Light Summer Reading

See You Next Wednesday · Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:57 pm

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

To: DAVID MANNING From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

bbqjones · Post by **bbqjones** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:14 am

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

no worries, condi will take care of them 2008-2016

goddamn its fun to be republican.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:34 pm

SYNW, you do know that "fixed" in British slang means "arranged," right? That memo is saying that the intelligence and facts were being arranged around the policy. In other words, they aren't claiming that anything was doctored, but that they were using facts and info to support their Iraq policy. What's wrong with that?

Besides, if the best anyone can do is a third-party opinion from a foreign country to indicate that there was some sort of conspiracy on Bush's part to drive down the price of oil (which is now at a record $59/barrel), to call it a reach would be the understatement of understatements.

If you want to believe that Bush rushed into war based on bad intelligence, fine. But is there anyone out there who really, honestly is stupid enough to believe the "avenging his father" myth? Seriously, Bush Sr. won the first gulf war in one of the worst routs in history. What is there to avenge?

This is just really, really dumb. There are plenty of perfectly rational reasons to hate Dubya. Please stop making fools out of yourselves by trying to invent those of the "black helicopter" ilk. TIA.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:53 pm

Variable wrote:SYNW, you do know that "fixed" in British slang means "arranged," right? That memo is saying that the intelligence and facts were being arranged around the policy. In other words, they aren't claiming that anything was doctored, but that they were using facts and info to support their Iraq policy. What's wrong with that?

No, they were working backwards from the presumption that Saddam was a threat to regional stability. That's like a scientist who "arranges" the facts around his hypothesis. It is at best shoddy work and more likely an out and out lie.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:48 pm

You're eally playing fast and loose with history here. Bush didn't come into office determined to attack Iraq. All of those ideas came post-9/11, when CIA intel (now determined to be incorrect) said that Saddam had WMDs and would likely use them and/or give them to terrorists to use if the chance arose. It was also known that he allowed terrorists to train in his country and was financially sponsoring terrorism in Israel.

It wasn't "Fuck it, let's invade those towelheads! Who's in?! Oooh-aauuggh!!!!", like so many of you like to paint.

They came to the conclusion that invading Iraq and ousting Saddam was the best way to go. They then took the intel they had and used it to support that conclusion. Let's think that one over again, more slowly this time: They used information to come to a conclusion and then used that information to support the conclusion. Pretty much how things have worked since governments first came up with the concept of "foreign policy."

Seriously, anyone who thinks Bush lied to purposely take us to war is nothing short of a fucking retard. Seen his approval ratings recently? Yeah, there's a path someone purposely takes themselves down. Fucking idiots.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:26 pm

I thought I read somewhere that saddam was a Bush topic of conversation re: taking him out before 9-11. It was a while ago, so I'd have to do some looking around to prove it.

Oh yeah. Google:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/ ... 2330.shtml

from the article wrote: And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:55 pm

Not to BSmack your link, but it does come from CBSnews, does concern the recently-fired and quite disgruntled Treasury Secretary's recollections (no paper whatsoever), and no other single person has come forward to back this up, disgruntled or otherwise.

It's compelling, if true, but I'd like to see at least one other person corroborate that story before I'd give it any creedence. There's plenty of people no longer in Bush's cabinet that could back up O'Neill's story and none have done so.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:02 pm

Variable wrote:They came to the conclusion that invading Iraq and ousting Saddam was the best way to go. They then took the intel they had and used it to support that conclusion.

You see, that's not how it is supposed to be done. First you get the information, THEN you draw the conclusion.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:15 pm

V,

No one loyal to Bush would dare say a word. You know how the "20 year rule" works. They can't do much to you if you talk about it 20 years later. We may not hear anymore about this for a while.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:21 pm

How about George Tenet? He was fully broken off by Bush and might as well have been blamed for the whole mess.

C'mon, there's plenty of people out there that could come forward to support some or all of this dude's allegations.

See You Next Wednesday · Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:25 pm

Variable wrote:How about George Tenet? He was fully broken off by Bush and might as well have been blamed for the whole mess.

If by "fully broken off" you mean"awarded the Medal of Freedom" then I agree.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:26 pm

Variable wrote:How about George Tenet? He was fully broken off by Bush and might as well have been blamed for the whole mess.

C'mon, there's plenty of people out there that could come forward to support some or all of this dude's allegations.

And we all wondered why Tenet was given the Medal of Freedom. I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with keeping him happy after having to take one for the team re: Iraq. No, not at all.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:18 pm

And we all wondered why Tenet was given the Medal of Freedom. I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with keeping him happy after having to take one for the team re: Iraq. No, not at all.

Would that make YOU happy? I thought that was more for the benefit of the media than anything else, as if to say, "See, it wasn't his fault...look a this spiffy medal he's getting!"

Regardless, if you don't like Tenet, pick your own. There are plenty of disgruntled former Bushies, including C. Powell, who is at the very least only partially gruntled.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:29 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:I thought I read somewhere that saddam was a Bush topic of conversation re: taking him out before 9-11. It was a while ago, so I'd have to do some looking around to prove it.

What'd you have to look around for?

It was quite common knowledge that the official US policy re: Iraq was regime change since 1998, dumbshit.

Yeah, so I suppose the administration might have been talking about it pre-9/11.

Kinda undermines that theory that Bush tried to tie Hussein to 9/11....

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:36 pm

There goes this thread.....

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:38 pm

Kinda undermines that theory that Bush tried to tie Hussein to 9/11

I do recall him making an indirect reference. Something along the lines of "terrorists blew up the WTC and Hussein supports terrorism and some dude met Mohammed Atta in Czechoslovakia, therefore we believe he may have at least had knowledge of it." It was shot down by the press because it was so sketchy, but that was the gist of it. Beyond that, I don't think Bush tried to make a 9/11 connection.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:21 pm

Bushice, I merely pointed out a fact. Do facts confuse you? Do facts anger you?

Yeah, the "press" show down Bush's 9/11-Hussein theory... :roll:

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:38 pm

Yeah, the "press" show down Bush's 9/11-Hussein theory

Facts don't confuse me, but that sentence fragment does. :D Do you want to refute something that I posted, or are you good with the rolleyes gimmick.

Oh, and you forgot to call either Bushice or me an idiot. You're slipping, dude.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:19 pm

Variable wrote:
Kinda undermines that theory that Bush tried to tie Hussein to 9/11
I do recall him making an indirect reference. Something along the lines of "terrorists blew up the WTC and Hussein supports terrorism and some dude met Mohammed Atta in Czechoslovakia, therefore we believe he may have at least had knowledge of it." It was shot down by the press because it was so sketchy, but that was the gist of it. Beyond that, I don't think Bush tried to make a 9/11 connection.

In a court of law, that tactic would be known as "leading the witless".

At Large · Post by **At Large** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:07 am

From the second Bush/Gore debate:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

"MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?

GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do."

That settles it. He had no ideas about Iraq. None whatsoever...
:wink:

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:39 am

Variable wrote:
Yeah, the "press" show down Bush's 9/11-Hussein theory
Facts don't confuse me, but that sentence fragment does. :D Do you want to refute something that I posted, or are you good with the rolleyes gimmick.

Oh, and you forgot to call either Bushice or me an idiot. You're slipping, dude.

I was doubting that the press shot down the Hussein/9-11 link.

Why do I doubt it? Because no such link was made by the administration.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:22 pm

Variable wrote:SYNW, you do know that "fixed" in British slang means "arranged," right? That memo is saying that the intelligence and facts were being arranged around the policy. In other words, they aren't claiming that anything was doctored, but that they were using facts and info to support their Iraq policy. What's wrong with that?

Just stopping by to mention that this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on these boards.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:46 pm

Just stopping by to mention that this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on these boards.

Just stopping by to mention that I'm going to put you down in the "not a fan" column. Oh, and as long as SG, shutyomouth and Team Nutsack are around, I don't have to worry about wearing the "dumbest" crown any time soon.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Maybe it will help if I do the old "typing slowly" deal --

Moron somehow twisted "That memo is saying that the intelligence and facts were being arranged around the policy."

Into --

"In other words, they aren't claiming that anything was doctored, but that they were using facts and info to support their Iraq policy."

I wasn't making political commentary either way. I was merely pointing out the supreme stupidity it took to somehow turn "they were 'arranging' the facts to suit the policy" into "in Britspeak, they're trying to say that they're making the policy around the facts."

Huh?

Retard sayswhat?

No, dude..."fixed" in British slang doesn't mean "I really meant the opposite of what I typed." Really, it doesn't. I promise.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:51 pm

No, dude..."fixed" in British slang doesn't mean "I really meant the opposite of what I typed." Really, it doesn't. I promise.

Really? What does "3rd person's interpretation of side comments made after meetings they weren't privy to" translate into in British slang?

In Democrat-speak, it clearly means "impeachment worthy." Looking forward to you slags and your party "elite" embarassing yourself further on that front in the near future.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:00 pm

Variable wrote: Really? What does "3rd person's interpretation of side comments made after meetings they weren't privy to" translate into in British slang?

OK....what part of "I wasn't making political commentary either way" didn't you understand?

The debate could be about what you had for breakfast. It doesn't matter. The point I was making was the hilarity of you informing us that in British slang, "fixed" obviously means "the opposite of what I said."

"They're fixing facts around policy" becomes "they're fixing policy around the facts" in your deluded world.

How the fuck did you even twist that around 180 degrees?

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:20 pm

I already said it quite clearly, but let me dumb it down for you:

They used the facts (which were later found to be largely wrong) to form a policy and then used certain facts to support the policy.

Is that really so hard to understand?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:29 pm

Variable wrote:They formed a policy and then used certain facts to support the policy.

FTFY

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:31 pm

What part of "the policy was adopted in 1998" don't you dipshits understand?

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:51 pm

The left and their conspiracy theories are nothing short of hilarious. I guess Halliburton built the pyramids with no competitive bidding, right? I'm sure that's next.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:02 pm

DrDetroit wrote:What part of "the policy was adopted in 1998" don't you dipshits understand?

Maybe Bush could have realized the policy didn't match the facts?

Nah, that would be asking too much for a Yale Legacy.

See You Next Wednesday · Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:04 pm

Variable wrote:The left and their conspiracy theories are nothing short of hilarious. I guess Halliburton built the pyramids with no competitive bidding, right? I'm sure that's next.

I agree, Bush is too dumb to be involved in any conspiracy.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:11 pm

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:What part of "the policy was adopted in 1998" don't you dipshits understand?
Maybe Bush could have realized the policy didn't match the facts?

Nah, that would be asking too much for a Yale Legacy.

What "facts?"

I seem to recall that the former administration also agreed that Hussein possessed wmd's, supported terrorism, and was in violation of years of UN resolutions...

If only the lefties could fight all wars from hindsight, eh??

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:12 pm

See You Next Wednesday wrote:
Variable wrote:The left and their conspiracy theories are nothing short of hilarious. I guess Halliburton built the pyramids with no competitive bidding, right? I'm sure that's next.
I agree, Bush is too dumb to be involved in any conspiracy.

Interesting given that the left's argument is that Bush knew what theentire US intelligence community did not and what Britain, France, Russia, and Germany also did not know...

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:13 pm

DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:What part of "the policy was adopted in 1998" don't you dipshits understand?
Maybe Bush could have realized the policy didn't match the facts?

Nah, that would be asking too much for a Yale Legacy.
What "facts?"

I seem to recall that the former administration also agreed that Hussein possessed wmd's, supported terrorism, and was in violation of years of UN resolutions...

If only the lefties could fight all wars from hindsight, eh??

Why do you presume that since Clinton did it, that liberals must agree with it?

Were you alive in the 90s? Don't you remember the most common liberal complaint re: Clinton was that he was TOO REPUBLICAN???

Christ man, is that the best you can say for your guy? That Clinton did it too?

Fuckin ponderous.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:16 pm

Uh, the entire Democratic Party agreed with the policy...right up until Bush actually did something about it.

And no, I am not excusing Bush for anything by claiming that Clinton did it, too, idiot.

Why are you forced now to mischaracterize my posts? Need I re-quote you so you can follow along?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:24 pm

DrDetroit wrote:Uh, the entire Democratic Party agreed with the policy...right up until Bush actually did something about it.

No, the entire Democratic party DID NOT agree with regime change. Not even by a longshot. Unfortunately, there were many who saw the Desert Storm War as instructive and voted for the war in spite of their personal principles in fear of being pilloried by fuckstains like yourself.

And no, I am not excusing Bush for anything by claiming that Clinton did it, too.

Yes you were. When asked why Bush could not reconcile facts to policy, you responded with...

Detard wrote:What "facts?"

I seem to recall that the former administration also agreed that Hussein possessed wmd's, supported terrorism, and was in violation of years of UN resolutions...

I guess facts aren't needed when you're following in Clinton's footsteps?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:29 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Christ man, is that the best you can say for your guy? That Clinton did it too?

What it does is negate your moronic conspiracy theory that Dubya "knew" Saddam had no WMD.

I never said that Bush "knew" anything. I am also willing to accept that he and his cronies were too incompetent to properly assess the situation. As an example of said incompetence, let's review the some other Administration follies.

Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03:

[M]y belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly. . . (in) weeks rather than months

Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03:

It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

Former Budget Director Mitch Daniels, 3/28/03:

The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid…

And let us not forget Colin Powell...

REMEMBER THESE???

They fucking said they KNEW where the WMDs were.

And still we find none.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:35 pm

B, Bush was not obligated to reconicle facts to the policy.

The policy existed long before he took office.

Are you having difficulty understanding the significance of that?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:48 pm

Variable wrote:
They used the facts (which were later found to be largely wrong) to form a policy and then used certain facts to support the policy.

Is that really so hard to understand?

OK, last try.

From YOUR article --

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Back to my question....how in THE FUCK did you get "fixed means that you switch the places of words in a sentence in British slang" ?

THAT was the question, you blithering fucking idiot. Not "what was the policy" not "were certain facts used to support the policy"....the question was "HOW IN THE FUCK DID YOU WARP THE BRITISH SLANG 'FIXED' INTO MEANING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS SAID??????"

That clear it up for you?

Dude said that "facts were being fixed to support a policy." You said that since he used the British slang(:hugefuckingrolleyes:-btw) "fixed" that it suddenly means he was trying to say "the facts supported the policy."

THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID!

I was just trying to figure out which elementary school class you failed to be able to pull THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN out of that?

Comprende?