more iraqgate: "Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’"

June 12, 2005 1:33 PM

more iraqgate: "Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’""MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal."
posted by specialk420 (80 comments total)

Let's see if this gets the same royal coverage as the memo.
posted by caddis at 1:42 PM on June 12, 2005

The second thing that popped into my head, after the usual anti-Bush invective, was the thought that this is too good to be true, and therefore might be a Rove plant in order to further discredit the "liberal" media.
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 1:43 PM on June 12, 2005

It is necessary to have the support of the Church before you go waging war.
posted by James I at 2:01 PM on June 12, 2005

Here's a link to the briefing paper in question.

It's utterly damning for Blair, I suspect. He's going to have to step down soon.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:05 PM on June 12, 2005

"Let's see if this gets the same royal coverage as the memo."

It will have to get more, I'd suspect. It's like pouring salt on an open wound, as far as many in the press are concerned.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:06 PM on June 12, 2005

the Washington Post put it on page one for the first time today...unbelievable.
posted by amberglow at 2:08 PM on June 12, 2005

You know, this is becoming the central rallying cry justifying a move to Impeach Bush. If we found out he was liquifying babies and make popsicles out of them, the Republican House and Senate would say that said babies hated America, and were part of a sleeper cell. Which brave Republican Senators or Representatives are going to stand up to the GOP to uncover the truth about Dubya?
posted by rzklkng at 2:12 PM on June 12, 2005

If we found out he was liquifying babies and make popsicles out of them

Oh come on, you must have missed that episode of Martha Stewart's living. Everyone knows that "puree" is the correct setting for babies. Sheesh, get it right.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:14 PM on June 12, 2005

When I read the Times headline "Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’", I assumed they were quoting from someone who'd specifically used the word, ie, "The source said were looking for an excuse." I searched for the word in both the article and the memo transcript, but came up empty. Is the Times just (understandably) characterizing it that way, or did someone actually use the word 'excuse'? If not, why is the word in single quotes? It just seemed odd.
posted by dhoyt at 2:24 PM on June 12, 2005

odd? euphemism kills.
posted by Satapher at 2:30 PM on June 12, 2005

It is necessary to have the support of the Church before you go waging war.
posted by James I at 2:01 PM PST on June 12 [!]

It wasn't funny when you were God Almighty either. Hang it up bubba.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:39 PM on June 12, 2005

Hey, the MSM was only 2 weeks late to the party, right ?
posted by troutfishing at 2:48 PM on June 12, 2005

"The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal."
posted by gsb at 2:50 PM on June 12, 2005

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. Jonathan Swift
posted by caddis at 3:06 PM on June 12, 2005

Won't somebody please think of the right seasoning for the children?
posted by uosuaq at 3:40 PM on June 12, 2005

there are links here to more documents
posted by amberglow at 3:56 PM on June 12, 2005

What seems odd to the rest of us is how Bush supporters generally (and those who look for any 'excuse' to 'excuse' his idiocy), and Iraq war supporters specifically (including the morons who continue to comfortably enjoy supporting Quagmire II from the comfort of their keyboards) still don't mind the fact they were lied to, over and over.

Must be something they're accustomed to.

Steinbeck's Doc once said the love of truth ain't close to universal. Look no further than the last four years for confirmation, among the 'right' and the fence-straddling faint-hearts of 'the middle'.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:57 PM on June 12, 2005

You should be a poet!

But so does anyone have an answer as to who used the word 'excuse'? I don't doubt the revelations from the memo itself, I just wonder who the headline is supposed to be quoting.
posted by dhoyt at 4:03 PM on June 12, 2005

As much as I should be used to it at this point, I'm still sad and surprised when these horrible truths float to the surface and the Media and the American Public aren't screaming about it.

Nevertheless, I'm still holding my breath for some riots. Anyone with me?
posted by Jon-o at 4:14 PM on June 12, 2005

Not to qubbile and I don't disagree with the condition of innate non sequiterial obtusity of a previous question but do not headline writers often use the 'convention' of 'single' quotes to indicate a 'condensation by way of paraphrase' ? Is not, after all, the purpose of headline writing to 'condense' text ? Have not headline writers used this 'convention' of 'paraphrase' for years ? Is it impossible to understand that 'excuse' is shorthand for 'find a way to make it legal' ? Or are we to assume the average British newspaper reader is a 'functional idiot' who cannot understand the concept of a 'paraphrase' when he or she sees one?
posted by y2karl at 4:33 PM on June 12, 2005

Is it impossible to understand that 'excuse' is shorthand for 'find a way to make it legal' ?

'That' is 'what' I assumed, although 'it' wasn't 100% clear. I haven't 'had' time to 'pore' over every word from the transcript so I 'assumed' I was missing a 'key' quote. Surely 'mine' is not such an 'outlandish misreading' of the headline & story.
posted by dhoyt at 4:45 PM on June 12, 2005

I hope you're not seriously hoping for riots. Congressional hearings, maybe, but as we've seen in the last few years, innocent people tend to get hurt along with the not-quite-so-innocent ones during riots.
posted by alumshubby at 5:04 PM on June 12, 2005

" I hope you're not seriously hoping for riots."
You know, I'm not hoping for riots, but it seems to me that things didn't really happen in the 60's until the fear of what happened in Watts or Detroit motivated people to do something constructive.
Those lessons will suffice for me, but it may take something stronger to wake some of the sheeple.
posted by 2sheets at 5:12 PM on June 12, 2005

From the London Times:

The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.

The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.

Also in The Nation:

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.

At the time the spin was different in USA Today:

Iraq continues to target American and British warplanes patrolling the northern and southern zones of the country, but the skirmishing is unlikely to provoke a U.S. invasion, Pentagon officials and military analysts say.

The exception might be if the Iraqis kill or capture an American or British pilot. Such an event would be a serious provocation, a senior Defense official said Thursday. The official stopped short of saying that would trigger a U.S. attack against Iraq.

The buildup was reported in the Guardian in December 2002:

Whitehall officials have admitted privately that the "no-fly" patrols, conducted by RAF and US aircraft from bases in Kuwait, are designed to weaken Iraq's air defence systems and have nothing to do with their stated original purpose of defending the marsh Arabs and the Sh'ia population of southern Iraq.

"The figures require further explanation. It appears that there has been a marked increase in the destructive power of the bombs dropped while the number of recorded threats has remained about the same", Mr Campbell said yesterday.

He added: "The inference is that these operations have little to do with humanitarian purposes but are being carried out to soften up Iraq air defence systems. There must be a risk that escalation of this kind could provoke wider military action at a time when the inspectors still appear to be able to carry out their work."

posted by kirkaracha at 5:16 PM on June 12, 2005

but do not headline writers often use the 'convention' of 'single' quotes to indicate a 'condensation by way of paraphrase' ? ... Or are we to assume the average British newspaper reader is a 'functional idiot' who cannot understand the concept of a 'paraphrase' when he or she sees one?

That's simply not the standard. Single quotes are generally used in newspaper headlines in all cases -- you'll almost never see a double-quote in a newspaper headline. It all has to do with formatting and old typographical conventions. The result is that single-quotes are directly replacing double-quotes in headlines.

Eg: If you must include quotation marks in a headline, use 'single' rather than "double" quotes to conserve space. - Source

Eg: All newspapers use single quote marks in headlines - Source

In a newspaper anything between quotes should be a direct quote.

Eg: "Direct speech--This means that you report the exact words of the speaker and you signal this to the reader by putting the words between quotation marks. By using quotation marks, you are giving the reader an undertaking that you have not changed anything - they are the exact words the speaker used." - Source

Is it possible that the paper broke with traditional style and used an indirect quote in quotation marks? Definitely. But it is by no means the standard.

So maybe you should stop and check the facts before making allegations--a bit ironic given the subject we're talking about.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:21 PM on June 12, 2005

In a newspaper anything between quotes should be a direct quote.

You're claiming a universal convention that *does not exist.* In particular, you are extending the rules for attributed quotes to all uses of quotation marks.

And, once again, no how the Bush Assholes ignore yet more proof that they are supporting an illegal, immoral war, and attack any percived semantic error. Kwantsar pulled this bullshit on me a few threads ago.

1) Bush Lied, repeatedly. Hundreds of thousands have died for it.

2) Look up scare quotes, paraphrase, and headlines in general. In particular, the difference between attributed quotes, background quotes, and headlines paraphrase. In particular, the difference between

need for Gulf War 'excuse'

and

need to ""create the conditions” which would make it legal."

is merely this: a long stream of characters. Indeed, the full quote, pull out of context into a headline, means nothing at all, whereas the written headline summarizes the story -- the fact that the Blair Government went into the Iraq War knowing that it was illegal, and attempted to manufacture casus belli to cover them and BushCo's illegal attack on Iraq.

The Times has in no way changed meaning, or attributed quotes that have no basis in fact, nor have they put words in someone's mouth. By every journalistic standard -- esp. the lame ones that the US has -- they've done nothing improper.

So, how about you shut the fuck up about the paraphrase, dhoyt and thedevildancedlightly, and actually answer the charges?

Wait, you can't. Because all you know is lies and attack.

BTW, your war is being lost because there aren't enough soldiers. How about you join up, fight, and die for your lies? Because I'm fucking tired of going to funerals for the people who already have died for your lies.
posted by eriko at 5:51 PM on June 12, 2005

place your bets on when Blair steps down.
posted by pruner at 5:53 PM on June 12, 2005

How about you join up, fight, and die for your lies?

And who's going to make sure the quotation marks are used properly, hmm? You?
posted by c13 at 5:54 PM on June 12, 2005

"I am not a 'crook' "
posted by matteo at 6:42 PM on June 12, 2005

When I read the Times headline "Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’", I assumed they were quoting from someone who'd specifically used the word, ie, "The source said were looking for an excuse." I searched for the word in both the article and the memo transcript, but came up empty. Is the Times just (understandably) characterizing it that way, or did someone actually use the word 'excuse'? If not, why is the word in single quotes? It just seemed odd.

Make sure you bitch about the grammar and typeface too, that's the real issue here.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:11 PM on June 12, 2005

And, once again, no how the Bush Assholes ignore yet more proof that they are supporting an illegal, immoral war, and attack any percived semantic error. Kwantsar pulled this bullshit on me a few threads ago.

That's nice, eriko. You attribute to others quotes of your own invention, and subsequently hint that I'm an "asshole" who "pulls bullshit."

That high road upon which you travel must be quite dizzying.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:29 PM on June 12, 2005

I think the whole idea is, it's an amazing feat to be able to hear this news, and only come up with, "What about this word, right...here... is this the right word? What about these little marks around that word?"

There is a massive issue being ignored in that case.
posted by odinsdream at 7:52 PM on June 12, 2005

If you can't dispute the source, or the content, or the typeface, or the spelling, ATTACK THE PUNCTUATION!
posted by Balisong at 8:04 PM on June 12, 2005

The US press punts again. The main headline is the lack of preparation for an endgame, not outrage that we were committed to war long in advance of Powell's UN farce. British press headline:"Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’", WaPo headline:"Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan."
posted by caddis at 8:27 PM on June 12, 2005

July 2002 - Blair's inner circle has a meeting to discuss the 'Iraq' situation.
November 2002 - UN passes resolution 1441
March 2003 - "'coalition'-'(of)'-'the'-willing'" invades Iraq
2005 - turns out that in that july 2002 meeting (see above) Blair's inner circle knew the war would be illegal, but Blair and Bush had agreed to an illegal regime-change earlier in 2002, so they had to find a way to make it legal.

I'm baffled that so many in the media have such a hard time connecting the dots. They're probably too busy pouring over Clinton testimony trying to see if the guy ever attacked the quotes around the word 'is'.
posted by futureproof at 8:41 PM on June 12, 2005

AAAAAmmmmm!! You put the word "is" in single quotes!
posted by Balisong at 8:48 PM on June 12, 2005

Holy shit. The new evidence that amberglow pointed out is crazy. I'm not sure how Blair could possibly survive this politically, Bush on the other hand is so fucking stupid that he might pull it off.. somehow.

re: "is". Am I a bad person for not caring about quotes right now?
posted by futureproof at 8:53 PM on June 12, 2005

A few MeFites in the Mark Felt thread were asking "when will our generation get its Deep Throat?"

Surely this will be the Watergate of our times? Surely?!!
posted by uncanny hengeman at 9:00 PM on June 12, 2005

caddis has it. As Krugman says, "If Bush said the world is flat, then the headlines would say, ‘Shape of the world: Views differ.’”
posted by MLIS at 9:01 PM on June 12, 2005

It would appear the leaked documents were posted on the internet for 45 minutes on June 9, before they were taken down.

Read them here (zipped PDF, via dailykos comments)
posted by futureproof at 9:03 PM on June 12, 2005

note: I believe only one of the docs in that zip file have been authenticated, so be wary.
posted by futureproof at 9:09 PM on June 12, 2005

Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

Bush: I am doing everything possible to avoid war.
posted by cell divide at 9:18 PM on June 12, 2005

I wonder what T-shirt I should wear when I hear of the perp-walk...
posted by Balisong at 9:23 PM on June 12, 2005

Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

Bush: I am doing everything possible to avoid war.

hmm...which one is the impeachable one? which one is responsible for continuing death and destruction? which one could it be? it's sooo hard...
posted by amberglow at 9:24 PM on June 12, 2005

As the evidence mounts, it becomes more clear to me that Bush's presidency and this war will be torn apart - in the history books. This administration has already proven itself impervious to documents and testimony detailing its illegal or immoral practices, why should this straw be the one to break the camel's back? And you know they've got backup camels anyway!

I have faith in the clarity of hindsight and when these points are brought up in the future, they will be as clear to all as they are to ourselves who have read and care about these documents. Can't you see the triumph in the future? In the next presidential debate, when Repub Nom says, "This and this were necessary to the war on terror," the Demo Nom can say, "Then why do I have this memo, signed by you, saying they are simply beneficial to these corporations in which you have a board member?"

This evidence is like a single arrow being shot at a battleship.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:27 PM on June 12, 2005

This evidence is like a single arrow being shot at a battleship.

I like that analogy. Great thing is, the battleship is so big that one arrow might go unnoticed, even if it did *magically* puncture the hull and start a leak.
posted by futureproof at 9:38 PM on June 12, 2005

Prays to Marduk for magic armor piercing arrows.
(they slayed Tiamat, you know..)
posted by Balisong at 9:42 PM on June 12, 2005

If you do not like the way this is being reported, write to the ombudsmen at the big papers.

NYT: Barney Calame
WaPo: Michael Getler
posted by caddis at 9:45 PM on June 12, 2005

Well, the more this stuff gets out, the more they're put on the defensive and flailing for something else to talk about--witness Vice President "go fuck yourself" Cheney's nasty crack about Dean. They can't talk honestly about Iraq or the economy or gas prices or Social Security--they're stuck.

Whether the media continues to report on all this is the big question. The hearings on Thursday will help too.
posted by amberglow at 9:49 PM on June 12, 2005

We are not yet six months into Bush's second term.

What we need to remember is that he is weak on so very many fronts. There are so many smoking guns: 9/11, Iraq, Enron are the big three but there are so many more, from the wire on his back during debates and public appearances (he's still wearing it!), through DeLay, to the 2004 election itself.

*Any one of these* if they came out could leave Bush terminally vulnerable. People aren't sheep. No one liked 9/11, no one likes any of this shit. People's kids come home in a box -- they buy it because they believe in Bush, one real hit and he'll collapse.

I am now starting to believe that these people are such idiots that it's just all going to come out. Bits and pieces will come out and then, in the glorious way that the media does, it'll come out like a man vomiting up an intoxicant.

If you are religious, this is a time to pray for justice.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:59 PM on June 12, 2005

at the end of the day - this war killed a hell of alot of innocent men, women and children - civilians. was there another way to remove saddam and his sons? yes. many.

was there another way to install chalabi as the oil minister - and for all intents and purposes control iraqs oil, and have a series of new middle east military bases outside of saudia arabia? no.

bush should be impeached (and then tried) - along with cheney, condi and the rest - shame on them for all the poor people the killed, and the country they have turned from a bad place into a really really bad place on the verge of civil war.
posted by specialk420 at 10:02 PM on June 12, 2005

The Times headline did not step outside of accepted usage.

Quotation marks have several purposes which are made clear by context. They are used for the titles of minor works, and the titles of chapters of major works. They are used to indicate the direct quotation of a phrase or sentence(s). And, around single words or concepts, they are used to indicate irony or reservation (e.g. "scare quotes"). And so on.

See "Brief Interviews with Hideous Men" #3 in David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews with Hideous Men

I have to say, finding "holes" in reporting, through unfamiliarity with grammar, isn't quite as amusing as finding "holes" in an account because one is familiar only with comfort and unable to conceive of someone urinating in their pants while shackled.

If only such detective work could have been applied to determining the existence of large quantities of weapons of mass destruction before we blew the $200,000,000,000.
posted by cytherea at 10:53 PM on June 12, 2005

Say what you want about Bush and company, they're not idiots.

Oh, and arguments about the usage of quotation marks are insane. Devildancedlightly... we get it, we've been trolled. now STFU.
posted by mosch at 11:10 PM on June 12, 2005

We are not yet six months into Bush's second term.

exactly! and 'that' is the really "fun" part! it's going to be an 'interesting' 3 and a half "years" !

not that 'minor' things like this "memo" will actually change things, since, you know, Bush is against the terrahists and talks tuff and the dark men from abroad destroyed the Towers anyway. it won't change anything, but it's fun to watch

oh, and the WaPo headline linked above is a masterpiece of dishonesty -- one wonders if their headline on April 16, 1865 was "President Lincoln Goes to Theatre, Does Not Enjoy Show".
but then, the liberal media makes all this even funnier.
posted by matteo at 11:38 PM on June 12, 2005

Anyone following the thread at Kos will know those files I linked above have been on cryptome since late 2004.

After reading them I am hesitant that they are all authentic.

Please use with caution.
posted by futureproof at 12:17 AM on June 13, 2005

now STFU

Dude, I posted once and got the f' out of the thread. I only commented because somebody made the claim that only a moron would think that it was a direct quote, when there is at least substantial support to show that quotation marks in newspapers are meant to signal direct quotes. The "words out of place" argument has merit, but it's not unreasonable to think that it's a direct quote. Had a prior poster not gone all apeshit then I wouldn't have posted at all.

I don't think the punctuation matters as to the substance, but calling somebody a "functional idiot" (direct quote) because they are asking for the source of the quote is poor form at best.

Imagine if it were turned around and the headline was "Democratic Party Report Calls for 'Eating Babies'" -- we'd all be scouring the report and looking for the recipe.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:17 AM on June 13, 2005

Well it depends on if you are gonna defend the critisizing of the punctuation marks, or are gonna consede/defend the content..
They used to talk about Clinton and mirrors while smoking.
posted by Balisong at 12:25 AM on June 13, 2005

[removed The Dryyyyy Cracker's extra comment]
posted by jessamyn at 6:04 AM on June 13, 2005

By the way, if anyone needs any typerwriter style fonts, you can get them here.
posted by rzklkng at 6:30 AM on June 13, 2005

Well the Memo has now been published

It states that there wasn't much planning done in terms of what to do in post-war iraq.

But if attention is paid to the minutes of a meeting with top british brass, unfortunately also named the downing street memo, then you will see that bush and blair are possible war criminals.

But now that the actual memo has been released, the white house can just ignore the earlier published minutes, and only reference the actual downing street memo, and no one will know the difference.

fucking genious.
posted by futureproof at 6:41 AM on June 13, 2005

whoa.. i totally fucked that post up. I linked to something from early may.

I guess I was confused because all the news I'm reading this morning is just talking about lack of post-war planning.

Gotta get some coffee or maybe go back to sleep.

with mild embarrassment, my deepest appologies.
posted by futureproof at 6:44 AM on June 13, 2005

It's appalling to watch people (online and in RL) scramble to reconcile reality with the propaganda they've swallowed.

'They've' got so much invested. They spend a substantial portion of every day thinking and talking about these topics. They use the same words, phrases, grammar, and trains of argument that the columnists use.

Large chunks of their personalities have been constructed by someone else.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:01 AM on June 13, 2005

Ok, thedevildancedlightly, we get it. The quotation marks were confusing. Now, do you have to say anything about the actual memo? You know, the point of this thread? Have you looked at it? Maybe there is a loose comma in there somewhere.

Dhoyt, have tdl's mad google skillz cleared up things for you, or are you still confused? Can you find the strength to move to the actual article now?
posted by c13 at 7:54 AM on June 13, 2005

Oh, pardon me, it probably should be "strength".
posted by c13 at 7:57 AM on June 13, 2005

Bits and pieces will come out and then, in the glorious way that the media does, it'll come out like a man vomiting up an intoxicant.

i do remember that nixon was re-elected and that in the second term the shit snowballed until the media, like a pack of frenzied dogs, squashed his presidency and rendered him impotent. but it took time. and the media wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of the administration back then. nixon authorized burglary and directed a coverup. he was allowed to resign after a deal was cut for a pardon, and his monkeyboy ford is to this day lauded for 'healing the wounds' of the nation. *snorts*

bush, on the other hand, is a psychotic murdering sociopath. i want to see bush blubbering, in handcuffs, pelted with excrement as he's perp-walked toward the gas chamber, but that ain't gonna happen.
posted by quonsar at 8:08 AM on June 13, 2005

*standing at the ready with excrement*

awwww...
posted by dreamsign at 8:19 AM on June 13, 2005

...calling somebody a "functional idiot" (direct quote) because they are asking for the source of the quote is poor form at best.

On another hand, it is 'not unreasonable' (direct quote) to regard a rhetorical question about British newspaper readers simply as a rhetorical question. There is an inherent choice of interpretation where an alternate reading--a concept which, as conceded above, 'has merit' (direct quote)--is entirely possible. One, if in a generous mood, might even concede that willful obtusity--Hold that hair still until we get the electron microscope and the nanotech microlaser scalpel!--could be labelled poor form as well, if one insisted on grading commentary equitably.

See also Straining at a gnat.
posted by y2karl at 9:31 AM on June 13, 2005

Hey, pre-emption lovers, this whole reshaping of the Middle East; are we there yet?
posted by gsb at 9:32 AM on June 13, 2005

'They've' got so much invested. They spend a substantial portion of every day thinking and talking about these topics
...
bush, on the other hand, is a psychotic murdering sociopath. i want to see bush blubbering, in handcuffs, pelted with excrement as he's perp-walked toward the gas chamber
...
Now, do you have to say anything about the actual memo?

How can I argue with such eloquence?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:34 AM on June 13, 2005

you can't. but how's the punctuation?
posted by quonsar at 10:00 AM on June 13, 2005

MetaFilter : And you know they've got backup camels anyway!
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:05 AM on June 13, 2005

However satisfying, I'd have to counsel against the fecally-festooned trundle to the Place de la Révolution for W. With the whole ponderous myth-structure in place by now, he'll simply be translated into The Risen Christ.

Bush is irritating enough as a priest-king; I, for one, would dread having him around as a state-proclaimed god.*

*...scribble, scribble, eh, Haruspex?
posted by Haruspex at 10:55 AM on June 13, 2005

tddl, I didn't mention you, not was I thinking of you. You are not in the same category as the crowd I was thinking of.

You made that jump on your own: what does that imply?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:26 PM on June 13, 2005

TomPaine has a great piece about the new memo.
posted by caddis at 12:32 PM on June 13, 2005

Nice post, caddis. Good to see the old guard come out once in a while.

I don't know how not-stupid BushCo is. Anyone can be monkey-smart.
I'd support this war if the powers-that-be (those behind it all, the man, them, etc) were aiming at using that energy to kick start our expansion into space (as well as, obviously, into alternative energy sources).
If the hundred year plan is to get the oil and get a moon base going, I'd be all for it.
But, much like Bush's plans for Mars, that doesn't seem to be a reality. So the plan is probably greater consolidation of wealth & power in less hands.
Ultimately then BushCo's smarts at manipulating public opinion is the rough equivalent of manipulating a drill on the floorboards of a lifeboat.
Truth has a very high survival value despite the greater value of lies in the short term.
(hence the CIA motto)
posted by Smedleyman at 3:16 PM on June 13, 2005

they're verified now--...But now, war critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:31 PM on June 13, 2005

Damn. Some of you guys really crack me up -- some excellent writing above by Haruspex, quonsar

"fecally festooned trundle" LOL!
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:44 PM on June 13, 2005

I sure learned a lot about quotation marks!
posted by Haruspex at 2:18 AM on June 14, 2005

Condi takes some questions
RICE: Well, I don’t understand. I can’t go back and judge what was said.
MATTHEWS: What happened with that word “fixed", which is like “fix the World - fix the World Series"-
RICE: Right.
MATTHEWS: There’s a British sense, which means just put things together.
RICE: Put things together.

Frog march in three... two... one...
posted by futureproof at 12:47 PM on June 14, 2005

tddl, I didn't mention you, not was I thinking of you. You are not in the same category as the crowd I was thinking of.

I'm very confused as to what you're referencing, but I'll let it go. You seem like a decent chap and it's unlikely that you're still reading this.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:07 PM on June 14, 2005