More fun with non-reporting!

[cbacon 0]

Apparently this has been front-page news in Britain, but as far as I can tell it's getting virtually no media attention over here. A memo from July 2002 leaked in Britain written by a foreign policy aide discussing how the United States had already decided on and was building towards war and regime change in Iraq. The full memo, which probably shouldn't be surprising but which would almost certainly be grounds for Bush's impeachment if anyone in the American media cared, can be found here:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, I trust British intel on AMERICAN "conspiracies".

 

Bush wanted to remove Saddam? Well, NO FUCKING SHIT. It was OUR STATED GOVERNMENT POLICY.

 

Hell, that was the case BEFORE Bush came to office.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Apparently this has been front-page news in Britain, but as far as I can tell it's getting virtually no media attention over here. A memo from July 2002 leaked in Britain written by a foreign policy aide discussing how the United States had already decided on and was building towards war and regime change in Iraq. The full memo, which probably shouldn't be surprising but which would almost certainly be grounds for Bush's impeachment if anyone in the American media cared, can be found here:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Haven't read PNAC yet? *tsk tsk*

[Guest MikeSC]

Or they could have read the official US gov't policy initiated by Bill Clinton.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

Yes, I trust British intel on AMERICAN "conspiracies".

 

Bush wanted to remove Saddam? Well, NO FUCKING SHIT. It was OUR STATED GOVERNMENT POLICY.

 

You trust American intel on anything?

 

Haven't read PNAC yet? *tsk tsk*

 

Touchè

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, I trust British intel on AMERICAN "conspiracies".

 

Bush wanted to remove Saddam? Well, NO FUCKING SHIT. It was OUR STATED GOVERNMENT POLICY.

You trust American intel on anything?

Considering that British intel believed the same things, I'm not sure they'd be a better source for you.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, I trust British intel on AMERICAN "conspiracies".

 

Bush wanted to remove Saddam? Well, NO FUCKING SHIT. It was OUR STATED GOVERNMENT POLICY.

You trust American intel on anything?

You also, as expected, ignore Duelfer's findings about how much corruption was involved with Oil-For-Food and France's promise --- in writing, no less --- to veto any action against Iraq.

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

One of the ads at the bottom of this page was for a Noam Chomsky book.

 

I found that really funny

[cbacon 0]

Yes, I trust British intel on AMERICAN "conspiracies".

 

Bush wanted to remove Saddam? Well, NO FUCKING SHIT. It was OUR STATED GOVERNMENT POLICY.

You trust American intel on anything?

You also, as expected, ignore Duelfer's findings about how much corruption was involved with Oil-For-Food and France's promise --- in writing, no less --- to veto any action against Iraq.

-=Mike

Maybe it's because I never said anything about oil-for-food or france? Seriously, what has that got to do with anything? Everyone's well aware of what the French line was, it's not like it was a secret.

 

One of the ads at the bottom of this page was for a Noam Chomsky book.

 

I found that really funny

 

The book in question (Hegemony or Survival) is really worth the read, even if your a staunch conservative.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, I trust British intel on AMERICAN "conspiracies".

 

Bush wanted to remove Saddam? Well, NO FUCKING SHIT. It was OUR STATED GOVERNMENT POLICY.

You trust American intel on anything?

You also, as expected, ignore Duelfer's findings about how much corruption was involved with Oil-For-Food and France's promise --- in writing, no less --- to veto any action against Iraq.

-=Mike

Maybe it's because I never said anything about oil-for-food or france? Seriously, what has that got to do with anything? Everyone's well aware of what the French line was, it's not like it was a secret.

If you're going to mention the report --- which you did --- let's not ignore certain key parts of the report.

The book in question (Hegemony or Survival) is really worth the read, even if your a staunch conservative.

No, it's REALLY not.

 

Not even if you're a vapid lib.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Uh, congrats, you've stated the completely obvious?

 

Like Mike has said, this sort of policy has been in line since the Clinton Administration. Having a STARTLING MEMO detailing how we already had plans and were already getting logistics in place doesn't really surprise me.

 

Why?

 

Despite the lack of a good rebuilding effort, good campaign plans aren't just drawn up overnight. The reason we win these conflicts is because we plan them out long in advance. I detailed a long time ago why Iraq was a threat to Mid East stability (The one where you miserably fizzled out trying to say that we should have let the Iraqis do it on their own ten years down the line), so it's really not a big jump to think that they were already in the planning stages.

 

Hell, that's probably the most reassuring news I've heard in a while about our military. If there's the possibility of an invasion, they start planning it months in advance. Thank the Lord! Hopefully they'll spend that much time on the rebuilding phase next time.

 

So, I guess the answer to the title of this is "More fun with non-reporting" because, put quite simply, this is non-news.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I wonder if C-Bacon went to Canada because England didn't want him anymore.

 

One of the ads at the bottom of this page was for a Noam Chomsky book.

 

I wonder if I start a thread if there will be an ad for a George Will book...