June 14, 2005


Of Blue Dresses and 10 Downing

The problem with the Downing Street Memos and why the journo's and hence the 'Murkan public are up not up in arms about them is simple.

No one (to the best of our knowledge, as incomplete as it is) wore or hid a semen-stained blue dress worn during the meetings, anywhere in the UK. Therefore, the Memos could not possibly be of interest. Additionally, they was no narrative in the Memos about any common-or-garden varieties of pedophilia, missing dead women (pregnant or not).

So there you have it...it's kinda like that old David Allen Coe song "You never even call me by my name". Had it had the equivalent of getting drunk, prison,trucks, trains or momma, the Downing Street Memos might have gotten more airplay.

-sigh-

posted by Jo Fish on 06.14.05 at 11:16 PM





Comments:

$21Million Dollars later, They are still looking for that blue dress for Henry Cisneros.

http://www.slyfelinos.com/slyblog/archived/001141.html

posted by: jillian on 06.15.05 at 01:55 AM [permalink]



Even if Colin Powell were to honorably fall upon his sword to confirm the Downing Street memos, the media would continue to fail to give credence to the memos because to do otherwise would confirm that the media have been in the back pockets of the Bush Jr. Administration. Hillary Clinton is right.

posted by: Shag from Brookline on 06.15.05 at 11:17 AM [permalink]



The difference is that the semen-stained blue dress was hard, scientifically testable evidence that the President of the United States was a perjurer, whereas the Downing St. memo is merely the specualation of a single man who cites not one whit of evidence to support his claim.

Now class, let's review recent history: Saddam had WMDs because he used them on the Iranians and his own people, and he admitted to having them at the end of the first Gulf War.

Saddam had a nuclear program before the first Gulf War.

The first Gulf War technically was not over; Saddam merely signed a cease fire based on certain conditions, namely his coorperation with the U.N.

Saddam immediately violated those terms, and a gutless U.N. did not have the intestinal fortitute to backup its own resolutions. Rather, it got in bed with Saddam in the oil-for-food scam. (Gee, why no outrage about that on this site? Hmmm.)

Everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, including the French, the Germans and the Russians. Even some of Saddam's own generals thought he had them, which is why they had equipped their own troops with protective suits, assuming the next unit over was going to use them.

In short, the Downing St. memo and all the hysterical claims that BUSH LIED! gain no traction because the public is smart enough to know that Saddam was a threat who needed to be dealt with.

Give it up already.

posted by: gene on 06.15.05 at 12:56 PM [permalink]



I never argue with trolls here, but you are pretty much an exception.

So, Gene, when are you enlisting to go prosecute that war?

Apologies in advance if you've done your time (unit/branch pray tell?), but goddamn those sound like the usual Chickenhawk Talking Points.

Oh, and as for the "One Man" thing, let's add "One Man's" name to that debate: Ahmed Chalabi. Over to you...

posted by: Jo on 06.15.05 at 01:14 PM [permalink]



Instead of military service, perhaps a little "Gene" therapy is in order - like for handling the truth. Jack Nicholson might tell Gene "You can't handle the truth." Everybody knew? Did Bush know, did Cheney know, did Powell know, did Rumsfeld know, etc, etc, or did they tell us they knew but did not really know, or worse even believe? Many, but not all, believed Bush and the Neocons when they said they knew. Might these believers have thought differently if the information in these memos had been public in 2002? Or what if the American public had these memos before last November? There are quite a few pants on fire in Neocon-land and Gene has his fire extinguiser ready.

posted by: Shag from Brookline on 06.15.05 at 01:35 PM [permalink]



So where's the stuff now, Gene? Turns out the germ program was a moldy cheese sandwich in Saddam's refrigerator. Clinton took out Saddam's nuclear program in 1998. If it's such a slam-dunk case, why did they keep having to massage the evidence?

posted by: The Dean on 06.15.05 at 01:47 PM [permalink]



I'm no troll, Jo. I post here fairly often. Too old to serve now, but I served in the Marines in the mid-1970s.


MarDet USS Mt. Whitney (LCC 20) 1/76 - 7/76
"C" 1stBn 2ndMar 7/76 - 1/77
"K" 3rd Bn 9thMar 1/77 - 12/77
"H&S" 1st Bn 4th Mar 12/77 - 7/79

Significantly, no one has actually responded to the actual facts I've laid out.

And the "chickenhawk" thing is old, too. According to your criteria, FDR was a chickenhawk, as was Abraham Lincoln.

posted by: gene on 06.15.05 at 02:25 PM [permalink]



Gene,
I see that you have posted here before, and thanks for the additions to the discourse. Glad to see you were in the Corps; the MT Whitney? Think we vertrep'd it once or twice in the IO. You left before my time by about a year or three...

Anyhow, to paraphrase an old hippie tune from the '60s: Where had all the Weapons gone?

That's the question no one has been able to answer, and that's the crux of the lie. Because the 1600 Crew has not been able to come up with any plausible scenario for getting rid of Saddam, I stand by my copyrighted thesis: Junior just wanted to get Poppy's face off the lobby floor of the al-Rashid hotel. No more, no less. It's consistent with his character and psyche as a tuff-talkin-texan from Connecticut.

FDR: not a chickenhawk...he didn't make a war just to get reelected and one son served as a Marine Raider in the Pacific, leaving Active Duty as a Colonel, the other as his (FDR's) aide-de-camp as an Army Air Corps Officer. Which of the Bush Family is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter? His disability (polio) would have made him exempt in any event, although he was, I believe, an Undersecretary of the Navy.

Lincoln was I believe a Captain and a Private in Militia units. His enlistments appear to be short, but he served more days than let's say, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz or Douglas Feith.

posted by: Jo on 06.15.05 at 02:51 PM [permalink]



I'll field this one, Gene:

Saddam had a nuclear program before the first Gulf War. Clinton took it out in 1998.

Saddam had nerve gas in the 1980s, but hadn't used them in about 20 years. He was hemmed in by the no-fly zone and UN weapons inspectors.

The UN apparently did keep Saddam from restarting his WMD programs, because he didn't have WMDs when we came in. The oil-for-food thing is definitely bad, but it's a separate issue from weapons.

Everyone knew Saddam was a bad guy who would like to have WMD. No nations (other than 52 percent of this one) thought he was an imminent threat, or they would have done something about it.


posted by: The Dean on 06.16.05 at 04:22 PM [permalink]



I don't think Bush lied so much as he was full of shit. He made up his mind and that led him to focus on some pretty questionable evidence.

I always thought taking out Saddam was a good idea, in a Clinton-goes-to-Bosnia sort of way. I just wish Bush had taken a realistic look at what it would entail and been honest about why we fight.

posted by: The Dean on 06.16.05 at 04:25 PM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?



















usdemvet -at- hotmail.com
or
usndemvet -at- usdemvet.com (coming soon)






All the original material © 2002-2003 Jo Fish
steal what you want, all I ask is an attribution of some sort
Thanks