The US invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, following ultimatums sent to Saddam Hussein the previous Fall.
Recent memos uncovered in Britain show, however, that Bush was intent on invasion as early as July 20, 2002. Furthermore, his decision was not grounded on fact-based analysis; rather analysis was molded to fit a pre-determined outcome:
“C 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.”
Emphasis added. There were experts in post-conflict operations. They were not consulted. There were those who tried to give honest appraisals. They were shunted aside. There were those who were candid about the war’s eventual cost. They were fired. [1] There were those who made their views known to the press. They were smeared: in one case personal attacks were judged insufficient: no, the Bush admin had to go after family members. [2] Nothing would stop the rush to war.
---- I am just having trouble registering my feelings of disgust and distrust in a way that doesn’t sound whiny or paranoid.
Ok, but I’m wary of the sort of false balance practiced by the press: to wit, if one side is guilty of some sin, then of course the other side is as well.
To be explicit, at the National level, the Republican party has shamed itself. I would argue, though, that this is not the case at the state and local level.
It’s not that there are no decent Republicans; rather I maintain that the decent ones in Washington have been sidelined.
It should be added that this memo is just another brick in the wall. It just provides another piece of confirmation of what was clear to some from the start, and should be clear to everyone by now.
Lemme get this straight.
1-Newsweek fucks up on a story by relying on a single anonymous government official.
2-A bunch of idiots* riot in several countries, leading to a few dozen deaths.
3-Newsweek retracts article, hopefully realizing that just because relying on anonymous gov’t officials for stories is status quo, it is incredibly stupid.
4-Bush administration demands Newsweek launch world-wide apology campaign to explain retraction, U.S. separation of press and gov’t, etc…
Sound right? Okay then. Here’s my question.
Where’s the apology from the Bush administration for launching a war that’s killed tens of thousands of people based on information so obviously shoddy that anyone who saw Colin Powell’s presentation to the U.N. knew it was fake?
Fuck.
[sub]*idiot referring to people who riot based on one story in a newsmagazine most of them have probably never read, not to anyone practicing any particular religion[/sub]
Muad’Dib, since this thread has a fair amount to do with the current administration, Bush being brought into this thread is inevitable. Don’t be stupid.
As for why this story was published, there isn’t really a test for “newsworthiness.” This was a news story so they ran it. They checked with military officials who did not deny it. And back on page 2, Squinkposts links that show the whole thing is old news.
This story is really just two far right movements firing up their outrage-craving footsoldiers over the same incident.
“They desecrated the Koran. We must riot!”
“The liberal media is attacking Bush! We must drool over our keyboards in outrage (and try to shift some blame for this shitstorm away from our beloved leader)!”
Well, I take back what I just wrote. Apparently this is only one extreme right group firing up the outrage machine for some pseudo-indignation. From Talking Points Memo, a snippet from the New York Times, noting that previously, the administration was saying that the protests were NOT related to the magazine.
My only question: Is this Rove finding his stride and the righties falling in unthinking lockstep again, or will this be responded to more appropriately by the media this time?
Well, if the illiteracy rate is that high, there probably aren’t many books around. And when you only know (of, as in having it read to you) one book, it means a lot more to you.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
-Ok, but I’m wary of the sort of false balance practiced by the press: to wit, if one side is guilty of some sin, then of course the other side is as well.QUOTE]
There is no balance at all. It’s all artificial and fake. It’s an insult to intelligent people.