Bullypulpit
Senior Member
<blockquote>Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. - George W. Bush, 9/16/02</blockquote>
These were Dubbyuh's words. Yet with the release of the "Downing Street" memo, it has become apparent that the Bush administration had already committed America to the pursuit of war.
On July 8, 2002, a meeting took place in London. Present were Tony Blair, Geoffrey Hoon, British secretary of defense; Jack Straw, British secretary of state; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general; John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which advises Blair; Sir Richard Dearlove, also known as "C," the head of MI6 ; David Manning, Britain's national security adviser; Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the Defense Staff ; Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Alastair Campbell, director of strategy; and Sally Morgan, director of government relations.
At that meeting was discussed Dearlove's recent trip to Washington and the discussions which were held there. Nearly thre month's before Dubbyuh's October 16th satement, Dearlove had this to say:
<blockquote>C (Dearlove) 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.</blockquote>
Contrary to his later statements, Dubbyuh had decided to go to war to remove Hussein from power. This action was to be justified by linking the concepts of WMD's with terrorism. But this would be a simple task in the US as a majority of Americans mistakenly believed that Hussein was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. The intell was being spun and wrung until it fitted the policy the administration chose to pursue. There was no patience amongst the neo-con chicken-hawks in the administration for allowing the UN to finish inspections and make its final report. And as for what happend after the invasion...well they apparently didn't find that to be an issue worthy of their deliberation.
Looking at events as they are now unfolding in Iraq, we now know that there were no WMD's...Hussein had no part of 9/11...There was no credible evidence of any ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda...And we are reaping the bitter harvest of the Administration's lack of planning for a post-war Iraq. We see an intractable insurgency, which General Richard Meyer's says is undiminished from a year ago.
Since The Big Lie, more than 1600 US military men and women have gone to their deaths, not to mention the civilian contractors that have died. Nearly 15,000 soldiers and marines have been wounded...maimed...crippled for life. And then there are the Iraqi civilian casualties. Conservative estimates place the total at around 10,000, while others place them at over 20,000.
How many more must die for a lie?
Citations:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1354084.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
These were Dubbyuh's words. Yet with the release of the "Downing Street" memo, it has become apparent that the Bush administration had already committed America to the pursuit of war.
On July 8, 2002, a meeting took place in London. Present were Tony Blair, Geoffrey Hoon, British secretary of defense; Jack Straw, British secretary of state; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general; John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which advises Blair; Sir Richard Dearlove, also known as "C," the head of MI6 ; David Manning, Britain's national security adviser; Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the Defense Staff ; Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Alastair Campbell, director of strategy; and Sally Morgan, director of government relations.
At that meeting was discussed Dearlove's recent trip to Washington and the discussions which were held there. Nearly thre month's before Dubbyuh's October 16th satement, Dearlove had this to say:
<blockquote>C (Dearlove) 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.</blockquote>
Contrary to his later statements, Dubbyuh had decided to go to war to remove Hussein from power. This action was to be justified by linking the concepts of WMD's with terrorism. But this would be a simple task in the US as a majority of Americans mistakenly believed that Hussein was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. The intell was being spun and wrung until it fitted the policy the administration chose to pursue. There was no patience amongst the neo-con chicken-hawks in the administration for allowing the UN to finish inspections and make its final report. And as for what happend after the invasion...well they apparently didn't find that to be an issue worthy of their deliberation.
Looking at events as they are now unfolding in Iraq, we now know that there were no WMD's...Hussein had no part of 9/11...There was no credible evidence of any ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda...And we are reaping the bitter harvest of the Administration's lack of planning for a post-war Iraq. We see an intractable insurgency, which General Richard Meyer's says is undiminished from a year ago.
Since The Big Lie, more than 1600 US military men and women have gone to their deaths, not to mention the civilian contractors that have died. Nearly 15,000 soldiers and marines have been wounded...maimed...crippled for life. And then there are the Iraqi civilian casualties. Conservative estimates place the total at around 10,000, while others place them at over 20,000.
How many more must die for a lie?
Citations:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1354084.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
