"President Must Answer to Downing Street Memo"

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:33:31 -0500, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:29:47 -0500, "Revision"
wrote:


and that Bush and his press
aids were spinning the hell out of every UN vote and every mention of
Iraq in the press in order to portray Iraq as a clear and immediate
threat.

Um, no. The Bush Administration's position was *always* to act
_before_ Iraq became an "immediate threat".

Yup. I love all these folks who fake amnesia about the 1993 State of
the Union address, in which he clearly said that the threat was *not*
imminent, but that we couldn't afford to wait until it was.

Rand Simberg wrote:


... what upsets many is the spurious
and hyperbolic comparison of this to gulags, and Nazi death camps and
the killing fields of Cambodia. This is odious, and trivializes and
minimizes what happened to millions of victims of those totalitarian
regimes.

This is pure fabrication on your part. No mention was made
of Nazi, or any other death camps, or to the killing fields
of Cambodia. You created that out of thin air, and that makes
you an outright liar.

JazzMan

--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
That is why it is called the War of Northern Aggression.

When the more accurate title, as shown historically, would be the War of
*Southern* Aggression.

Hotheads with ****-poor planning started the fight.

Dave O'Neill wrote:

If they were true then Blair would be in significant trouble, he would
probably have to resign sooner than he is currently planning to.


No, just the reverse- their release accomplishes many things at once
that are politically advantageous to the Blair government.
That is why I'm fairly sure they are authentic, and indeed purposely leaked.
1.) They let the Blair government shift the blame for the war itself
unto the Bush White House.
2.) They let them show that they warned the U.S. about the possibility
of post-war chaos, but were ignored.
3.) They let Blair heroically fall on his sword to atone for his mistake
in being bullied into the war, and resign looking like a decent man
willing to take all the blame of many unto himself, rather than a
politically crippled lame duck.*
4.) Just before he resigns, Blair can withdraw the British troops,
leaving his successor a clean plate, and restoring the tarnished image
of the Labor Party.
Ah, the joys of The Perfect Getaway!

* We may not have seen the last of Blair if he does this- it's actions
like this that get the respect of your party in Britain, and Blair may
well put a picture of Winston Churchill up on his wall, and muse: "If
someone can make a comeback like he did..."

Pat

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
The South formed their own country

Actually, the South went into open rebellion against the lawful government.
Had the South not been so completely obstinant about slavery, dating back to
1787, the whole mess could have been avoided.

Had the North not cowtowed to the South in Philadelphia, the South made it
clear that there would never be a union.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
There would have been no attack if the federal garrison hadn't occupied
the fort in the first place

On 9/11, there would have been no attack on the Pentagon if the Federal
government hadn't occupied it in the first place.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
Bogus analogy. Fort Sumter then belonged to South Carolina, it was in
the Charleston harbor and was built to protect the city; and the union
soldiers were there illegally, over 500 miles from their country.

If the fort was in South Carolina, then it was in the United States, which
means the soldiers were *0* miles from their country. Unless you are
prepared to show that the orders did not follow the chain of command, then
any claim of illegality is in error.

Slavery was not the reason that unionists started
the war, their sole "reason" was the fact that the South seceded from
the USA.

Which, of course, wasn't possible, since there's no provision for it in the
Constitution. Thus, the southern states *in fact* entered into a state of
rebellion against their legal government.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Could Britain still make the claim that we are not an independent
nation but a colony of Britain in the hands of rebels acting in an
illegal manner?

Sure- but they have even less ability to enforce such a claim now than they
did then.

This seems historically to be settled by blood and iron rather than in a
legal sense.

One of the failings of the Constitution is that, while it addresses how to
add states, it doesn't address how to remove them.

Dale wrote:



So what's going on? IMHO, Perfidious Albion is getting ready to jump
ship on the Iraq War, and has purposely leaked these memos as step one
of that process. As to what happens to Bush in that process...well, why
should Britain give a hoot in hell what happens to Bush. It's like his
dad in the Avenger torpedo bomber- he told the two guys in the back to
bail out. Whatever happened to them after that wasn't his problem.
If this is what's going on, the scenario for the next few weeks should
go like this:



snip

Umm, are you really serious, Pat? Purges? Saddam's return to power?
An Iraq-Iran alliance lobbing nukes into Israel?


History is a continual string of seemingly wildly unlikely things
happening- the historical equivalent to chaos theory- read Robert K.
Massie's "Dreadnought" sometime, and study the loopy small things that
slowly destroyed the friendship between Germany and Britain, and led to
W.W. I.
The fictional history of the future that H.G. Wells outlined in "The
Shape Of Things To Come" was in a lot of ways far less wild and
illogical than what really happened.
I see that scenario of mine as a likely outcome... or at least a
plausible outcome... of what is going on now- the reality could be, and
probably will be, a lot stranger.
BTW- the Saddam back in power stuff?
Well, the Iraqi peacekeeping forces (you know, the ones on our side
theoretically) sing songs about that possibility:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060902245.html

Seriously, Pat- not a damned thing is going to come of this. And Britain won't
abruptly pull out of Iraq- with all the nastiness they are knee deep in within the
EU, they need us just to have a friendly face to look at each morning


Of course getting out of Iraq gets them out of a good deal of EU
nastiness at the same time.
Then the friendly face they may look at each morning may well be
offering them a breakfast plate with French croissants, Swiss cheese,
some fried German sausages, and Belgian waffles on it.
They know that they are finally going to have to start looking across
the narrower body of water if they want to see their future.

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:32:19 -0500, in a place far, far away, JazzMan
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:


... what upsets many is the spurious
and hyperbolic comparison of this to gulags, and Nazi death camps and
the killing fields of Cambodia. This is odious, and trivializes and
minimizes what happened to millions of victims of those totalitarian
regimes.

This is pure fabrication on your part. No mention was made
of Nazi, or any other death camps, or to the killing fields
of Cambodia. You created that out of thin air, and that makes
you an outright liar.

He compared the Bush regime to the regimes that did those things.
Even if one limits the comparison to interrogation methods, it's an
odious and false one, and simply hands free propaganda points to Al
Jazeera.

Actually, what he did was to say that if he were to read
aloud to the members present the contents of that FBI report
that they would surely think that the descriptions of torture
and mistreatment contained in that FBI report were of Nazi
or other evil regimes. It seems to me that the real problem
you have is the fact that the FBI wrote a report on the
torture and abuse of prisoners in Gitmo, not with the fact
that Durbin characterized the torture and abuse as being
similar to what has been done in other places and times by
regimes of ill repute.

Write your congresscritter and ask them to please look the
other way and stop investigating torture at Gitmo.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********