are irrelevant, Oyster. The drama of NBC weapons was the only reason there was a vote authorizing military action. It was the only important issue in Powell's address to the UN. The whole inspection episode was for WMD, the implication being that if we were satisfied on that score, war would be unnecessary. WMD were the only element that justified the characterization of Iraq as a "grave and gathering threat". On and on. Revisionist history won't do here, too important. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I'd be interested in why you think Democratic votes for war are important or significant. Two wrongs don't make a right, or at least that is conventional wisdom.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 09:11 AM (hsrIx)

55 "No question that the other reasons are irrelevant, Oyster." Why, because you have no 'evidence' to refute the other reasons? You state that Powell used that as the basis for his presentation to the UN, but if you recall, the UN did not give it's blessing for this endeavor so that is really a non-starter anyway. Please keep in mind that Saddam was routinely firing SAM's at our fighters, and we were routinely blowing them up. The attacks on our pilots most certainly factor into the "grave and gathering threat", as he proved over and over his willingness to attack our people. There are other reasons, which I will not go into here, but I would caution you regarding the WMD, that the fact that we have not found them does not mean that they don't exist. We never found Jimmy Hoffa.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 14, 2005 09:36 AM (jPCiN)

56 Oh how soon we forget. Forgive me if I'm wrong for it is not that uncommon but. I seem to recall Mr. Bush eating crow on the WMD issue in a press conference. He also promised to look into the intel matter. I think he probably is because looking like an idiot hurts and I'm sure he would like to prevent any future "issues". But does anyone remember that. Noooo. Maybe his statement wasn't contrite enough got some of you but it was made. Osama: Bush may not be the best possible leader in "let's fanasize about better leaders land". But he is our leader at the current time. No amount of wishing for Reagan or FDR or Lincoln will change this. We have to do the best we can with what we've got. Hey howie gets a fact right Bush is President, McConnell is majorty whip. Wow it's amazing what making an ass of yourself (in public no less) will motivate you to learn eh. Anyway I was online working till 1:30 am, took the day off (at least didn't drive in) to maybe cut that grass and what the hell I deserve it. Seems to be sprinkling out grrrrrr. NO RAIN NO RAIN NO RAIN..

Posted by: Howie at June 14, 2005 10:02 AM (D3+20)

57 I am not saying the other reasons weren't there, I am simply saying the administration would have never gotten authorization to go to war for those reasons. Again, I think the problem with the apologists for this war is that they wish to revise history that is too recent to be forgotten. I cannot prove that there were no WMD in Iraq before the war, and I certainly cannot disprove a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. The evidence that we have, after an extensive, indeed frantic, search, says there wasn't any useful capability. Is that so hard to admit?

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 10:02 AM (hsrIx)

58 In response to "Osama: Bush may not be the best possible leader in "let's fantasize about better leaders land". But he is our leader at the current time. No amount of wishing for Reagan or FDR or Lincoln will change this. We have to do the best we can with what we've got." Howie, I agree we have to do the best with what we have...but Bush is far from the best that we have. The very thought that you're imagining me as 'fantasizing' about better leaders makes me think you're settling for way less than you should. It's not a fantasy for me to wish we had a leader who could admit to mistakes, be open-minded or trustworthy, rather than stubborn and dodgy. Or to wish for one who has the strong military experience we've seen in other 2004 candidates or in 2000. (Clark, McCaine) Fantasy implies the unreachable or unrealistic. I am doing neither. BTW, what the hell were you doin' up at 1:30AM anyway? Not that I haven't worked that late before.

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 14, 2005 10:38 AM (buka0)

59 SLE, you are making crap up. The administration gave many reasons for the authorization of war on Iraq and those reasons are included in the text of the authorizing resolution if you bothered to actually read anything. The emphasis on WMD was because of the process of getting UN authorization, not congressional. Osamawhatever, Clark demonstrated his incompetence repeatedly as SACEUR under the Clinton administration. Clark was a laughing stock among our european allies for his many missteps in the Balkans - to such a degree that Clinton cut his term short. Militarily, McCain was a mediocre airplane driver - nothing more.

Posted by: SPQR at June 14, 2005 11:37 AM (xauGB)

60 SLE: The point most of us try to make is simply that all of Saddam's transgressions regarding UN resolutions, the repeated times he kicked the inspectors out and the repeating shooting at our pilots patrolling to keep him contained gave more than enough reason to take further aggression. And now, in retrospect, the oil-for-food debacle. How long were we to foot the bill for Saddam? Forever? Does anyone really think the money he skimmed from oil-for-food was only for his palaces? Upwards of 22 billion dollars? I don't. He was funding and outsourcing terrorism. He was providing training for terrorists. Terrorists that would gleefully leave Iraq, no matter what "brigade" they claimed to be from, and use their new found training to kill more innocent people, including Americans - and probably "especially" Americans. And all anyone can focus on is WMD. Because he couldn't take his tanks over his borders everyone thinks he was harmless. WMD is technically nuclear, biological or chemical. When really WMD is also huge stockpiles of weapons that can produce mass destruction as well. Such masses of "conventional" weaponry is extremely dangerous in the hands of a madman and the only thing that separated him from his weapons was a few IAEA stickers and patience in waiting for sanctions to be lifted. The press focused on WMD more than the administration did. All questions were directed toward information about WMD. Most reporting was focused on WMD. That's why it appears that it was the main focus of the administration. Very few questions were asked about any of the remaining points because they couldn't be refuted. I see that many people feel that everything was fine just the way it was. That Saddam was, in fact, being contained. He was, only in the loosest of terms, being "contained". The fact that he kept his society so closed and kept so much in secret, even with having a CNN bureau there willing to help keep secrets, made it difficult to attain more "solid" intelligence. There are literally hundreds of news reports and intel papers referred to, even those found in Iraq, and hard physical evidence about Iraqi connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. No one cares. You say that they never would have gotten authorization without the WMD angle. To this I can only say that most thought it was more possible than not that Saddam was pursuing this line. He gave every indication that he was. And given 20/20 hindsight I think he was closer to reconstituting his programs than some will admit. It's almost as if because we coudn't prove he was actively creating nuclear weapons, then the rest could be conveniently downplayed. And I don't know about you, but I am absolutely livid that the whole world pointed fingers at us for starving Iraqi children when Saddam and others were lining their pockets with the money meant to feed them and give them medicine. This is not an attempt to revise history. It's an attempt to not be so narrow minded as to refute or play down information because it gets in the way of one's initial beliefs.

Posted by: Oyster at June 14, 2005 11:46 AM (fl6E1)

61 Oyster, You are re-stating, at length, your conclusions that there were ample reasons to go to war with or without the WMD (NBC) factor. I simply disagree. The only threat that Iraq posed to our national security as it is normally understood is potential WMD. I am not saying Saddam and his henchmen didn't hate us or wish us ill; this condition is not unique to Saddam's regime, and again, is not an acceptable cause for war. Wars, just wars anyway, are defensive wars fought because there is no alternative that will assure the security of the country. Absent WMD, Saddam's Iraq wasn't that different than, say, Libya, and nobody is suggesting that Libya ever posed a sufficient threat to the country to go to war. I actually supported the war on the basis of the WMD threat. However, my opinion changed (reality-based) completely when no WMD were discovered. You have to be right about these things, there is no gray area. We blew it, and now we will pay the price both externally and internally, and I blame it squarely on our commander in chief. The President or his delegates made a whole series of decisions on Iraq that have proven to be very bad for the country, and we are weakened for it. I won't even attempt to understand why he made the decisions he did; his motives really don't matter, I just think his decisions were really bad. He blew the most important decision of his entire presidency, and that is how he will be remembered.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 12:08 PM (hsrIx)

62 SPQR, I have read the authorization. When you indict someone, you throw the book at them. This has little to do with the charges that stick or that matter. I guess you think that the UN effort was simply a fig leaf; that may be correct, but I have never heard the administration admit that, and I don't expect to hear it.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 12:15 PM (hsrIx)

63 SPQR----> Clark: February 1970, then 25, Clark was wounded by a sniper in the jungle. Ambushed by the Viet Cong, Clark was shot four times (in the right shoulder, right hand, right hip and right leg) before he could find cover. He managed to shout commands to troops, who launched a counterattack and defeated the enemy force. Clark's wounds were treated, and he was flown back to the United States to recuperate at Valley Forge Hospital. There he saw his new four-month-old son, Wesley Jr., who had been born in his absence. He also was awarded the Bronze Star and Silver Star. The most controversial part of Clark's command in Kosovo came after the end of the military campaign and involved the use of a Kosovo airfield by the Russian military. After a small Russian force left their peacekeeping station in Bosnia unannounced and took control of the Slatina airfield, near Pristina, on June 10, 1999, there was (according to a BBC report) a "battle of wills" between Clark and the British NATO commander, Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson. Clark ordered British forces to block the runways to the airfield, to prevent the Russian troops from being resupplied from their homeland. This maneuver would have been one step short of hostile, and Jackson did not comply, reportedly later saying: "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you." John McCain: U.S. Senator, Arizona 1987- U.S. Congressman, Arizona 1983-87 Council on Foreign Relations International Republican Institute Board of Directors Special Operations Warrior Foundation Board of Advisors Veterans of Foreign Wars Bronze Star Distinguished Flying Cross Legion of Merit Purple Heart Silver Star Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service Tortured Hoa Lo Prison, Hanoi, Vietnam -------------------------------------- SPQR, both of these men are not what you say. They are decorated veterans with balls and integrity which put someone like Bush to fucking shame. Bush can't hold a candle to either of these men who have done more for their country than he ever will. I rest my case, unless you want to disrespect any more amazing people.

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 14, 2005 12:17 PM (buka0)

64 SPQR: 5 of 6 opening paragraphs of HJ RES 114 authorizing military action in Iraq are ENTIRELY about WMD: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 199 , Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'; Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 12:24 PM (hsrIx)

65 I would give McCain his due and my thanks for his military service to the US. I think him quite an asshole otherwise. The McCain-Feingold law is one of the worst abridgments on our free speech rights that I have ever seen. The man should rot for that one. SLE At the end of the day, the removal of Saddam Hussein will be seen as a good thing, and Bush will get credit for it. I am sorry if this chaps your ass, but it is how history will write it. We just cannot afford to coddle tyranny anymore, and the lesson that Saddam learned is reverberating through the region.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 14, 2005 12:31 PM (jPCiN)

66 DefenseGuy: I see your point of view, and I sincerely hope that is what happens, but I don't substitute wishful thinking for rational analysis. I don't know that we've ever coddled tyranny, but I do think that we used to think more concretely and informatively about our interests. The sound bites feel good, but they are no substitute for an effective policy.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 12:45 PM (hsrIx)

67 I am not sure what you mean by an effective policy. No campaign or war has ever gone smoothly. It just doesn't happen. This war is not over by a long shot, and may not be in either of our lifetimes. I pray that many of the remaining tyrannies in the world can be replaced peacefully, but have no real hope that this will be so. I would also submit that the removal of said tyrannical regimes is ALWAYS in the interest of the US and the rest of the free world. So we must continue where we can, despite the apparent hypocrisy of our position regarding countries such as China, SA and Pakistan.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 14, 2005 12:58 PM (jPCiN)

68 SLE: If your only criteria was/is the presence or absence of WMD then I don't see any further point in my share of this discussion.

Posted by: Oyster at June 14, 2005 01:17 PM (fl6E1)

69 By policy, I mean having to make difficult, concrete decisions rather than setting a strategic tone. Do we go public on the Uzbeks or do we accept the hit and work (I hope) quietly to improve their lot? Do we spend some extra money shoring up Karzai or do we spend it in Africa? Do we work for regime change in Sudan? If so, how? There is a country where sending in the Marines is unlikely to have any useful effect at all. Platitudes simply don't answer these questions. At this level, this administration has made a lot of bad decisions, and they seem to stem from an over-reliance on broad concepts as opposed to factual analysis. Again, I can't help myself, I try to be reality-based.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 01:19 PM (hsrIx)

70 Oyster what I have tried to point out is that the WMD issue was the issue that gave us the war. That is: the authorization was heavily dependent on it, our actions at the UN were entirely dependent on it, and broad public support for the war was based on it. My own motives for supporting the war were never actually germane to the conversation, they kind of slipped out.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 01:26 PM (hsrIx)

71 You have all obviously been mislead, and are blind to the true Neo-Con agenda: http://www.mediaright.ca/neocon/Agenda/agenda1.htm

Posted by: Junker at June 14, 2005 04:32 PM (Y1ykG)

72 "Most mainstream media organizations are located off-shore, enabling vast sums of money to be covertly redirected over-seas using Right-wing blogs." Oh my God, is this link for real? Hahaha... Rusty! I know what you're REALLY doing!!!

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 14, 2005 05:05 PM (buka0)

73 http://jonathanandwanda.blogspot.com/2005/06/downing-street-memo_13.html 'nuff said

Posted by: Jonathan at June 14, 2005 08:27 PM (wdVtc)

74 Something that has always confused me is that liberals simultaneously contend that Bush is an idiot chimp who rushed into war without a plan and a criminal mastermind who planned the war from his first day in office. Which is it?

Posted by: Dagny at June 14, 2005 08:56 PM (SfvIR)

75 Dagny...unfortunately, there are many facts pointing to Bush not being so bright. Being a mastermind criminal seems quite far fetched... To claim both is definitely contradictory! People always need someone to blame (most often not themselves) and anyone who's smart and doesn't like Bush's leadership would be a chimp idiot themselves to think that he is the only one to blame for anything. I personally think that Saddam could have been taken care of in different ways. I also think we went to war too fast and our current POTUS + administration isn't doing a very good job...but this is just my opinion, which anyone is more than entitled to disagree with me about. I think above all we need to support the troops and do our best to have a good outcome over there, and I doubt anyone in here would disagree with me about that. Iraq is only one problem currently among many in the present and future. While we are trying to 'spread democracy' there, NK is flouting nukes for example. The USA preventing a terrorist nuke from going off in a major city in the next 10 years would seem like a miracle to me. Technology will creep into the wrong hands sooner or later...so the question is, how do we stop it?

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 14, 2005 10:06 PM (buka0)

76 Well let's just end the discussion right here. This is one entire blogwhorefest( MJ circlejerk is more like it) of people who crave the attention they feel they deserve but don't get, especially Rusty, and Jonathon and Wanda have just jumped on the pile. And yes, Oyster. I called you a paranoid wingnut because you are. If you figure it out, Dagny, please keep it to yourself.

Posted by: Dr. Strangelove at June 14, 2005 10:06 PM (qMxTg)

77 Oh, come on Dr. Strangelove...we know you just want all the attention as the last person to put his 2 cents in. Don't make me send your first born to Neverland... Oh yeah, and Oyster ain't that bad. I don't agree with him on everything, but I wouldn't call him a paranoid wingnut...I reserve that hard earned title for Maximus! Don't steal his thunder!

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 14, 2005 10:27 PM (buka0)

78 Osama: Also bi partisan interview about iraq from Sunday's Meet the press. Descent read. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8130648/

Posted by: Howie at June 15, 2005 01:30 PM (D3+20)

79 Dagny posed the query: "Something that has always confused me is that liberals simultaneously contend that Bush is an idiot chimp who rushed into war without a plan and a criminal mastermind who planned the war from his first day in office. Which is it?" It's the Joooooooooossssss!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 15, 2005 11:05 PM (0yYS2)

80 Ya, another thing I don't get is the 'we used to HELP Saddam' line. Wouldn't it stand to reason then that taking him down is a fix of the old 'enemy of our enemy is our friend' strategy we used to have? Isn't Bush's breaking the status quo a good thing then?

Posted by: Junker at June 15, 2005 11:15 PM (Y1ykG)

81 I have to agree with Improbulus Maximus. But he misspelled it. It's the Juice!!! O.J. Did it, and so did MJ.

Posted by: Dr. Strangelove at June 16, 2005 04:39 AM (qMxTg)

82 "Something that has always confused me is that liberals simultaneously contend that Bush is an idiot chimp who rushed into war without a plan and a criminal mastermind who planned the war from his first day in office. Which is it?" I believe the correct answer is that Bush is a criminal idiot who planned on going to war from his first day in office -- then rushed into it without a plan, particularly for the day after the fall of Baghdad. Flowers? Candy? Falafel tape parades? I've never, EVER heard anyone accuse him of being a "mastermind," a description that is laughable on its face.

Posted by: war larry at June 16, 2005 05:37 PM (FwVqK)

83 .

Posted by: blubbo at June 17, 2005 11:14 PM (65x9S)

84 The thing that *I* actually find humorous is the number of liberals who think that Bush is actually a smart guy who just plays dumb. Now admit it. You know that a guy that doesn't know the difference between "dissemble" and "disassemble" is not a particularly bright guy, whether you want to admit it or not. The success of this adminstration does not depend in any way on George Bush. He's happy to let Dick run the show and with a complicit corporate media happy to benefit from the free money raining down upon them, and with supporters who think that lying for the cause is fine and are therefore pefectly happy to aid and abet malfeasance, he can get away with just about anything. Bush's dim-wittedness is in fact a virtue. Its precisely because he is so incurious and unaffected by factual evidence that he can remain so shameless and blind to the many horrors his arrogance inflicts on the rest of the world. This of course suits the puppet masters just fine. They don't even bother to pretend to contact Bush when the white house may be under attack. To them Bush is a dream come true. A free ticket for polluters and corporate hacks everywhere who will still be disgustingly wealthy long after too-dumb-to-know-better finds out what the future holds in store for his sad legacy. - Mike

Posted by: Mike Harris at June 23, 2005 03:57 PM (x8WWN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment