High-level meetings between US/UK officials re "fixing intel" to justify war in
Iraq:
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=ce51393d0458f443
High-level meetings between US/UK officials re "fixing intel" to justify war in
Iraq:
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=ce51393d0458f443
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies





as the article says, this is actually nothing new from the US side at least. It still boils down to the US being given British Intel which was inaccurate. The minutes of this meeting may imply that Tony Blair sanctioned 'massaging' of British Intel, but given his very recent re-election I doubt that any new info at this point will have any real world effect.
Are we reading the same article?!? The Brit taking the notes of the meeting very clearly states that the U.S. is the one doing the "fixing" of the intel to suit the policy. And as for it being nothing new, with the exception of having a document of this sort to back it up, you're right - SecTreas basically said same thing long ago... of course, Bush Administration said he was full of shit at the time.Originally Posted by Melonie
This is NOT how we're supposed to go about making decision to go to war in this country!
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies




Quoted DIRECTLEY from the memo (www.downingstreetmemo.com among others)
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
hello.
Grinding is for coffee and meat.
"I want to entertain people who wish to be entertained, not be an expensive but poor substitute for someone who can't find themselves a prostitute."-Asurfel
Those Who Hear Not The Music Think The Dancers Mad.
“Belgian Trappist Organically Farmed Multiple Orgasm Inducing. Bed Shaking, Neighbors Complaining, Heirloom Radishes”
All intelligence is procured for the purpose of suiting political agendas--that's why intelligence is requested in the first place.
This is not new, it's simply sometimes more egregious than others.
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
William F. Buckley, Jr.





Well at least GWB didn't get a BJ, now that would have been cause for concern.
It would if say an intern had tapes of him saying he thought his phone was tapped by a foreign government... then it would still be just about sex, right? Or would it be about how a president could make himself (and us) subject to international blackmail...just "about sex", or actually a very serious national security issue? Or suppose a president bombed a country like, say Sudan, and put the lives of soldiers at risk in order to distract attention from his sex scandal... it wouldn't be cause for concern then, would it?
Say what?!? Intelligence is procured for the purpose of knowing as much as we possibly can about certain countries, governments, areas of the world, etc., re both their current and their potential near-term future, so that we might then be able to formulate not only our foreign, but also our military policy on the basis of something more than "... 'cause we're in charge right now and we feel like it...," i.e., something besides just the political agenda or whichever faction is in charge at the time. And, it's normally requested to insure we're making the correct choices, or our actions are having the desired effects, etc. - not to pre-emptively engage in "CYA" by making sure it's been "fixed" such that there'll appear to be a sufficient basis for our decision to invade another country.Originally Posted by Casual Observer
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies
The article says "...fixed around..." in other words, CENTERED around. It doesn't say "changed" or "repaired". The word "fix" has a dozen meanings: 1) to place securely, 2) to chemically convert or to make solid, 3) to capture or hold, 4) to determine with accuracy, 5) to assign/attribute, 6) to correct or set right, 7) to convert from a floating point notation,to prepare, 9) to neuter, 10) to influence improperly, 11) to concentrate upon, 12) a navigational position, 13) to match up on a date, 14) to get revenge upon, 15) a predicament...etc. also slang such as an addict "getting a fix", etc.
Given that it is presumably a memo written by a British author, it is unclear 1) what "the policy" is that it is talking about, and 2) who is doing any "fixing" since we are talking about an ungrammatical sentence fragment. I read it as a British way of saying "Bush wanted... but instead information became known that was centered around a different viewpoint".
Without knowing the author's intent, it is so bady written that to fix (position or place securely) an entire argument around it is reaching. Do we know who actually wrote it?
Who "C" is?
Suppose the interpretation alleged is correct: "the intelligence facts were changed for political reasons". Who cares? Sadam was bad, he's gone. We're in Iraq. It's done. No WMDs needed.





Huh? Did I miss the international blackmail story? When did that happen? My point is, I find the hypocrisy amazing, independent investigations & impeachment hearings over a BJ, yet nothing over a president "fixing" intell to justify a millitary action that has led to tens of thousands of deaths.Originally Posted by myssi
Umm, lemme see... well, just off the top of my head, I can think of several thousand parents, widowed spouses, and orphaned children who probably care quite a bit.Originally Posted by myssi
![]()
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies





Oh, are you referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, based on fabricated intel by LBJ and used to (essentially) start the Vietnam war ? Or are you referring to FDR's "fixing" of Pacific intel to to make sure that the Dec 7th attack on Pearl Harbor was unopposed, thus caused maximum damage, thus provided sufficient justification for the US joining WW2 in Europe as well as the Pacific ? Yes, the hypocracy is indeed amazing that these Democratic presidents were never seriously questioned along these lines let alone investigated.My point is, I find the hypocrisy amazing, independent investigations & impeachment hearings over a BJ, yet nothing over a president "fixing" intell to justify a millitary action that has led to tens of thousands of deaths.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 05-21-2005 at 05:49 PM.
Bookmarks