Saturday, June 18, 2005
That's nice... Kinda...
The Wabash Plain Dealer Online
The AP has released a story on the Downing Street memos. This link was pulled at random from a paper in Wabash Indiana, but there are about a hundred more that are carrying the story.
This is great on the surface, this story sorely needs attention if anything will come of it, but i find myself slightly disappointed by the lack of one particular phrase:
"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."
This is the heart of the matter so far as i am concerned. This should be the focus of the memos. Yes, the other memos offer some really great lines themselves, like:
"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing,"
"For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."
"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."
"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 neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
But, I would like to see a little more focus on what we, 'the focus group', knew was going on in the lead up to the war:
"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."
I just like the sound of it. Lets read it again:
"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."
Keeps getting better, doesn't it?
Now, something for you folks in the congress who don't think this important enough to allow an inquiry, or even a conference room for this issue to be discussed (*cough*sensenbrenner*cough*):
On an scale of 1 to 10 of evil (impeachable) deeds, which of the following acts ranks higher?
1. Lying to the American people and a special prosecutor about one's sexual activities to prevent your wife from finding out that you cheated on her.
or
2. Lying to the American people, Congress, and the world community in order to facilitate an invasion of another country which lead to the deaths of over 1700 American soldiers and 100,000 civilians for reasons of either financial gain or personal vendetta.
To put it simply, is oral sex a worse offence than, oh lets say... Abuse Of Power for the reasons of money and revenge? Really. I'm asking here. Give me an answer here Mr. Sensenbrenner.
I think I've put up with a lot in the past few years, and if i don't deserve answers on items like elections fraud, government funded propaganda, manipulation of the press, decimation of the US economy in favor of the rich, the pro-business stance on the environment, and a total disregard for the best interests of the American people, i will have to stand strong in my support for answers in this matter. 1700 families now have to live without their sons and daughters, and thousands more are seeing their children, their brother, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers come home traumatized or seriously injured by a war that wasn't called for by any reasonable circumstance.
I think answers in this regard are not unwarrented.
In closing, let me be one of the first to say: Conyers '08
Have a good weekend everyone.
tomkitty
The AP has released a story on the Downing Street memos. This link was pulled at random from a paper in Wabash Indiana, but there are about a hundred more that are carrying the story.
This is great on the surface, this story sorely needs attention if anything will come of it, but i find myself slightly disappointed by the lack of one particular phrase:
"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."
This is the heart of the matter so far as i am concerned. This should be the focus of the memos. Yes, the other memos offer some really great lines themselves, like:
"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing,"
"For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."
"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."
"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 neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
But, I would like to see a little more focus on what we, 'the focus group', knew was going on in the lead up to the war:
"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."
I just like the sound of it. Lets read it again:
"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."
Keeps getting better, doesn't it?
Now, something for you folks in the congress who don't think this important enough to allow an inquiry, or even a conference room for this issue to be discussed (*cough*sensenbrenner*cough*):
On an scale of 1 to 10 of evil (impeachable) deeds, which of the following acts ranks higher?
1. Lying to the American people and a special prosecutor about one's sexual activities to prevent your wife from finding out that you cheated on her.
or
2. Lying to the American people, Congress, and the world community in order to facilitate an invasion of another country which lead to the deaths of over 1700 American soldiers and 100,000 civilians for reasons of either financial gain or personal vendetta.
To put it simply, is oral sex a worse offence than, oh lets say... Abuse Of Power for the reasons of money and revenge? Really. I'm asking here. Give me an answer here Mr. Sensenbrenner.
I think I've put up with a lot in the past few years, and if i don't deserve answers on items like elections fraud, government funded propaganda, manipulation of the press, decimation of the US economy in favor of the rich, the pro-business stance on the environment, and a total disregard for the best interests of the American people, i will have to stand strong in my support for answers in this matter. 1700 families now have to live without their sons and daughters, and thousands more are seeing their children, their brother, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers come home traumatized or seriously injured by a war that wasn't called for by any reasonable circumstance.
I think answers in this regard are not unwarrented.
In closing, let me be one of the first to say: Conyers '08
Have a good weekend everyone.
tomkitty
