Flat Out Wrong
Follow up from this previous post about the UK memo and the strange absence in American political conversation [since it did, of course, drastically reduce Blair's New Labour victory in the UK]:
Claims in a recently uncovered British memo that intelligence was "being fixed" to support the Iraq war as early as mid-2002 are "flat out wrong," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday.Wrong because we say it was [which is paired with their justification of the existence of WMDs- they're there because we say they are... Evidence itself be damned.]
McClellan insisted the process leading up to the decision to go to war was "very public" -- and that the decision to invade in March 2003 was taken only after Iraq refused to comply with its "international obligations."
"The president of the United States, in a very public way, reached out to people across the world, went to the United Nations and tried to resolve this in a diplomatic manner," McClellan said.
"Saddam Hussein was the one, in the end, who chose continued defiance. And only then was the decision made, as a last resort, to go into Iraq."
posted by General Stan at 11:08 AM
2 Comments:
Yeah, he defiantly continued to not have the WMDs he defiantly said he didn't, despite our public and diplomatic insistence that he did. I guess it doesn't matter, cause it turns out we went to war because they were internationally disobliging. Or at least, that's this week's reason. We'll see what next week brings...
not to harp, but we went to war... scratch that. We invaded Iraq a circular argument of ideology. The Neo-Con agenda was something resemembling an inverse domino theory: that bringing a prominent arab country to democracy would cause others to topple into democracy as well. Side, and buttressing, arguments were that it would also destabalize the growing force of OPEC in a way that would benefit the US oil consumption needs and that it would destabalize a growing international resentment against the United States before it institutionalizes. Those were the "Reasons" we went to war, according to the architects of it.
All these other things are justifications, so you're right: which one will they pull from the hat when the previous one is proven moronically inadequate? Well, i wonder if it even matters. They can walk the circle infinitely. Until somebody [obviously we are not enough] calls them out that the REASON for the war was their IDEOLOGY, and that, in fact, the IDEOLOGY of exporting democracy is the problem, it doesn't really matter.
Wow. I just depressed myself. Amazing.
Post a Comment
<< Home