Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well they did attack the united states, er no, that wasn't them. Well we had to get those WMD's , uh no, forget that one, there were none. FREEDOM, yeah we have to free them and force democracy on them.

As for the author's comment," I wonder how much attention this newly uncovered memo will get in the American press?", why would the press pay any attention to this story when the have the "runaway bride" and Michael Jackson?

Didn't the majority of the world assume this like 3 weeks into Iraq.

How is this new 2 years later?

umm....because its documented evidence perhaps?

The mayority of the world thought it would only last three weeks? Then a lot of people are idiots.

Anyways the attention in the US media, minimal if anything at all.

Wow documented evidence...what does that change?

No one is going to do anything to the US or England because a document has just been uncovered. No one CAN do anything to the US or England.

This shit is hardly news worthy. Like Bush's intentions were obvious from the start.

You're right about the run-away bride story, but I find it interesting no one made a thread about North Korea launching a short range test missle in Japan's direction.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
Wow documented evidence...what does that change?


For one thing it might make a few ardent Bush supporters figure out that what they chose to believe was complete Bullsh*T.

This is also news worthy because it confirms what many believed. But perhaps you are more interested in the fluff stories that CNN and FOX feed you.

I don't know what's worse, people who believe what the bush admin has told them, or the people who just don't give a sh*t.

I was wondering why there hadn't been a thread created on the missile launch yet. Although it was a short range missile. I doubt they'd have any chance of launching anything at the US without it being blown from the sky.

Cause for concern though.

-AC

Originally posted by KharmaDog
For one thing it might make a few ardent Bush supporters figure out that what they chose to believe was complete Bullsh*T.

This is also news worthy because it confirms what many believed. But perhaps you are more interested in the fluff stories that CNN and FOX feed you.

I don't know what's worse, people who believe what the bush admin has told them, or the people who just don't give a sh*t.

Might....but it won't. As long as the US is filled with loyal Bush supporteres like Jackie M., then this article will do nothing.

Yes, North Korea shooting 'test' missles towards Japan is most certainly "fluff." I mean, heaven forbid I prioritize that event over the unconvering of a document that did nothing more than confirm what the whole world already believed.

Lets not pay attention to what's going on in Northern Asia. It's not like a Korean attack on Japan is going to affect the United States or Canada. Oh wait....if Korea attacks Japan who's obligation is it to step up and help out?? Yup, the United States.

It's not that I don't give a shit. I just have my priorities straight.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
It's not that I don't give a shit. I just have my priorities straight.

of coarse you do! and since it was already your opinion that bush fabricated reasons for war , by default that made it fact, OBVIOUSLY. i mean...you are the center of the universe, correct?

so why rehash old news? ...although for the first time we have documented proof, which if circulated would prove to many what the facts behind this war are...but it doesnt matter to YOU, so perhaps you should request that this thread be closed glad we have you to invade threads you dont like and spam them with "WHO CARES!?!?!?".

Originally posted by PVS
of coarse you do! and since it was already your opinion that bush fabricated reasons for war , by default that made it fact, OBVIOUSLY. i mean...you are the center of the universe, correct?

so why rehash old news? ...although for the first time we have documented proof, which if circulated would prove to many what the facts behind this war are...but it doesnt matter to YOU, so perhaps you should request that this thread be closed glad we have you to invade threads you dont like and spam them with "WHO CARES!?!?!?".

Center of the Solar System to be exact. I thought everyone knew Henry Winkler was the center of the universe.

What have you been paying attentio to for the past 3 years? First Bush tells Saddam to disarm. Saddam says no because he doesn't have WMD. Bush "is convinced" that Saddam has weapons when every other weapons inspector in the world concluded he didn't have weapons of mass destruction...and then he went ahead and pre-emptively attacked Iraq. Sorry if I'm the only one that actually saw everything that the report described while it happened and drew my own conclusion. I'm surprised you didn't come to the same conclusion honestly....

And now to the important part. What is this document going to change? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The US will continue to rape the middle east, the world will b!tch and moan, and the UN will turn their backs...

I invaded this thread? I didn't know this thread had boundaries or borders to cross over.

And do me a favor and go quote KMC's rules about Spam. I'm sure you'll find what I been writing doesn't fit the criteria. I have every bit as much right to come in here and ask people why they care so much about this issue as either of you have making a thread to bring up the issue.

In the mean time, try worrying about something that is actually worth caring about. This information is helpful, but hardly news worthy.

Huh? I don't see any spam around here. Why the false accusations? Personally this news might be of some interest to some and not to others. You find this article informative that's good. You don't find it interesting that's your choice. No need to erupt on someone that might not find this article interesting.

next time i'll wait for his tenth 'who cares' post before i say anything.

as far as 'documented evidence', its not about the need to impress those who already know, but to prove to those who DONT know. granted, there are alot of JM's in america who will just shut their eyes and ears really tight to avoid the truth, there are also many who trust their commander in chief but may not given SOLID evidence.

thats the whole point. there is no point in anti-war talk toward those who are against the war as it is, nevermind this finding. thats just preaching to the choir. however, i thought the whole point of voicing and debating this topic is to attempt to convince those who DONT agree....well...thats why i debate here...or else...wtf is the point? if not we may as well just talk about the weather and exchange recipes.

many times the big roadblock in such a debate is the lack of bias-free evidence, now we have it. how is that not worth stating?

What debate were you actually looking to get involved in by providing unbiased evidence that the US was actually looking to remove Saddam with force?

Who can debate against that....it's a fact. And a recently discovered document isn't needed to illustrate that because Bush's actions speak louder than the words on the page.

He went to war. He removed Saddam. And he lied about WMD.

It's been the same story for over 2 years now.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
What debate were you actually looking to get involved in by providing unbiased evidence that the US was actually looking to remove Saddam with force?

Who can debate against that....it's a fact. And a recently discovered document isn't needed to illustrate that because Bush's actions speak louder than the words on the page.

He went to war. He removed Saddam. And he lied about WMD.

It's been the same story for over 2 years now.

no, the 'story' was that the intelligence gathered was incorrect because....well i forgot their lameass excuse but it implied that it was no fault of bush and company. that was the excuse, and the explanation of why they weren't lying. this disproves that excuse and placed responsibility, fault, and malicious intent on the head of the administration. get it?

now there is proof to give to the skeptical..>FINALLY! and you want to just forget it? really, i cant understand this, unless you just turned bornagain conservative?

They said there was "sufficient" evidence at the time to support the idea of Iraq having WMD. How sufficient that information was is illustrasted in this document. There wasn't evidence...it was fabricated.

I don't want people to "forget" about this document, but by the same token, I don't want them to create a huge uproar about it because in the grand scheme of things....it's not going to change anything.

The reason I say "who cares?" about this issue is because there are more important things going on in the world. Infact, I'm thoroughly disappointed that this thread was opened before some sort of thread about North Korea's missle testing this weekend. I'd rather see you and Kharma put your debating skills to work over something worth while like that....not this.

then open a thread about the missile test instead of crying about it in another thread...what do you think....good idea? or shall i just sit back and watch you browbeat some more? as if you have any right to dictate whats important and what isnt. you seem to think so, but i think you need to get over yourself.

well, go on then, post the thread. or shall we just waste our time with another sparring match?

The title of the thread is kind of misleading. Fixing facts aren't quite the same as totally lying about them. I know it's the title of the article, but still...

As for the relevance of this article, it is relevant, but not because it provides new information, rather because it confirms what the world has known for some time. What really bothers me is that no one will do anything about it. No one will ever do anything about it. Not other countries, not the citizens of this country or the "free press" of this nation. Why can't people think any farther than their microwave pizza, their recliner and their remote? Our bloated american self confidence is going to bite us in the ass if we don't take this country back from the politicians and the huge corporations they represent.

Originally posted by PVS
then open a thread about the missile test instead of crying about it in another thread...what do you think....good idea? or shall i just sit back and watch you browbeat some more? as if you have any right to dictate whats important and what isnt. you seem to think so, but i think you need to get over yourself.

well, go on then, post the thread. or shall we just waste our time with another sparring match?

Nah, not a good idea. Pissing on your day is infintily more entertaining.

Of course I'm brow beating, but you, in all your time on KMC, have never been one to "sit back and watch" instead you're the guy that fuels the fire. Countless times I've seen you childishly go at Napalm, Jackie, and others. I think you're the one that needs to get over himself.

As much as I'd love to "spar" with you more, I think I'll just let this thread die, because you'll defend your stance to the very last breath...no matter how pitiful it is..

oh no, I'm the one that childishly goes after Jackie.

ok thank you for that linkalicious!
btw, you know a classic JM strategy is to agitate others in a thread she doesnt agree with in an effort to get it closed. pretty childish dont you think? im glad you are mature enough to not resort to such a tactic.


back to topic then?

Originally posted by PVS
ok thank you for that linkalicious!
btw, you know a classic JM strategy is to agitate others in a thread she doesnt agree with in an effort to get it closed. pretty childish dont you think? im glad you are mature enough to not resort to such a tactic.


back to topic then?

Really? You think she has a strategy?

Lets not go giving Jackie credit where others came before her....

I'm not trying to get this thread closed. Actually, I'm trying to get this thread going. Aside from us bickering....there have been a whopping 3 posts in this thread.

I don't need to be the judge of what's important or not....the number of replies speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Really? You think she has a strategy?

i've seen her do it, and i've seen her succeed.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
Lets not go giving Jackie credit where others came before her....

I'm not trying to get this thread closed. Actually, I'm trying to get this thread going. Aside from us bickering....there have been a whopping 3 posts in this thread.

I don't need to be the judge of what's important or not....the number of replies speaks for itself.

well i'm glad we have your permission to stay on topic.
thanks

Good now that I've given you permission, maybe you'll actually make an attempt to stay on topic this time instead of thinking up such witty patronising remarks.

When was this information actually discovered? I know the article is from today, but this information is far from new...it had to be in someone's possesion long before this article.

Other quest...who are they referring to when they say "C" and "CDS"?

Originally posted by Linkalicious
Other quest...who are they referring to when they say "C" and "CDS"?

I was wondering that myself.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
When was this information actually discovered? I know the article is from today, but this information is far from new...it had to be in someone's possesion long before this article.

the memo has just surfaced, thus the new extensive coverage...and yet disgustingly (not surprisingly) complete lack of coverage in the american press. the memo itself dates back to well before the case was made for war based on 'WMD' and sadam's 'nookular' ambitions. so, its not old news, but rather blair/bush finally being caught with their pants down.

is anyone else just SHOCKED that the 'liberal bias' media hasnt even touched this issue? go to any major media site like bbc, cnn....ANY of them and try to find it in their database. amazing.

Originally posted by PVS
the memo has just surfaced, thus the new extensive coverage...and yet disgustingly (not surprisingly) complete lack of coverage in the american press. the memo itself dates back to well before the case was made for war based on 'WMD' and sadam's 'nookular' ambitions. so, its not old news, but rather blair/bush finally being caught with their pants down.

is anyone else just SHOCKED that the 'liberal bias' media hasnt even touched this issue? go to any major media site like bbc, cnn....ANY of them and try to find it in their database. amazing.

I am not suprised at all. It would seem that the biased liberal media has to struggle against their mastes, who seem to have a red hand slipping money in their pockets.

On the cover of CNN's home page the top stories are:



The first three stories continue to instill the fear of terrorsim and justify the war in Iraq. The BTK and MJ stories are more for people's entertainment. And the Salami story is pure fluff.

No mention of the memo we are talking about. No mention about the cover up of Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire, no mention about Korea. I just think it's interesting what is considered newsworthy.

I've got to show this stuff to some people fast, wonder how they will react now that its no longer just logic arguing with them...

Originally posted by PVS
the memo has just surfaced, thus the new extensive coverage...and yet disgustingly (not surprisingly) complete lack of coverage in the american press. the memo itself dates back to well before the case was made for war based on 'WMD' and sadam's 'nookular' ambitions. so, its not old news, but rather blair/bush finally being caught with their pants down.

is anyone else just SHOCKED that the 'liberal bias' media hasnt even touched this issue? go to any major media site like bbc, cnn....ANY of them and try to find it in their database. amazing.

You clearly didn't look very hard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4503061.stm

But frankly I agree with what he says- this memo has changed nothing at all. The reason people are not very interested in it is because there is basically nothing to it- just some people trying to make the most enormous fuss over really trivial things- and yes they are trivial, much as you are trying to inflate their importance.

well, i guess it is trivial since you said so
thank you for that

i guess a leaked confidential memo regarding the fabrication of reasons to attack a sovereign nation are not worth pondering. *sticks head in sand*

http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

well...it seems 88 members of congress feel that this matter is in no way 'trivial'

the letter signed and sent to bush reads:

May 5, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "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."


As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Members who have already signed letter:
Neil Abercrombie
Brian Baird
Tammy Baldwin
Xavier Becerra
Shelley Berkley
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Sanford Bishop
Earl Blumenauer
Corrine Brown
Sherrod Brown
G.K. Butterfield
Emanuel Cleaver
James Clyburn
John Conyers
Jim Cooper
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Peter DeFazio
Diana DeGette
Bill Delahunt
Rosa DeLauro
Lloyd Doggett
Sam Farr
Bob Filner
Harold Ford, Jr.
Barney Frank
Al Green
Raul Grijalva
Louis Gutierrez
Alcee Hastings
Maurice Hinchey
Rush Holt
Jay Inslee
Sheila Jackson Lee
Jessie Jackson Jr.
Marcy Kaptur
Patrick Kennedy
Dale Kildee
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Dennis Kucinich
William Lacy Clay
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Zoe Lofgren
Donna M. Christensen
Carolyn Maloney
Ed Markey
Carolyn McCarthy
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
Cynthia McKinney
Martin Meehan
Kendrick Meek
Gregory Meeks
Michael Michaud
George Miller
Gwen S. Moore
James Moran
Jerrold Nadler
Grace Napolitano
James Oberstar
John Olver
Major Owens
Frank Pallone
Donald Payne
Charles Rangel
Bobby Rush
Bernie Sanders
Linda Sanchez
Jan Schakowsky
Jose Serrano
Ike Skelton
Louise Slaughter
Hilda Solis
Pete Stark
Ellen Tauscher
Bennie Thompson
Edolphus Towns
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Chris Van Hollen
Nydia Velazquez
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Maxine Waters
Diane Watson
Melvin Watt
Robert Wexler
Lynn Woolsey
David Wu
Albert R. Wynn