The Inspection Process was Rigged to Create Uncertainty Over WMD to Bolster the US and UK's Case for War:
"Since the inspection process was pre-programmed to fail, there would be no way the US or the UK would accept any finding of compliance from the UN weapons inspectors. The inspection process was rigged to create uncertainty regarding Iraq's WMD, which was used by the US and the UK to bolster their case for war."
I thought the Bush regeime had smeared Ritter out of existence, but maybe that's just from the big media outlets we're all used to here. Ritter was right before the war. Not about the sex with minors thing, but the wrongness of the war.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Blogging from the Volvo
On the way to Goldsboro, and this is my first attempt at typing in the car. It could be better, but it isa marvel of technology nonetheless.
I'd really like to write an in-depth analysis of the debates, but I fell asleep before the first one ended and Anna Grace kept my attention for a lot of the VP debate. Last night's debate was such a heated affair, with the candidates practically yelling at the small audience. I thought Kerry was more convincing than Bush last night, though he could have made Bush look like more of an idiot with more well-placed jabs. It was the strongest debate I've seen, ever, but still no big line that will stand up like "You're no Jack Kennedy" or "There you go again." Maybe next time....
How anyone could be undecided at this point boggles my mind. Either you've fallen under the Bush/Cheney spell or you still have a grip on reality. Our President mislead us into an unjust war under false pretenses and has not been able to win that war and secure the peace. Do we reject him for the former, or the latter? That's the choice to me.
I'd really like to write an in-depth analysis of the debates, but I fell asleep before the first one ended and Anna Grace kept my attention for a lot of the VP debate. Last night's debate was such a heated affair, with the candidates practically yelling at the small audience. I thought Kerry was more convincing than Bush last night, though he could have made Bush look like more of an idiot with more well-placed jabs. It was the strongest debate I've seen, ever, but still no big line that will stand up like "You're no Jack Kennedy" or "There you go again." Maybe next time....
How anyone could be undecided at this point boggles my mind. Either you've fallen under the Bush/Cheney spell or you still have a grip on reality. Our President mislead us into an unjust war under false pretenses and has not been able to win that war and secure the peace. Do we reject him for the former, or the latter? That's the choice to me.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Monday, October 04, 2004
Friedman's Back
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Iraq: Politics or Policy?:
"Being away has not changed my belief one iota in the importance of producing a decent outcome in Iraq, to help move the Arab-Muslim world off its steady slide toward increased authoritarianism, unemployment, overpopulation, suicidal terrorism and religious obscurantism. But my time off has clarified for me, even more, that this Bush team can't get us there, and may have so messed things up that no one can. Why? Because each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology. More troops or radically lower taxes? Lower taxes. Fire an evangelical Christian U.S. general who smears Islam in a speech while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army or not fire him so as not to anger the Christian right? Don't fire him. Apologize to the U.N. for not finding the W.M.D., and then make the case for why our allies should still join us in Iraq to establish a decent government there? Don't apologize - for anything - because Karl Rove says the 'base' won't like it. Impose a 'Patriot Tax' of 50 cents a gallon on gasoline to help pay for the war, shrink the deficit and reduce the amount of oil we consume so we send less money to Saudi Arabia? Never. Just tell Americans to go on guzzling. Fire the secretary of defense for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, to show the world how seriously we take this outrage - or do nothing? Do nothing. Firing Mr. Rumsfeld might upset conservatives. Listen to the C.I.A.? Only when it can confirm your ideology. When it disagrees - impugn it or ignore it."
Click the link for the full article, you may need a subscription for NYT.
Friedman is calling for a Bush apology....well, I think Friedman and the NYTimes owe us an apology as well, since they pretty much helped Bush pull the wool over our eyes. Despite this, he proves here that he's still one of the best MidEast analysts, and Bush/Kerry et al would be wise to read this column.
"Being away has not changed my belief one iota in the importance of producing a decent outcome in Iraq, to help move the Arab-Muslim world off its steady slide toward increased authoritarianism, unemployment, overpopulation, suicidal terrorism and religious obscurantism. But my time off has clarified for me, even more, that this Bush team can't get us there, and may have so messed things up that no one can. Why? Because each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology. More troops or radically lower taxes? Lower taxes. Fire an evangelical Christian U.S. general who smears Islam in a speech while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army or not fire him so as not to anger the Christian right? Don't fire him. Apologize to the U.N. for not finding the W.M.D., and then make the case for why our allies should still join us in Iraq to establish a decent government there? Don't apologize - for anything - because Karl Rove says the 'base' won't like it. Impose a 'Patriot Tax' of 50 cents a gallon on gasoline to help pay for the war, shrink the deficit and reduce the amount of oil we consume so we send less money to Saudi Arabia? Never. Just tell Americans to go on guzzling. Fire the secretary of defense for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, to show the world how seriously we take this outrage - or do nothing? Do nothing. Firing Mr. Rumsfeld might upset conservatives. Listen to the C.I.A.? Only when it can confirm your ideology. When it disagrees - impugn it or ignore it."
Click the link for the full article, you may need a subscription for NYT.
Friedman is calling for a Bush apology....well, I think Friedman and the NYTimes owe us an apology as well, since they pretty much helped Bush pull the wool over our eyes. Despite this, he proves here that he's still one of the best MidEast analysts, and Bush/Kerry et al would be wise to read this column.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Certainly Wrong
Yes, the intelligence we had before the Iraq invasion was wrong. In hindsight, it is plain to see that the two main reasons for attacking Iraq have been proven false (WMD, link to terrorists/911). There are still good things that can come from the invasion...certainly removing Saddam was a good thing for millions of Iraquis. But for Bush to press that we were right in hindsight....well, that just defies reason. And the other excuses for the invasion are equally if not more dubious:
Enforce the UN Mandate and 15+ resoultions: Well, we did get the inspectors back in there and in hindsight, it is clear they were effective. Also, the strongest resolution called for "serious consequences", and specifically did not include the threat of military force. Sure the UN has a weak backbone and there are times we may need to take the lead, but to say that we exhausted every option with the international community is patently false.
We can create a model democracy in the heart of the MidEast, and like the domino theory, other states will follow their lead. Well, Friedman et al, it ain't workin' out quite like that. No, we've created a new terrorist state inside Iraq. Bush would have you believe this was a good thing...."we're killing them over there instead of them killing us over here". But the good Iraqui people now blame us for the terrorists, and resent our occupation as well. And I don't see how we've really secured our own country, the borders are as porous as ever, we scan only 4% of containers coming in our ports....there is much more we could have done for security at home, things that would actually make us safer in the USA....things that would not have endangered our fine soldiers who have been placed in this terrible quagmire.
But we are where we are. At this point, what are our goals? What is our exit strategy? When 1/3 of the troops decide not to re-enlist in a year, what are we going to do? I don't think there's a chance Germany or France will help us now. Maybe the Russians will help? Putin's got his hands full....
Now that we've reached this point in the war, I must reflect on what has been missing from the whole war plan: The Powell Doctrine. Remember? Overwhelming force for a quick and decisive victory, with a clear plan and exit strategy from the start. Bush listened to the wrong advisors. I think about that...and I think about how this war was going to "pay for itself". Sure, there was bad intelligence, but we were also mislead by Bush/Cheney for political reasons as well.
When you look back at the coalition that his father nurtured, the deadline he set, the UN Resolution, and his decision not to forge on to Bagdad for all the right reasons....George Sr. was a saint compared to W, a true steward of US leadership. By contrast, W has largely ignored the international community on Iraq, placing criticism on them, practically calling them pussies...."you're with us or against us".
Looking back, it is clear that the reasons for going to war were false. The desired results are further from reach each day. Who is best to lead us out of this terrible blunder, the guy who got us into this mess,or the man who fought in a wrong war and came home to get us out of it?
Enforce the UN Mandate and 15+ resoultions: Well, we did get the inspectors back in there and in hindsight, it is clear they were effective. Also, the strongest resolution called for "serious consequences", and specifically did not include the threat of military force. Sure the UN has a weak backbone and there are times we may need to take the lead, but to say that we exhausted every option with the international community is patently false.
We can create a model democracy in the heart of the MidEast, and like the domino theory, other states will follow their lead. Well, Friedman et al, it ain't workin' out quite like that. No, we've created a new terrorist state inside Iraq. Bush would have you believe this was a good thing...."we're killing them over there instead of them killing us over here". But the good Iraqui people now blame us for the terrorists, and resent our occupation as well. And I don't see how we've really secured our own country, the borders are as porous as ever, we scan only 4% of containers coming in our ports....there is much more we could have done for security at home, things that would actually make us safer in the USA....things that would not have endangered our fine soldiers who have been placed in this terrible quagmire.
But we are where we are. At this point, what are our goals? What is our exit strategy? When 1/3 of the troops decide not to re-enlist in a year, what are we going to do? I don't think there's a chance Germany or France will help us now. Maybe the Russians will help? Putin's got his hands full....
Now that we've reached this point in the war, I must reflect on what has been missing from the whole war plan: The Powell Doctrine. Remember? Overwhelming force for a quick and decisive victory, with a clear plan and exit strategy from the start. Bush listened to the wrong advisors. I think about that...and I think about how this war was going to "pay for itself". Sure, there was bad intelligence, but we were also mislead by Bush/Cheney for political reasons as well.
When you look back at the coalition that his father nurtured, the deadline he set, the UN Resolution, and his decision not to forge on to Bagdad for all the right reasons....George Sr. was a saint compared to W, a true steward of US leadership. By contrast, W has largely ignored the international community on Iraq, placing criticism on them, practically calling them pussies...."you're with us or against us".
Looking back, it is clear that the reasons for going to war were false. The desired results are further from reach each day. Who is best to lead us out of this terrible blunder, the guy who got us into this mess,or the man who fought in a wrong war and came home to get us out of it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)