"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=426&row=0
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

why haven't americans heard this story?
m.

― msp (mspa), Thursday, 5 May 2005 13:25 (twenty years ago)

it's true it's not getting a lot of play around here, but it's around. I think it goes a little like this:

a: "Hey look, intelligence was changed to fit the needs of the administration as they were campaigning for war!"

b: "Yes, yes, you've been saying that."

a: "No, but really! We found a secret memo, it's undeniable proof!"

b: "Whatever. I'm tired of this argument."

― teeny (teeny), Thursday, 5 May 2005 13:31 (twenty years ago)

I'm not convinced this is a story -- it doesn't really present any new evidence of anything. There has already been plenty of evidence brought to light that the administration wanted a war even before 9/11 and was looking for a justification. The guy who wrote this memo, a British foreign policy aide, doesn't have any new evidence of that, he's just summarizing things, stating his opinion, giving a sense of the mood in Washington.

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 5 May 2005 13:33 (twenty years ago)

Insider claims about what was said in secret meetings is a story.

― RS_LaRue (RSLaRue), Thursday, 5 May 2005 13:47 (twenty years ago)

Right, it's a story, but it's not like there's anything new here. We don't have a high-ranking Bush admin. official saying "We were fixing the intelligence and the facts around policy." This guy doesn't sound like enough of an insider to know anything that all the other Washington types don't also know or aren't also speculating about at their cocktail parties-- at least, I don't get the impression that he does.

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 5 May 2005 13:49 (twenty years ago)

In other words, Palast is wrong. This is not conclusive proof of anything. Paul O'Neil already gave us information that was much more "insider" and much more damning.

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 5 May 2005 13:54 (twenty years ago)

That said, I still hope it gets picked up and makes news in the States.

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 5 May 2005 13:55 (twenty years ago)

i've only seen it reported in the context of the uk election.

i think at this point it might be more important to focus on the result of that decision, rather than the decision itself:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_money

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 5 May 2005 14:02 (twenty years ago)

Maybe the U.S. can talk people into returning the errant microwave ovens, dumptrucks and hand grenades in exchange for some of those new 30-year bonds.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Thursday, 5 May 2005 14:40 (twenty years ago)

I actually think Democrats sort of blew their chance to nail Bush on the war. Instead of saying "Hey, you cooked the intelligence!" they did this innocent child shtick: "B-b-b-but, you said dere was WMDs and dere wasn't!" At least, that's what those who bothered to say anything at all said.

Could it be because they were complicit in the whole thing?

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 5 May 2005 20:58 (twenty years ago)

"The Prime Minister would revert"

Argh, has this reached the highest offices in the land?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 12 May 2005 08:50 (twenty years ago)

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 13 May 2005 08:45 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.