FARK.com: (1476628) 88 members of congress want to know about a "secret meeting between Britain and America about 'creating' conditions to justify war in Iraq." Fark & the MSM surrender

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rawstory)		88 members of congress want to know about a "secret meeting between Britain and America about 'creating' conditions to justify war in Iraq." Fark & the MSM surrender (rawstory.com)		657
		More: Scary

• • •

25887 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2005 at 10:57 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/1476628

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

657 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

bbcrackmonkey		2005-05-08 11:51:07 PM

Tatsuma, excellent point. Like I said, this last semester I did a LOT of activist work to help raise awareness of the Sudanese genocide happening right at this very moment. I even wrote letters to my congressman and senators for the first time in my life.

I passed out several "WANTED" posters of Omar al-Bashir that I designed to look exactly like real life wanted posters that the US gov't hands out. They were actually quite humorous.

My favorite little activist thingy though was a little fake $100. I would just leave these things around and they looked real on the front, but on the back they were blank, saying that you could free 3 Sudanese slaves with a real $100 bill, and telling people to donate to www.freetheslaves.net

I really wish we'd put up a No-Fly-Zone over the south of Sudan to stop the government planes from bombing the villages there. I even wrote the president about it, although of course he didn't read it. The Sudanese government is bombing the irrigation systems of the black farmers so that they can't farm the land and will be forced off it for Arab nomadic animal herders.

Angel of Death		2005-05-08 11:51:29 PM

bbcrackmonkey: But nope, I'm just a Republican sheep hell bent on doing everything I'm told.

You're the one that said "I don't care why Bush did X." I tend to care about these things. It's your prerogative not to care, but it's a telling fact.

The war in Iraq trumped all other causes in your mind: the ACTUAL war on terror (to which, of course, Iraq is irrelevant), the actual ability to fight genocide globally, the domestic economy, "moral" issues such as gay rights and abortion rights, you name it. Your support of Bush was shortsighted. But now you have to stick to it, because like all good Bushies, YOU ARE NEVER WRONG!!!!! Thanks.

Diabolic		2005-05-08 11:51:38 PM

rougy

I couldn't agree more.

mtbhucker		2005-05-08 11:51:41 PM

Doesn't anyone remember this? http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm (too lazy...) And also read the stuff on Iraq/Middle East. They've wanted this for along time.

Snake939		2005-05-08 11:51:55 PM

For those curious, I've translated the questions:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document? - Is this document absolutely accurate to the letter?

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? - Did you think about how you would go about establishing a presence in Iraq before the fact?

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? - Did you want sites to be searched to NOT have forewarning?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq? - See question #2.

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're going to put a word in quotes now in order to have ammunition for future attacks on your administration.

Loaded questions are farking awesome. Especially when coming from 44% of the Democrats in the House.

JoeKnows		2005-05-08 11:52:12 PM

Tatsuma: Why was Iraq more important than Sudan?

Can invading Sudan help Halliburton make a ton o' money?

cargrrl82		2005-05-08 11:53:22 PM

Tatsuma

I'm not a mind reader, I can't tell you why news editors and producers pick one over the other. But there is one thing I do know. There's a lot of militaries around, who are sitting on their duffs about the Sudan as well. Also that back after the end of WW2 the US, England, France, Germany, Spain and several other nations signed a largely forgotten agreement. Namely that whenever genocide was found to be going on each nation signed on had the responsibility to act to stop the genocide immediately by whatever means was required. This included unilateral action. Given that the covention is still binding, there's a lot of people to be chasing around to ask why they haven't done something.

Oldiron_79		2005-05-08 11:53:54 PM

Flame war flame war flame war flame war, conspracy theory conspiracy theory, flame war, Nazi referance, Nazi referance, and another Nazi referance for good measure, Flame war. Godwin.

Wow, I've summarized the whole thread in 1 post.

cargrrl82		2005-05-08 11:54:17 PM

JoeKnows

The Sudan has one of the world's largest oil reserves and it's untapped. There's billions and billions to be made drilling for oil there. Only problem is there's a nicely set up civil war to make sure that doesn't happen.

RoyBatty		2005-05-08 11:54:19 PM

This is from an ad over at BigTrunk's and HindRocket's PowerGlutes site.

aginghipster		2005-05-08 11:54:33 PM

hey, Beartoy:

as a closet 9/11 conspiracy theorist myself, I'm a little saddend that you, of all people -- he who is so quick to whine about liters "ruining threads" via threadjack, haven't at least stuck it out in this particular thread, save of a few pithy posts after the links you posted. I thought you were above hit 'n' run threadjacking? If not, then why not opine on the real culprits behind 9/11? Was it Bush? Was it Cheney? Was it bin Laden? Was it Professor Plum in the Study with the Candlestick?

Well... how about it?

Angel of Death		2005-05-08 11:54:34 PM

cargrrl82: Foreign policy isn't static, never has been. Just look at how much it changed from say 1930 to 1950. One would expect as new people come around to be in control of foreign policy it changes. If it didn't? In light of how it's been, then there'd be a need to worry.

I agree, and like I said, all of that is fine, but that was not my point. My point was that the argument from the right that we were "saving" or "liberating" the Iraqi people from a cruel, cruel dictator was a false outrage at Saddam's conduct. They "cared" when it was convenient to "care."

robsul82		2005-05-08 11:55:17 PM

The most important lesson Bush the Elder ever taught to the Son was that he could do absolutely anything he wanted as president...just so long as he brought along a man for vice president who absolutely scared the shiat out of people.

Bush. Bush. Quayle. Cheney.

Spinning wheel, 'round and 'round.

cargrrl82		2005-05-08 11:56:04 PM

Angel of Death

Please elucidate what exactly a president has to do with the economy. Furthermore what exactly is there to fighting terror that would require troops?

Snake939		2005-05-08 11:56:16 PM

JoeKnows
Can invading Sudan help Halliburton make a ton o' money?

Because securing the relative safety of the primary world source of crude isn't important.

/attacks on current price of gas in 3... 2...
//Because global changes are always immediate
///hah

The Vegan Republican		2005-05-08 11:56:49 PM

Impotent liberal wailing is entertaining. Thanks guys!

ryant123		2005-05-08 11:56:50 PM

bbcrackmonkey: And unlike Clinton, all of Bush's lies have been outside a courtroom.

And unlike Clinton, Bush's lies have involved things like going to war.

Clinton lied about getting a hummer. And he fessed up in the end.

cargrrl82		2005-05-08 11:57:06 PM

Angel of Death

All politicians only care when it is convenient or expedient to care. It's the nature of the business.

BatManuel		2005-05-08 11:57:08 PM

BatManuel, get your head out of your ass.

Bite me. Anyone who didn't see that the Bush administration was gunning for Iraq since early 2002 is a moron.

If the justification for the war turns out to be a knowing lie by the administration, then I'll care. But as it stands, everyone thought that Iraq had WMD's, in violation of the 1441. That's a reason for war.

Like I said, if evidence comes out the the Bush administration knew that Iraq had no WMD's, then that's a whole other story. But they didn't believe that they were presenting anything other than the truth to the American people. I'm not saying that they weren't making Iraq out to be a bigger threat then they were, but the justification was sound, as far as they knew.

Flashbulb		2005-05-08 11:57:08 PM

This is old news for anyone who decided to do their own research instead of watch the Faux News Networks. It was all on the Web long before Sept 11, 2001.

Santa is real, your religion is the one, and "President Bush" works for We, the people.

MayorWest		2005-05-08 11:57:28 PM

bbcrackmonkey		2005-05-08 11:57:32 PM

Angel of Death: Your support of Bush was shortsighted

It was also rather short-lived. I stopped supporting him right after the invasion phase of the Iraq War was over. I can't remember the thread where I officially renounced my support for him, but its here somewhere on Fark.

Although really, my support was always for removing Saddam Hussein more than anything else, and replacing him with a humane government. I continue to monitor the situation in Iraq and I read all the Iraqi blogs I can find feverishly, including the ones that aren't so friendly like Baghdad Burning.

dagcat		2005-05-08 11:57:32 PM

oldiron

i one up you. "political masturbation" (only 2 words)

Molywire		2005-05-08 11:57:58 PM

A is for...

http://lyrics.duble.com/lyrics/P/powerman-5000-lyrics/powerman-5000-a-is-for-a pathy-lyrics.htm

Diabolic		2005-05-08 11:58:00 PM

Oldiron_79

Whew! You're new to this, aren't you?

Angel of Death		2005-05-08 11:58:10 PM

cargrrl82: Please elucidate what exactly a president has to do with the economy.

You're right. No President of the United States has ever influenced the economy. My mistake.

Furthermore what exactly is there to fighting terror that would require troops?

I'm pretty sure that the invasion of Afghanistan required troops. I'm also pretty sure that finding Osama bin Laden will require troops, unless you have some kind of plan to deploy Nancy Drew or Maxwell Smart.

illusi0n		2005-05-08 11:59:03 PM

2005-05-08 11:40:16 PM LawrencePerson

Powerline already thoroughly debunked this "smoking gun" as much adieu about nothing. You can also read a hell of a lot more of the memo there than in this batty stub of a left-wing press release.

Unfortunately, this isn't a press release about the memo, but a press release about the letter that simply references the memo which is available at the Sunday Times online... which is also mentioned in the article.

As for that right wing blog you posted, he stated evidence that congress found nothing wrong so there must have been nothing wrong. Nothing to see here move along I guess.

cargrrl82		2005-05-08 11:59:26 PM

ryant123

Clinton's Sec of State lied about the US military's ability to help prevent bloodshed in Rwanda. That testimony was rather surprising to the military, since they were plenty capable of doing lots in Rwanda to keep things from going positively off the deep end.

tarvuz		2005-05-08 11:59:31 PM

Those of us opposed to the war have been 100% right in pretty much everthing we have said over the past few years.

JoeKnows		2005-05-08 11:59:36 PM

bbcrackmonkey:

excellent point. Like I said, this last semester I did a LOT of activist work to help raise awareness of the Sudanese genocide happening right at this very moment. I even wrote letters to my congressman and senators for the first time in my life.

I can certainly appreciate your values and your activism. I think it's admirable. I personally don't have a problem with going to war with countries over genocide. But I firmly believe that defending our country takes precedence over anything else. The Iraq War has been a distraction from the actual War on Terror (which was being fought in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and should be expanded to Saudi Arabia, IMHO), though. Troops and money that would be better utilized in the War on Terror are being sent to Iraq instead.

Angel of Death		2005-05-08 11:59:39 PM

cargrrl82: All politicians only care when it is convenient or expedient to care. It's the nature of the business.

That doesn't make it okay. Murderers murder when it is expedient to murder. It's the nature of murder. So I should just sit back and let it all go by me, right?

sentient_being		2005-05-09 12:00:04 AM

Snake939

Being willfully obtuse is no way to go through life, son.

BearToy		2005-05-09 12:00:32 AM

bbcrackmonkey:

why do you link to websites saying that 9/11 was planned by Bush when Bin Laden put out a pre-election video bragging about it, telling us how much it cost him, and telling us he's going to do it again if we keep f*cking with Islamic countries?

First off, initially Bin Laden denied any involvement in the events of 9/11. Google "Bin Laden denies". He only started publicly claiming involvement after the Bush administration blamed him. At that point he could claim the terrorism as his own to further his own causes.

9/11 has been very good for Bin Laden and the Bush administration. It was used to galvanize the American public with fear to (somehow) justify taking out Bin Landen's old arch enemy, Saddam Hussien. I do not find it co-incidental that Bush and Bin Laden's goals regularly align.

In reality, it looks like Bin Laden was hired to do the job in order for there to be a cover. He might have even thought he really was acting on his own. After he started taking the credit for 9/11 he regularly expressed surprise that three buildings fell. They guessed that maybe one or two floors might collapse, rather than the physically impossible feat of the entire struture crumbling to fine dust and free-falling into a nice neat pile. If he actually was a rogue bad guy not affiliated with some of his Bush family friends or CIA buddies, he wouldn't have been able to evade the entire intelligence, military and special forces of The United States for 4 years.

Maybe there was another reason for 7 minutes of inaction.

robolobo		2005-05-09 12:00:48 AM

Angel of Death

I'm pretty sure that the invasion of Afghanistan required troops. I'm also pretty sure that finding Osama bin Laden will require troops, unless you have some kind of plan to deploy Nancy Drew or Maxwell Smart.

Can't we just hunt down terrorists like Clinton did, with cruise missles? That worked, right?

aginghipster		2005-05-09 12:00:49 AM

cargrrl82: Please elucidate what exactly a president has to do with the economy.

For further information see Keynes, Johnathon Maynard and Kennedy, John Fitzgerald. Also see Nixon, Richard Milhouse which said "I guess we're all Keynsians now."

JoeKnows		2005-05-09 12:01:48 AM

cargrrl82: The Sudan has one of the world's largest oil reserves and it's untapped.

Thanks for the info there. I didn't know, honestly. Maybe the way home from Baghdad for our soldiers will be though Khartoum?

koan		2005-05-09 12:02:06 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot:

It's fun to go back to the pre-war threads and see how many Farkers had there heads up the Administration's ass, pompously telling all of us skeptics that we shouldn't doubt the government and that we should take it on faith that the Administration would never set up a pretext for invasion.

Totally! I remmeber right wing nuts barking that those satellite photos were the ultimate proof of WMDs and that liberals had their head up their asses and were also traitors, as bad as terrorists themselves, for doubting the intelligence and transparency of this holy administration.

We don't hear much from them now, probably reading the latest Coulter and wanking.

DayBreakBoys17		2005-05-09 12:02:20 AM

Well. Gotta hand it to these leftist whiners...

They never give up!

This "news article" will have a collective ZERO PERCENT impact on America.

Angel of Death		2005-05-09 12:03:32 AM

robolobo: Can't we just hunt down terrorists like Clinton did, with cruise missles? That worked, right?

And Bush sure learned from Clinton's mistakes. After all, al-Qaeda is no longer a threat, Osama bin Laden is in custody, and the world is a safer place.

Oh, wait, the war on terror is a total failure and is no longer being fought because we're stuck in Iraq. I almost forgot!

Enkiwa		2005-05-09 12:03:53 AM

2005-05-08 11:36:41 PM ShutUpHippies

It'll take decades, but I foresee Iraq as a powerful democracy in a sea of dictatorships. Most liberals can't see around their seething hate for anything Bush to realize this.

Congradulations, you've just graduated from the Rush Limbaugh Institure for Conservative Studies. Actually you just made a sound bite of a show that is nothing but a series of Rush's sound bites. Anyone with any psychology/sociology background knows Rush is a bate and switcher, slight of hand talker, repeating the same sentences over because hes "/got nothin" and people are stupid enough to repeat them.

illusi0n		2005-05-09 12:04:03 AM

2005-05-08 11:57:08 PM BatManuel

Bite me. Anyone who didn't see that the Bush administration was gunning for Iraq since early 2002 is a moron.

If the justification for the war turns out to be a knowing lie by the administration, then I'll care. But as it stands, everyone thought that Iraq had WMD's, in violation of the 1441. That's a reason for war.

Like I said, if evidence comes out the the Bush administration knew that Iraq had no WMD's, then that's a whole other story. But they didn't believe that they were presenting anything other than the truth to the American people. I'm not saying that they weren't making Iraq out to be a bigger threat then they were, but the justification was sound, as far as they knew.

If they had evidence, then why were they seeking it so hard in that time. Sending Plame's husband to Africa on the Yellowcake Uranium memo, which had been debunked over a year prior. Then outsting his CIA deep cover wife after he didn't find anything. It is blatantly obvious they went "Ok we are saying they have WMD what evidence can we get supporting this.. Not enough you say, well lets make some then."

Angel of Death		2005-05-09 12:04:29 AM

DayBreakBoys17: This "news article" will have a collective ZERO PERCENT impact on America.

Yes, thanks to the liberal media. Oh, wait...

cargrrl82		2005-05-09 12:04:35 AM

Angel of Death

Much simpler to go after the conditions that cause people to join up with people like Osama. Which isn't US foreign policy. It's things like poverty in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It's the content of school books in the same places and also in Egypt. You've got lots of very disenfranchised people and they're told the US is to blame for all their problems. They're told this so they don't go after who really is to blame. These disenfranchised will then gladly side up with anyone promising to go after the bad guy, even if the person is completely insane and believes the BS. Sad thing is even if Osama got his way, Saudi Arabia would still be a huge mess.

As for the people who Osama has now, that's an intelligence matter. Need lots of CIA people out in the field, as well as military intelligence. And seeing as it's a safe bet he's right near Afghanistan the intelligence people there are most likely looking for him not some Afghani warlord.

On the issue of the economy, what drives it is spending. If people don't spend it don't grow. And the few things gumming up the works these days aren't anyting the President has control over.

robolobo		2005-05-09 12:05:13 AM

BearToy

If he actually was a rogue bad guy not affiliated with some of his Bush family friends or CIA buddies, he wouldn't have been able to evade the entire intelligence, military and special forces of The United States for 4 years.

Are you really this dense, or are you just pulling my leg. The CIA has been after Osama for a lot longer than 4 years. Or is Clinton in on this whole thing too?

Maybe everyone but you is part of it. Game's up guys. Everybody go home, he found out about it...

dreadnaught		2005-05-09 12:06:06 AM

STRYPERSWINE: Bingo. Enjoy the safer world everyone.

ah, the bit they just don't get.

Though, not counting civilian deaths is a horrific but tactically wise move.

"there are 100,000 dead civilians who arent better off"

"that 100,000 figure is untrue"

"well what's the real figure"

"you leftys dont understand - saddam was bad! dey took ur jobs! end justfies means!"

/not even a lefty

The Ham Of Truth		2005-05-09 12:06:17 AM

bbcrackmonkey:

Garymatic, there is no gas pipeline in Afghanistan, and thus nobody is profiting from anything over there.

And these are not the 'droids you're looking for.

/shiat, I just commented in the middle of a flamewar, didn't I? 10 minutes in "time out" mister! And no hands in your pockets while you're in that coner...

Angel of Death		2005-05-09 12:06:21 AM

cargrrl82: Much simpler to go after the conditions that cause people to join up with people like Osama. ... It's things like poverty in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It's the content of school books in the same places and also in Egypt. You've got lots of very disenfranchised people and they're told the US is to blame for all their problems. ... These disenfranchised will then gladly side up with anyone promising to go after the bad guy, even if the person is completely insane and believes the BS.

Yes, that's much simpler to solve. "Just educate the Arab world that we're really their best buds!" It's trivial!

Snake939		2005-05-09 12:06:34 AM

sentient_being
Neither is attacking a person's opinion with no specificity.

But opposing faithful of the political spectrum will always do what we do, so why fight it?

/look, a shiny object

BearToy		2005-05-09 12:06:51 AM

irwhiteboi:

Not to mention, who would benefit the most from an invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan? That's right! Israel

Crazy? I wish it was so easily discountable. Read some of the physics. I thought the paper by the Computer Scientist and Aerospace engineer about Flight 77's missing wings was pretty complete and far from 'crazy'.

You do have a point about Israel. But Bin Laden and Hussien are old enemies too. Bush and Bin Laden both wanted Hussien out of power and 9/11 did work wonders to make that happen. They had a win-win scenario. Unfortunately we lose, but I don't think we were ever really in the equation.

cargrrl82		2005-05-09 12:08:11 AM

aginghipster

Gee thanks but I've read Keynes, and when Nixon made that comment most Keynsians gagged in revulsion. Perhaps you should check Milton Friedman. Also check wether Keynes ideas actually work, also wether Friedman's work. Neither one much works at all. But then trying to control the economy by jiggering with it isn't exactly anything more than hamfisted. Also largely just a PR strategy. No one wants to hear the government can't control something but that people can.

Displayed 50 of 657 comments