To the Editor of the Star Democrat:
On Monday, the Star Democrat published (on the bottom of page three) a brief AP item about a secret document from the British Government from July, 2002, concerning the run-up to the War in Iraq. This and related documents have been confirmed as authentic by the Washington Post. The item in the Star Democrat was notable for what it did not report. The most damning statement in the documents is most certainly: “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.” To date, this has received little attention in the main stream media including the Star Democrat.
While we may argue until the cows come home about the wisdom of what transpired in the decision to invade Iraq, and while a nation can live with a lie for some period of time, we owe it to our children to establish the truth of what happened in our Government at that time.
There can be no reason not to have a full congressional investigation of the current Administration’s actions in the run up to this disastrous misadventure. The integrity of the world our children will inherit depends upon it.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
The Downing Street Memo
Although I've taken a break from blogging, I thought I would post my letter to the editor that was just published in our local paper:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Hey Doc,
I think we already did have a full congressional investigation. Maybe you've heard of it. It was called the "9/11 Commission." I know it didn't receive much press, so maybe you missed it.
If you're thinking we need to go further than that, then I'd like to also see a full investigation into what the Clinton administration knew about Iraq and other supporters of terrorism, and if they ignored some key intelligence that should have been acted on.
Thanks for chiming in, mikey. As you well know, the 9/11 commission specifically did NOT look at this issue. It was supposed to after the election but, oh my gosh, time just slips away. As for blaming Clinton, please.
Damn Doc,
Just last week you were ready to bag it, and now you've got rightwing trolls spewing standard rightwing stupidity!
Disassembling mikey would be fun were it not so obviously easy. Still blaming Clinton for everything, unreal. Mikey is a Coulter fan though, so I can see where he would have a Clinton obsession.
One thing I've noticed about these guys, you can show them a ball, prove it's a ball, but if they wanna see a block, that's what they'll see.
Hey mikey, you still think Iraq had WMD's? You still think they had solid ties to Al Quaeda? You still think the WMD's were ferried over to Syria? You think Iraq is worth the money, time, effort, and most importantly: the LIVES of Americans we have put into it, and will continue to put in to it for the unforseeable future?
IF SO, WHY?
The 9/11 commission was about 9/11, not the war in Iraq you fool.
The Downing Steet memo has nothing to do with 9/11, and everything to do with Bush's intent on war, and fixing the intel around that goal. You know that intel, the one that the Bush administration has admitted was wrong.
Well, it's too late now, we are there and we have to stay and fix this enormous blunder, and it's going to take a long time and we are going to lose more lives needlessly.
However, falsely leading the nation into war is the highest of treasonable offences in America. Is that why you are scared of the Downing Street Memo?
Since you love Clinton so much, let me ask you some questions:
Is lying about an affair impeachable?
Is lying about intelligence leading us to war impeachable?
Which crime is costing lives and money and for how long?
Which crime is worth a 7 year campaign during which false allegation after false allegation was fabricated, investigated, and could not even begin to stick?
What was that impeachable offense again? Ooooh, that's right, he lied about oral sex. IMPEACH! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
Bush led our nation to war based on lies, plain and simple. PEOPLE ARE DYING BECAUSE OF THESE LIES. DOES THAT MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?
Are you AFRAID that the Downing Street Memo will underscore and factually substantiate what most of us, including YOU, already know?
IF that happens, and the memo does indeed prove beyond reasonable doubt what we all already know, what are you going to say then mikey? It's Clinton's fault?
Thanks, RJ, glad to see you're back in form.
It's amazing how you're suspicion can be so high with regards to George W, but Slick Willy gets a pass. Do you really think Slick Willy didn't have similar plans with regards to Iraq. Maybe the 9/11 commission didn't formally announce findings regarding Iraq, but there was sure plenty discussed during the course of the hearings. They had to keep making it clear that their focus was 9/11, not Iraq, because there was so much overlap.
So Slick Willy gets a pass regarding Iraq, eh? I think from all that came out before, during, and after the 9/11 commission it is clear that Slick Willy had a similar plan of regime change with respect to Iraq as GWB had.
Your friend the chili pepper thinks GWB lied about WMD. Let me ask you, how did GWB lie? Do you know what the word "lie" means? If you conclude GWB lied, then you must (if you claim to be reasonable) conclude that Billy Boy also lied. He looked at the same intelligence. He made the same remarks. Billy Bob had a lot of the same rhetoric as GWB. He said Iraq had WMD, he said they were a threat to freedom, he told the UN they should act, he told the UN we reserved the right to act unilaterally,... The fact is that GWB did not lie, he was just wrong. Being wrong is not the same as a lie. Slick Willy on the other hand did lie. Admittedly, not about anything that has cost a human life (that we know of), but it can be confirmed that Billy is a liar.
So what's the difference? Please explain it to me. As I see it, one actually had the guts to stand up to evil and one was too concerned about his image. If you don't see how Slick's neglect led to 3,000 Americans being killed, then I can't help you.
I think that's the difference. You can only look in the rearview mirror. Some of us can actually anticipate. Clinton did nothing wrong in your book because there is no direct measurable connection between 9/11 and his inaction. GWB is evil to you since there is a direct correlation to him ordering the attack in Iraq and the loss of American lives. GWB's action has cost slightly less than 2,000 American lives (all valuable to be sure). Clintons inaction cost 3,000 American lives. Who's worse?
In response to mr. hot pepper, yes I do believe the war in Iraq is worth it. I also believe there are other places like Iran that it would be worth forcing a regime change. Why? Because there is evil in the world, rather, there are evil people in the world. If good people don't stand up to evil people, then evil people expand their influence and I want good people to expand their influence. Freedom is good. Mass murders, rape rooms, harsh dictatorial rule, are bad.
Regarding the Downing Street memo, you libs are getting your panties in a wad because of one word - "fixed." Your distrust of Bush immediately leads you to the conclusion that "fixed" means "manipulated" when an honest reading of the memo makes it clear that is not the case. Just like Dr. C making fun of GWB because of the word "disassemble" you interpret words the way you want instead of looking at them in context, honestly. Even the leftist media has essentially left this one alone because they have just enough integrity to understand the context. But hey, like I say about libs, why let facts get in the way of a good rant. Sorry to burst your bubble, bubble-boys, but you live in a world of conspiracy theories, not in a world of facts.
You are wondering what happened to your world, Dr. C, and it should be clear. You enjoy a great deal of freedom and I'm guessing, wealth. The reason you enjoy that is because people fought for it, and many lost their lives in that fight. Name a better place to live than America.
Do you think we're great because we were lucky? Check your history books. We are great because people fought for the freedom to be great. I think it's a most honorable tradition of ours to come to the aid of others looking for that same freedom.
mikey says: "Please explain it to me."
Reading your posts, a couple of things become clear. You are fixated on hating Clinton, you are fixated on hating liberals, (which is anyone that does not share your ideology), and you are fixated on blaming Iraq for something, although I'm not sure what it is.
I can explain all day long, but you refuse to hear anything that counters your acceptance of the Bush talking points concerning Iraq, which shifted as fast as a sandbar on the Outerbanks.
First it was WMD's along with the immediate and imminent threat to the U.S. and the world.
Then, when no such weapons were found, it was the capability of such weapons, along with the fable of the WMD's being ferried over to Syria.
When those storylines fell apart, due to the findings of the very commission that BUSH put together, they settled on 'liberation of the Iraqi people'.
You choose to ignore the facts mikey, plain and simple. You do so out of hatred for anything left of what is being passed off as conservative these days, out of some silly ass persecution complex that seems to permeate the neocon cabal even though Republicans control every branch of our goverment at the present time.
Bush has admitted, along with Colin Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etcetera, that no WMD's exist. NONE.
As leader of the greatest country on this planet, don't you think it is Bush's duty to make sure the intelligence making a case to invade a sovereign nation that did not attack us is spot on prior to the invasion? If not, why not? Makes a damn sorry excuse for a leader in my opinon. Anywhere else in our society, he would've been fired in a second, along with all the people involved in the false intelligence. Who's lost their job over this mikey?
How is it that in a very short time the intel was debunked? Since it was so easy to show that Iraq had no WMD's, or were anywhere near having that capability
once we went in, why was it so hard to figure that out before hand?
Ahh, the answer is it was easy and in fact the inspectors were in Iraq doing their job until Bush kicked them out. Their findings matched up with the current findings by the Bush team.
It's mind boggling that you will post here about Clinton this and Clinton that and yet Bush is god even though every facet of this war has proven to be a complete disaster: no exit strategy what so ever, we will be there a long time, (you are pipe dreaming if you think one day Iraq is going to be a suburb of America), death tolls mount for innocent Iraqi's and for our service men and women.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Remember that mikey? Extraordinarily telling now that you look back on it eh? Take the blinders off, there ya go, now do you see?
EVERYTHING about this war stinks, yet you hold your nose and scream "CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON", like a little child spawn of Ann Coulter.
EVERYTHING about this war suggests that Bush was intent on ousting Saddam militarily, regardless.
I understand your dream world will crash should the findings of investigating the Downing Street Memos indeed come to frution, but mikey, let go of your nose, look at the facts on the ground, Bush's rhetoric from the get-go, and what is happening there now.
You see, it's obvious and has been obvious from the start that Bush was intent on war to those of us without the neocon blinders on. That's why you have seen protest after protest around the world, as well as the shrinking Coalition of the Willing.
Osama bin Laden and his Al Quaeda organization are the culprits behind 9/11, not Saddam.
Here we are how many years later mikey? Where's Osama?
Who has nukes? Not Iraq. Maybe North Korea. What's your solution mikey? Invade North Korea like we did in Iraq?
Oh wait, we don't have the manpower to do that, and it appears that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are not only having problems filling their quotas, the are falling way short.
Why do you suppose that is mikey? Let me guess, you think it's because the media and left-wing blogs have undermined the effort in Iraq to the point of aiding and abetting terrorists in the destruction of America? Am I a close?
How about this: the writing is on the wall in letters so big it's blinding your thought process. The numbers are low and going lower because anybody with a sane mind and reasoning powers can see that this is an unjust, unfounded, rush to war based on ideology that is of the highest example of treason in our democracy. The facts are in your face and you refuse to see them because you are hung up on blaming Clinton for 9-11 and whatever other mythical crap you want to pin on Iraq.
Ok, now is the time where you go into a diatribe about Saddam being a brutal dictator and blah blah blah. Why don't you ask Daddy Bush why he didn't finish the job the first time we went in?
Why do you think that is mikey?
mikey says: "Please explain it to me."
I just did, and you will ignore every bit of it, and that my friend, is what is wrong with our country and that is what depresses me, Doc, and every other redblooded patriotic American in this country.
Dearest Red,
First of all, can you point me to the place in your rant where you explain to me how Bush lied? Not how he was wrong (I'll admit to that), but how he lied. Thanks a bunch.
About Billy Boy, I don't really blame him for 9/11. I blame the terrorists (evil people) just as I blame them, not GWB, for the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq. However, I do enjoy using Billy as a punching bag in the same manner you use GWB as a punching bag. But then I'm coming down to your level, and I really shouldn't do that.
I do, however, blame Clinton for weakening our intelligence which may or may not have prevented 9/11.
Also, I don't hate liberals. What I hate is when people unjustly accuse others without backing up there claims. That just happens to be primarily the liberal crowd. That is what you're doing to GWB. You're accusing him unjustly (he didn't lie). You spew hatred towards his decision to go to war in Iraq eventhough Slick Willy had the same agenda (double standard).
It's clear that Slick Willy had "fixed" similar policy as GWB regarding Iraq, yet you get down on GWB for fixing (i.e., organizing) policy. The fact is, regime change in Iraq is an objective that was formally written in 1998 when Billy was President. GWB carried out that stated objective.
You're mad at GWB because WMD weren't found? Well, Slick Willy thought there was WMD, too. Would you have been mad at him if he had done what he threatened to do on several occasions, which was to remove Saddam? Somehow, I doubt it.
I know I make too much sense for you to answer me directly, but I look forward to your next monologue. This is cheap entertainment for me.
Take care, Red. I'm a pepper, you're a pepper, we're a pepper,...
Wow. What a great conversation. I'm not sure how well Mikey represents a viewpoint that I am seldom exposed to, but it is eye-opening.
Mikey--putting the Clinton hate aside--you're not the least bit concerned that we were deceived into going to war in Iraq. That the whole rationale that was presented to us at the time was false? And that our leaders knew that it was false?
We are on dangerous ground here. We have a President who knowingly and intentionally misleads us (Iraq, social security privatization, and more), and we are complicit in that deception.
I have held senior-level career jobs under both Dems and Reps. I have learned to see different points of view and respect different perspectives. But this is new territory.
People are dying under a war that we were led into under false pretenses. One shouldn't need to be a democrat to find that outrageous (one need not even be opposed to the war).
I want the truth. I always want the truth.
RJ and anonymous: thanks for carrying the ball here. You know, I come from another era when the English language meant something. The definition of "to fix" includes (from Merriam-Webster):
7-b: to influence the actions, outcome, or effect of by improper or illegal methods (as in) "the race had been fixed"
It is clear, in the context of the DSM, that this is the meaning of the word "fix," no matter what our friend Mikey would like to believe (is this the same guy who was in the cereal commercial?). Thus, GWB lied to us when he said he had not determined to go to war with Iraq in the summer of 2002, 8 months before he invaded that hapless country.
There is increasing discussion in our country at this time. This is good. We are not Germany or Italy in 1938 (yes, I know, I broke the rule). There can only be good come out of this at the end for us, if we survive. Eventually, we will have to cleanse ourselves of these evils. We will. But only if the youth in America begins to rally.
Do you see that happening?
"Do you see that happening?"
Yes I do, and not just our younger people.
This is will have to be an all out effort by citizens that truly understand what democracy is and how important and dangerously slippery our freedom is.
I have been thinking about the repercussions to our country of such actions by Bush.
On the world stage, Bush has single-handedly divided the world into 'with us or against us' by his actions and rhetoric. He has not made the world safer by any means, has attacked a soveriegn nation that did not provoke us, whipped up the religous fundamentals in this country into thinking we are a theocracy thereby ensuring religous tensions between the non-terrorists in the countries he pursues with his inflammatory policies and rhetoric. Which always leads to war due to the lack of logic and reason that always accompanies such historical disagreements.
IF we DO NOT prosecute Bush over these tyrannical and treasonous actions, the wedge between us and the nations that see us solely as an aggressor and imperialist nation will be driven so deep that repair may take centuries.
Heck, we already have so much work to do once that moral retard is out of the oval office, whether he finishes off his lame duck term or is removed through rule of law.
And, he ran on a platform of compassionate conservatism, and as a uniter, not a divider.
The anti-abortion president has no problem fixing the intel around a war based on ideological principles that are counter to a democracy and the true freedom of it's people.
How many lives of those innocent Iraqi's, American service men and women, coaltion forces, are worth the capture of Saddam, who had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11, Al Quaeda or Osama bin Laden?
HOW the hell did this guy get elected?
OH YEAH, it was the 'moral values' vote.
Geeesh.
Dr. C
Re: to your comment on my blog. You know, we are nonpartisan. I can't be responding with commentary about politicians on my blog. Doesn't mean that I don't have opinions.
So, talk to me offline.
frmsteve at msn
Still here Doc, observing and analyzing some of the current events; Bush's speech, the momentum of the Downing Street memo's, continued violence in Iraq, etcetera.
Steve takes a more even handed approach than I can, and I applaud his efforts.
HOWEVER, after Bush was re-elected, my patience and tolerance evaporated.
Here's why:
a) The 8-yr campaign to destroy Clinton and the distraction of our govt. by the Republican lynch mob that couldn't get anything to stick save for a lie about oral sex with an intern. Maybe THAT had something to do with our nation's vulnerability to OSAMA's Al Quaeda group. Maybe the high and mighty moral Republican party should've been focusing their efforts on fighting terrorism THEN instead of trying to take down Clinton
b) The highly questionable 2000 election that put Bush in office, which by itself was not the issue, but the way the Republicans fought tooth and nail to secure victory as opposed to secure a fair election, was astounding to me. Accusing the Democrats of trying to 'steal' the election when in fact the Dems were attempting to provide our country with a fair and just election.
c) Bush's obvious intent on war with Iraq from the beginning of his presidency and all of the song and dance that accompanied his pursuit
d) The fact that Bush was re-elected by what the mouthbreathers called a mandate
e) The fervor of the religious right thinking they own this country and are going to tell everyone else how to live, ie. Schiavo and Frist, then Bush flying across the country to sign 'emergency legislation' for a shell of a human being kept alive artificially, all in the name of 'life'
f) The continued defense of a war that is wholly unjustified by the Bush admins' own yardstick, ie the shifting reasons for war in the first place
g) The complete and obvious screw up that Iraq is, yet Bush supporters like mikey absolutely refuse to see anything other than what they want to see, and this part has been going on for Bush's entire presidency
h) That speech last night was deplorable. Bush does not live in the real world and that speech is a glaring example of that.
Still waving the 9/11 - Iraq bullshit for the mouthbreathers to eat up, in front of an audience of soldiers that were asked to sit quietly, and give a standing ovation for that piece of shit non-reality based speech he gave.
Just like his entire presidency from the get-go, that speech and entire show was a production designed to sell us something that is simply not true. Mission Accomplished anyone? Remember that?
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfitwitz, all are saying different things about the same topic. These guys are the architects of destruction, and the fruits of their labor are right in front of us, and we will be tending this garden for many years to come.
This one line by Bush last night is a glaring example of his stupidity, his ideological 'faith' that is NOT based on reality:
"We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
What a wonderful sound bite for the non-thinkers to absorb.
Somehow, Bush seems to 'know' that 'the terrorists' are making their 'stand' in Iraq, without acknowledging the fact that he created that quagmire and created the opportunity for these terrorist to pursue such violent chaos. It's astounding to me how he has created this pile of shit, and is asking the American people for 'patience' in cleaning up his pile of shit, all the while costing America and Iraq lives that would not be lost.
He spoke the word 'fight' five times in that one sentence. He invoked 9-11 five times last night in his short speech. He is still relying on repeating the same bullshit over and over and over and over and his supporters are buying it at the cost and peril of all Americans.
The man falsely led our country into war, it's obvious by what's happening in Iraq and world reaction, Bush's continued diminishing support and his futile attempts at justification for this mess.
Somehow, people like mikey are totally missing that boat, are not seeing what is right before their eyes.
There can only be x number of reasons for this;
1) they truly believe everything Bush says
2) they just want to maintain control of the goverment so those dirty liberals will not
3) they just lack the ability to see the bigger picture
4) it's some kind of freakin' sport that they must 'win'
After attempting to reason with Bush supporters, offering logical and factual data, asking question after question regarding failed intelligence and polices on Iraq, I am done with patience, tolerance and understanding.
The Republicans do not, nor will they EVER operate this way, neither do those who support this president and his ideologies. In their world there can be no peace because they don't really understand what that means.
Apparently, the only thing they understand is violence, fighting, and war. In their world, a diplomatic resolution is the last resort because they themselves cannot be diplomatic nor do they understand diplomacy. It is beyond their grasp.
Therefore, I am done trying to present a well reasoned, logical and factual debate over this quagmire and this administration. The writing is on the wall in letters that are huge and growing every freaking day, yet Bush and his supporters:
a) refuse to see it any other way than the way it is and
b) think that somehow this debacle is going to produce an American friendly democratic Iraq and we will have won the war on terrorism.
It's wholly obvious that the entire world, save for the conservatives, see this for what it is. The fact that more conservative/republican/Bush fans have not called for their leader's head on a platter underscores their lust for power, and showcases their ability to completely ignore the results of this president's less than poor performance, for their own selfish needs.
This is the same crowd that screamed 'treason' at anyone that dared question the validity of invading Iraq, toppling Saddam, in it's own right as well as attempting to tie Saddam to 9-11.
Sorry, no more diplomacy for me. These people have had their chance, and they fucked up everything they have touched. Our country is the laughing stock of the entire world and it's due to the actions of Bush, and the actions of those that elected this idiot back for a second term.
How can anyone with a brain, a sense of integrity, an ounce of intelligence and not a gram more, can possibly look at Bush, his policies and those of his administration, the theocratic maneuvers, his constant justification and defense of this war, the continued loss of American lives and Iraqi lives, and not see the reality?
Yeah, no more patience for these people. They don't get it, they don't want to get it, they refuse to get it. Mikey is a shining example of how we got to where we are today.
I don't visit any of those conservative web sites and engage in debate with this morons any more. It just leads to exasperation. It's like talking to a 3 yr old child, but far less entertaining.
Their ability to debate is summed up best by our wonderful president: "You're either with us or against us; I'm a uniter not a divider."
You simply cannot debate a person on such complex issues as Iraq, terrorism, global conflicts, America's presumed role and actual role, if all they see is two things. Their way, and the wrong way.
To them there is nothing else.
To them I say the blood of our soldiers is on your hands.
To them I say the lives of our soldiers that fight for our country, are willing to die for it, are being pawned off in Iraq on a completely misguided ideologically based war, is on your hands.
So no, there will be no more trying reason with anyone that supports Bush in any capacity. He is a tyrant of the highest degree and is the biggest threat to democracy and what it means around the globe.
mikey said: "I think that's the difference. You can only look in the rearview mirror. Some of us can actually anticipate."
mikey, you are an idiot.
We (ya know, us dirty treasonous liberals) anticpated every move this fucktard Bush was going to make, and lo and behold, look where we are.
What did you anticpate mikey? I would love to hear your futuristic vision and ability to anticipate. Looks like it's right up there with Bush's ability to anticipate, so let's hear it mikey, tell us about your anticipation and how the current situation parallels that anticipation.
So, did you anticapte the shrinking coalition of he willing?
Did you anticipate there would be more years of bloodshed after the 'Mission Accomplished' show?
Did you anticpate that the bloodshed would not only continue but increase?
Did you anticipate a homegrown Sunni insurgency would rise to the ability and level that it has?
Did you anticipate world wide terror attacks would increase by more than %300 after we invaded Iraq?
Did you anticipate the rising insurgency and terror attacks in Afghanistan over the last year?
Did you anticpate that terror would vanish after we invaded and conquered Iraq while Osama roams the Afghanistan hills?
Did you anticipate Bush 'solving' Social Security by asking you to work until your are 70?
Did you anticipate Bush attempting to privatize your social security by saying there would be a greater investment on your return than the goverment could provide? Go ahead, tackle this one, I'm ready for ya.
What did you anticipate mikey?
I'll say it again mikey cuz it's all you hear anyway: you are an idiot.
Red and other libs,
I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how Bush lied. So much of your hatred is based on this suspicion, so please tell me in a coherent way how he did that. A list of complaints is not an explanation.
Thank you kindly.
Dr. C:
I didn’t want to ignore you, but since you did offer the Downing Street Memo (DSM) as proof that Bush lied about the war in Iraq, I wanted to be courteous and respond.
An analysis of you argument shows that it hinges entirely on the meaning of the word “fixed.” You say “fixed” means ”to influence the actions, outcome, or effect of by improper or illegal methods” as quoted from Merriam-Webster. Quoting Merriam-Webster is a nice touch. I mean who can argue with the dictionary? If the dictionary says this is what “fixed” means, then that must be it. Well, I expect this kind of misleading argument from a Clinton fan. After all, he never lied, he misled.
So, now let’s all take a closer look at the MULTIPLE definitions of the word “fix” as quoted from Merriam-Webster, in the order shown in their online dictionary. Here we go!
1 a : to make firm, stable, or stationary b : to give a permanent or final form to: as (1) : to change into a stable compound or available form (bacteria that fix nitrogen) (2) : to kill, harden, and preserve for microscopic study (3) : to make the image of (a photographic film) permanent by removing unused salts c : AFFIX, ATTACH
Mikey says: Hmmm, no connotation showing deception here. Also doesn’t seem to apply to the context of the DSM. Must not be what Bush really meant. Let’s keep looking!
2 a : to hold or direct steadily (fixes his eyes on the horizon) b : to capture the attention of (fixed her with a stare)
Mikey says: Still no implication of a desire to deceive, and again doesn’t seem to match the context. Must have been another sense of the word...
3 a : to set or place definitely : ESTABLISH b : to make an accurate determination of : DISCOVER (fixing our location on the chart) c : ASSIGN (fix the blame)
Mikey says: Let’s see, DSM said “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Using this definition, I would interpret that as: “the intelligence and facts were being fixed, that is an accurate determination was being made, around the policy.” Hmmm, could it be that “fixed” really meant that the administration was trying to determine the accuracy of the intelligence? That seems to be a proper use of the word “fixed” in this context. But that wouldn’t support your argument that Bush lied. That would support the notion that he was actually being careful. Well, then that can’t be it, can it? Let’s keep going!
4 : to set in order : ADJUST
Mikey says: This one seems to make sense. This could have been what Bush meant. He was trying to “set in order” the intelligence and the facts. Another way to interpret that might be that the policy was being “organized” around the intelligence and the facts. But again, that wouldn’t support the notion that Bush’s intent was to deceive. I guess we better keep going…
5 : to get ready : PREPARE (fix lunch)
Mikey says: Same as #4. Works in the context of DSM very well, but shows no intent to deceive. Must not be right then!
6 a : REPAIR, MEND (fix the clock) b : RESTORE, CURE (the doctor fixed him up) c : SPAY, CASTRATE
Mikey says: This one might work. If we interpret “repair” loosely, the DSM could imply that the intelligence needed “repair” in order to fit Bush’s evil agenda. Could work…
7 a : to get even with b : to influence the actions, outcome, or effect of by improper or illegal methods (the race had been fixed)
Mikey says: Here’s the one you carefully selected from the dictionary Dr. C! Is it just coincidence that this is the last of the 7 senses of the word provided? Surely not. This one does fit in best with the notion that Bush’s evil intent was to lie about the intelligence so he could go beat up Saddam and take over Iraq. So this must be it! It couldn’t have been the other three definitions that would show that Bush was being careful about his decision. Nope. This one has to be it.
Well Doc, I know you’re smart enough to see the sarcasm in my remarks. I hope you’re smart enough to also see that you “fixed” your argument around your preconceived idea that Bush lied.
Come on all you Bush haters! Don’t make it so easy to take you down. Now, I would still love to see a cogent argument as to why Bush lied. Anyone?
Yes mikey, keep debating what the word 'fixed' means.
I stand corrected, you are not an idiot, you are a comical idiot.
I expect that from you Red. People who can't reason, call names.
It's strangely quiet regarding my challenge to explain how Bush has lied. This, unfortunately, is characteristic of those on the left. They like to find fault, bicker, and complain, but they shy away from debate when their rhetoric is challenged. They respond to challenges and criticism with Ad Hominem attacks, or start a new thread of unfounded attacks. When facts and logic overwhelm their positions, they aren't silenced, however. They simply move on to a new crowd who isn't tired of them. Like cockroaches when the light is shown on them, they do not die, they just run to another dark corner.
Post a Comment