Condi, Condi

May 29th, 2008 8:42 am · 1 comment

Right.

“The president was very clear about the reasons for going to war,” she told reporters at a news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Stockholm where she is attending an international conference on Iraq.

Chief among those reasons was the belief, shared widely before the war, that Saddam Hussein had or was developing weapons of mass destruction, Rice recalled, suggesting the international community shouldn’t have backed harsh sanctions against Iraq if it doubted the threat.

But the specific charge in McClellan’s book is that the administration, Rice included, intentionally ignored all evidence that might have proven the “threat” to be as bogus as it turned out to be.

What she’s saying, in other words, is akin to “Otter’s” line in Animal House:

“Hey, you f****d up, you trusted us. Make the best of it.”

And now, thanks to this administration, the international community’s trust in the U.S. is understandably - and rightly - diminished.

Meanwhile, Obama piles on - as well he should:

“The only news is that somebody within the administration has confirmed what a lot of us have thought for some time.”

Condi, et al can spin and spin - but then, McClellan was on “Today” this morning, an insider confirming that all the evil lib’rulz said these past seven years is correct.

He added: “I have a higher loyalty than my loyalty necessary to my past work. That’s a loyalty to the truth.”

Yeah, but that idea isn’t universally shared.

And Middle America is finally getting that message.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  1 comment  Tags: Bush Era · War in Iraq

There is currently 1 comment on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
2fat2ride
5/29/08
9:11 AM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ May 29 2008, 08:45 AM) [snapback]394810[/snapback]


Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.




We really were warned. This is from an article written by Noam Chomsky on September 12, 2001:



QUOTE


In short, the crime [ the 9/11 attacks ] is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more.

Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.


Indeed, we will be hitting Iran sometime soon.

But it has not all been a matter of manipulating the truth. I think we often have selective hearing, even us progressives. Looking back through various interviews in which Cheney was arguing for an invasion of Iraq, he often used the phrase when describing Iraq that they were "geographically important" to terrorist organization and advancement, and therefore critical to the war on terror.

"Geographic Importance"-simply means we want our military to occupy that piece of land for an extended period of time.

He was not vague about this, nor did he lie. He was very, very, specific in his usage of language. We just didn't listen.





View Topic | Comment on this blog