I have a friend visiting in Britain right now who said that the number one topic of discussion when people discover that he’s American is the Downing Street Memo. He asked me how much noise is it making over here and I said very little, though it has picked up in the last few days.
I think there are a few reasons for this.
One, very few Americans have actually read the memo (that’s why I posted it). Two, we don’t care. Three, we all know George Bush cooked the books on the WMD anyway and we don’t need the memo to prove it. And four, we don’t care.
I have been saying for quite some time that if Iraq had WMD then what happened to them? And if they didn’t have WMD then what happened to us?
I’m not sure what scares me more: The fact that Saddam had WMD and we let them escape Iraq and into the hands of others (which was one of the dangers we were trying to prevent with the invasion); or the fact that Saddam did not have WMD and we invaded a country under false pretences and trumped up accusations. Either way, something went very wrong and both instances signify enormous intelligence failures.
Since both occurrences represent massive intelligence failures-- even Bush has admitted as much-- we should have an independent investigation as to why the American intelligence apparatus failed and to discover what went wrong to make sure that it will never happen again. Just like the 9/11 Commission, we should have a WMD Commission (Does Ken Starr fit in there anywhere?). After all, both 9/11 and WMD were complete intelligence breakdowns (oh yeah Ken Starr was about lying. Wait, so is this.). Instead Bush and the neocon-controlled congress has put off any independent investigation into the WMD and awarded everyone in charge of the American intelligence community with the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor the United States can bestow. How does that make sense?
It’s simple. Bush doesn’t care either. Bush got what he wanted. Since Saddam and his dad are no longer friends, Bush wanted him gone. And that is exactly what we have.
Even with the Memo, it does not change the fact that what was done was done. And, yes, I do think those who lied and pushed this war (Bush, et al.) should be held accountable. Still we can’t leave Iraq now. We have to fix Iraq before we can say Mission Accomplished, again.
On another note, I have been trying to update my site some. I’m horrible at this stuff. I’m trying to get the “Continue Reading” link at the bottom to not show up on every post. Sometimes I want it there and sometimes I don’t. I think for longer posts it helps. But for short ones, I don’t want it there. I can’t figure out how to make it work that way. If anyone has any idea how to make that happen, please let me know. I appreciate any advice.
Finally, in case you haven’t heard (yeah right!) Michael Jackson has been found not guilty. Okay Michael, a court of law has found you not guilty, the least you could do now is quit sharing your bed with little boys. That would probably help you in the future.
6.13.2005
We Don't Care
Posted by Chris at 9:43 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
theres more than one memo:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
under 'Key Documents'
"The WMD danger was of course key to the public case against Saddam, particularly the potential linkage to terrorism."
Hook, line and sinker.
On the larger point concerning the massive intelligence matter, I could not agree more. Whether our president lied to us, those under him lied to him, or those charged with interpreting intelligence information misinterpreted the facts is besides the point. The damage is done.
If the president lied, as some on this site are suggesting, he reminded the voting public that we can never take their words at face value. His ability to lead us into pre-emptive wars, and the ability of those who will follow him, are now seriously undermined, and we in general will insist upon the right to see the photos before we go to war.
This may be a good thing if you oppose pre-emptive warfare and believe we should not enter pointless wars or bad if it forces us to strike at a point when it may be the least effective or too late to do anything.
If in fact the president had not lied to us and if his advisors did not in turn lie to him and we find out that we went to war based upon a colassal failure intelligence, the damage would be the same. The voting public's confidence would (and should) be undermined no less.
The public may pity him more and hate him less if it believed he was ignorant and not a liar, but it would not as a whole trust him to lead us into the right path toward battle and avoid the troubling detours along the way.
Remember that folk tale our parents told us when we were young? that one about the boy that cried wolf and continued to do so until no one paid attention to him because his cries were no longer believable?
What would the investigation MJ would have us call for do? The public version would be used by the partisans within the respective intelligence agencies, the president, and the opposition party to point their fingers for political gain.
MJ says our president must be held accountable, or in the alternative, he suggests that we find out who is at fault for thsi massive failure in intelligence but in fact we don't need an investigation to do so. We don't need an investigation to tell us that our president has failed us by risking the very credibility of the presidency and pre-emptive doctrine on erronious if not fake intelligence and whether he did so intentionally or out of ignorance is of now consequence.
On the larger point concerning the massive intelligence matter, I could not agree more. Whether our president lied to us, those under him lied to him, or those charged with interpreting intelligence information misinterpreted the facts is besides the point. The damage is done.
If the president lied, as some on this site are suggesting, he reminded the voting public that we can never take their words at face value. His ability to lead us into pre-emptive wars, and the ability of those who will follow him, are now seriously undermined, and we in general will insist upon the right to see the photos before we go to war.
This may be a good thing if you oppose pre-emptive warfare and believe we should not enter pointless wars or bad if it forces us to strike at a point when it may be the least effective or too late to do anything.
If in fact the president had not lied to us and if his advisors did not in turn lie to him and we find out that we went to war based upon a colassal failure intelligence, the damage would be the same. The voting public's confidence would (and should) be undermined no less.
The public may pity him more and hate him less if it believed he was ignorant and not a liar, but it would not as a whole trust him to lead us into the right path toward battle and avoid the troubling detours along the way.
Remember that folk tale our parents told us when we were young? that one about the boy that cried wolf and continued to do so until no one paid attention to him because his cries were no longer believable?
What would the investigation MJ would have us call for do? The public version would be used by the partisans within the respective intelligence agencies, the president, and the opposition party to point their fingers for political gain.
MJ says our president must be held accountable, or in the alternative, he suggests that we find out who is at fault for thsi massive failure in intelligence but in fact we don't need an investigation to do so. We don't need an investigation to tell us that our president has failed us by risking the very credibility of the presidency and pre-emptive doctrine on erronious if not fake intelligence and whether he did so intentionally or out of ignorance is of no consequence.
Just one more thing.
I say this as one who fully supports our right to take unilateral pre-emptive action and as one who supported the invasion shortly before we went to war.
The memo thing reminds of something I read in Greg Palasts book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." When talking about the 2000 election where in Europe it was reported that there was irrefutable evidence of vote tampering and suppression if FL, I believe Palast asked why something wasn't being done to rectify the situation. THe American he was talking answered, "Because nobody in America cares." If the majority of folks bang the drum loudly enough here it may be the end of Bush, if not it will be just like 2000 reloaded.
And as I stated on my blog, I doubt Wall Street, AIPAC and the Energy Lobby will let their man be taken down.
Dav, thanks for the link. I checked it out.
I don't think we need any more memo's. We just need some accountability.
Though that is a pretty cool site. Thanks for pointing it out.
OK Dem, you know two weeks ago I would have disagreed with you. Today I agree. I think this whole rush to war on trumped up intelligence-- I'm not going to say the memo-- is catching up with Bush. You are right, he has been very quiet lately.
Thanks for reading.
I saw where you have your Clinton post up. I glanced at it last night and got distracted with my wife wanting me to do something else. I am going to read it all today.
Sounds very interesting.
Heretic, I wish I had some more room here, or maybe more time to explain what I think the investigation "would do."
First I agree that the partisans would use it for political gain. To say that we shouldn't do something because it will become partisan would mean that we would have to shut down Capitol Hill completely, because everything there is partisan and used for political gain. It's kind of an oxymoron.
Second, the investigation should find out what went wrong, either with the intelligence community or the administration itself-- or both. Maybe Bush was lied to, and if you remember correctly Clinton said he too thought Iraq had WMD, so maybe Bush is in the clear. But, that's what I think should be found out.
We can't afford to be this wrong again.
I think an investigation is very warranted. During the campaign last year, Bush too said that he would call for an investigation, and since the campaign he has put it off. Bush also said during the campaign that he wanted a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage and he has forgotten about that too.
I think what you are saying is that we already know that Bush failed, or rather that the intelligence was wrong, which I do agree with. To give these people awards like Bush has, is to ignore reality completely. Nothing, not one single person, has any accountability in the Bush administration.
If a mistake is made, then oh well let's give them a bozo button or a cookie and forget about it. I just can't agree with that.
Thanks Heretic for reading and commenting. You might have one of the most analytical minds I have seen on this blog world. Keep it up.
I'm not sure I'm following you Hymer. I actually don't think the memo proves anything, other than Bush wanted Saddam gone, and we all already knew that.
I really don't think any foreign memo is going to prove to any American that their president is a liar. I think we should figure that out on our own, which is why we need the WMD Commission.
Bush's disapproval rating is 56%, someone somewhere doesn't trust what he's doing. That might not make him a liar, but there sure wasn't a lot of truth going around either.
I agree those who oppose Bush do a good job of arriving at "unfounded conclusions," but isn't that what politics is? There are plenty of neocon, nut job, conservative spinmister's as well.
I will also admit that a lot of what I write and post are my own personal opinions, and are usually my own "unfounded conclusions." However, I'm not sure that is any different than what O'Reilly or Fat Limbaugh or millions of other entertainers and bloggers do.
This is a new phenom, where we all are getting a voice. That's democracy at its core.
Thanks for commenting old man :)
It's good to have you around.
It is quite interesting for a recount of events, not exact details. I don't beleive this to be the smoking gun that Liberals are looking for.
This document only shows that the US/UK, not just Bush and Blair, beleived that Saddam had WMD. It only shows that both parties would use military force if warranted, and that an end to compromise was close.
Many beleived that Saddam had WMD, those in the UN Security Council, other nations, the Bush administration, the Blair administration, and even democrats here including Bill Clinton and John Kerry.
Instead of finding ways to prosecute Bush, why don't the Democrats come up with real ideas on how to help the US military defeat the evil that exists in Iraq, promote a US that can disagree but strive to work together.
Post a Comment