Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
"...The Rathergate stuff, those memos are 20 years old written by a dead guy. I forget the name of the commanding officer at Bush's National Guard unit, but he's the guy that supposedly wrote them. These memos, the Downing Street memo, they're current. The people all involved are still alive and they haven't denied any of this and you would think they would if they were not true.."Rush says he simply "isn't interested" in talking about the Downing Street memos. I don't blame him. He could create no spin that would work very well against the citizens who are concerned, especially the moms and dads who've lost kids in Iraq.
"As a citizen, taxpayer and voter, I believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government, representatives and commander in chief when representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war are made.DSM: Amarillo Attorney Publically Demands Investigation
As a result, I have asked Congress to publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible."
- Channy Wood, an attorney in Amarillo, TX
President George Bush led America into war in Iraq certain that weapons of mass destruction would be found and destroyed. That proved to be an illusion. He sent our soldiers into Iraq, far too few of them, under the illusion that it would be a cakewalk – that American troops would be hailed as liberators and soon sent home.
However good it is to be rid of Saddam Hussein, the fact is that our venture into Iraq has become a disaster, sapping America’s blood and treasure with no end in sight. The U.S. will be mired in Iraq for years, perhaps more than a decade. The president prematurely declared victory. The mission is far from accomplished. The occupation has been bungled from the start. For that the president deserves to be held accountable, regardless of the merits of his initial decision to go to war.
Last week, the Defense Department revealed that the insurgent forces are greater than previously estimated. They have heavily infiltrated the Iraqi security forces that the administration is building in hopes of shedding some of the burden of policing Iraq. Worse yet, the guerrilla groups have virtually unlimited financial backing from sympathizers in our nominal ally, Saudi Arabia. America is not safer today because we went into Iraq. The opposite is true. The war against terror will not and cannot be won in Iraq. Terrorism is an amorphous enemy that knows no boundaries.
What we have done by occupying a Muslim country is make our nation and its citizens even greater targets for implacable enemies who have not one shred of respect for innocent human life. We have antagonized the allies whose help we need to successfully fight terror.
The memo created a political row in Britain during the elections. It became a story in the U.S. this month, when Bush and Blair, appearing together at the White House, were asked about it.
The memo seems genuine, but both men say it reveals nothing. Both say they still did everything possible to avert war and did not rig, spin or hide intelligence to justify an invasion.
I’ve read all the memos and, while I think they’re an interesting window into history, I don’t think they tell us anything we didn’t already know: The Bush administration was spoiling for a fight with Iraq (even though they exhausted every bit of U.N. pressure before invading) and they used intelligence regarding WMD (which we now know was flawed) to support the case for war.
Nothing in the Downing Street memos proves the U.S. had determined war was inevitable in July 2002 or that it knew at the time the intelligence was wrong.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude (about Iraq). 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."This statement raises questions and should raise eyebrows, especially after we see the strong prior statement from the News-Tribune. Why is the editor so quick to want to dismiss the official British government information? This isn't only about the decision to go to war, it is about the RUSH to an unprecedented type of (preventive) war for which there was no post-war plan. Americans deserve a follow-up investigation. I'd like Mr. Zeeck to look any of us in the eye, especially parents who've lost sons and daughters in this war, and tell us why we citizens don't deserve a follow-up.
"The public doesn't see any difference between The New York Times and The Pantagraph. We're just all part of that vast media.....A lot of times that pressure may lead to stories, but it's the worst way to pressure journalists. We don't react well to biased people and organizations claiming we're biased."The main point to remember is that Mr. Greenberg's newspaper relies on wire services for national news.
