Posted on 06/24/2005 7:06:26 AM PDT by Fred911
The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.
.And then there's the Downing Street Memo - actually the minutes of a prime minister's meeting in July 2002 - in which the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn't get much clearer than that.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
very nice post. THe use of profanity on this website should not be permitted to pass. Franlky, I am sick of these "South Park Conservatives" bring their vulgarity into threads where 90% of posters are erudite and polite.
We know this how?
Actually, I strongly suspect that "fixed" is derived from the nautical term - where you establish a position based on known readings or facts. In any case, only someone blinded by their prejudice would believe that anyone would put in a formal government memorandum that facts are being blatantly misrepresented.
I recall when the memo from Matthew Rycroft which quotes Sir Richard Dearlove was leaked, here in the UK during the election campaign back in early May.
Tony Blair's spokesman definitely didn't deny it. On the contrary he said in effect: "So what? Nothing new there."
Given that, I think that it's extremely unlikely to be fake. The issue for me at least is that it doesn't show what it's claimed to show. Instead it seems to me like some perfectly reasonable forward planning was happening prior to the war.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.