Interesting memorial day editorial

[grimm]

Editorial: Memorial Day/Praise bravery, seek forgiveness


May 30, 2005 ED0530




Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.

In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.

The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.

At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "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 (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. 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."

It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were right. Both have been pilloried for writing that by summer 2002 Bush had already decided to invade.

Walter Pincus, writing in the Washington Post on May 22, provides further evidence that the administration did, indeed, fix the intelligence on Iraq to fit a policy it had already embraced: invasion and regime change. Just four days before Bush's State of the Union address in January 2003, Pincus writes, the National Security Council staff "put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims" about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. The call went out because the NSC staff believed the case was weak. Moreover, Pincus says, "as the war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs." But no one at high ranks in the administration would listen to them.

On the day before Bush's speech, the CIA's Berlin station chief warned that the source for some of what Bush would say was untrustworthy. Bush said it anyway. He based part of his most important annual speech to the American people on a single, dubious, unnamed source. The source was later found to have fabricated his information.

Also comes word, from the May 19 New York Times, that senior U.S. military leaders are not encouraged about prospects in Iraq. Yes, they think the United States can prevail, but as one said, it may take "many years."

As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious.

[Nickatilynx]

Excellent essay.

History will cruicify Bush.

And frankly the American people should return to there roots.

The people do not "support" the President , the President carries out the will of the people.

The President knowingly misled the people.

People saying " I disagree with the war , but feel I must support the President in this time of war" ....WHAT!?!?!?!?!!?

[JoesHO]

The middle east is more unstable now, and Americans hated more than at any time in history.

and what is worst is that we are paying for all of it

The destruction, the mismanagement and corruption, and the so called restructuring .

[grimm]

Bush is a very unpopular president. but history will judge whether the middle east actions will be for the betterment of the world. right now all indications are headed in a better direction than they have been in my lifetime, although other factors (such as the lack of yassir arafat) have had as much if not more of an impact on the region than US presence.

[Nickatilynx]

I truly believe the Gulf is less of a threat to world peace than Korea.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by grimm@May 30 2005, 03:23 PM
Bush is a very unpopular president. but history will judge whether the middle east actions will be for the betterment of the world. right now all indications are headed in a better direction than they have been in my lifetime, although other factors (such as the lack of yassir arafat) have had as much if not more of an impact on the region than US presence.

I was really optomistic about the Balkans after the fall of communism, too - and it seemed to work for a couple of years.

I had a terrible sense of deja vu today watching CNN, seeing generals heaping praise on the Iraqi forces going into action today in Operation Whateverthefuck.

We have all been here before ...

[grimm]

Quote:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+May 30 2005, 07:13 PM-->

Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Display Modes

Linear Mode

Switch to Hybrid Mode

Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main Board Rebooted The Business Of Porn - Closed For Posting     Legacy Archived Main Board     Vesuvio

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:54 PM..