The Smoking Gun Memo, the Pretext for War and the "Liberal Press"

[player24]

Very amusing. The vast right wing conspiracy at work... I gotta give you guys credit for imagination. It usually takes at least a generation for the history revisionists to distort the facts - you guys are fast.

[Chris Alger]

There's no conspiracy, it's the way the system works. Foreign policy emanates from the top down and relies on propaganda dominated by oversimplification and idealistic rhetoric, what Authrur Scheslinger once called "high-falutin' corn." Drastic foreign policy requires drastic propaganda. The mainstream media isn't in the subversion business and therefore tends to circulate propaganda at face value, with little comment or correction. This is common sense more than anything else. To say that misleading propaganda by the government can only be explained by conspiracy is like saying misleading advertising by business can only be explained by conspiracy. The chief difference is that the state is the seller, and has to rely on political modalities instead of those used to sell products and services.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
The numerous US papers and democrats have been screaming for years that bush lied

[/ QUOTE ]
That's quite an exaggeration. You actually have to dig to find any mainstream source that has ever reported as a likely fact that "Bush lied" in connection with the Iraqi threat. And in every single case, the MSM devoted far more space to reporting and circulating Bush's lies than the fact of his making them.

[jaxmike]

All I am going to say about this memo is whoever wrote it cannot use the English language properly. The "damning" sentence begins with the word "But" however, "But" is not used in the proper context. It just seems a bit fishy to me. I think Chris Alger could have written a better memo.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
searching the sites US and UK intelligence had indicated were WMD storage sites, reporting back to the UN on their progress, asking to be allowed to finish their job, and pointing out that there was no real evidence that Iraq possessed any WMD.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember at the time as the inspection process went on, as they got all the access and checked out everywhere that BushCo said there were weapons, the more it seemed clear there was nothing. As it became more and more clear that there was nothing... Bush beat the drums louder and louder. Then he lied, when he said he would only go to war with the vote of the UN Council. Of course, the UN saw that there didn't seem to anything there.

I think Bush knew that the longer war was delayed, the more obvious it was that he was full of dung, that there was no real threat, so he had to act quickly.

And then when the invasion was over... a year later and no dangerous caches were found. During that time we say the Orwellian change of WHY we were there.

Odder, was its effectiveness with the more mentally challenged of the neocon base. Who like parrots, just went along with whatever new reason offered for why we were there.

[kurto]

Good job, Detective. Everyone knows that a memo cannot ever have grammar mistakes.

At my work, when I receive a memo from a VP that has a mistake, I usually just throw it away. I tell myself it can't be real, its too fishy, because they misused a word.

Good catch, Jax. No one's getting anything past you.

[andyfox]

"It usually takes at least a generation for the history revisionists to distort the facts"

Example, please?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
It usually takes at least a generation for the history revisionists to distort the facts

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ironic coming from one who seems to support Bush.

It didn't take more then a few months for the war to protect the war from WOMD to transform into a war for Democracy (or whatever the latest new reason for us being there is.)

[player24]

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/156377.php

[player24]

Here is a copy of one of my posts from a while back (below). Notice that I suggest that the Bush administration made a mistake and should fess up. You (and others) might view the "mistake" as a grand conspiracy by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc... I choose to disagree with you. And I believe the "backup" reasoning for the war is a suitable explaination. In the long run, we will all be better off as a result of this war - the Iraqi people will benefit more than the US, however. Enough said...

player24 wrote:
We invaded Iraq because our "intelligence" at the time suggested that Iraq had (or was close to developing) weapons of mass distruction. By failing to fully comply with UN mandates regarding weapons inspections, the Iraqi Government provided circumstantial evidence that our intelligence was correct and that they were in fact hiding something. Given prior hostilities directed at the Kurds, Iran and Kuwait, we believed that we should justified in forcibly requiring Iraq to disarm.

We (the Bush Adminsitration and Congress) made a mistake by accepting faulty intelligence as fact. The President should admit this mistake to the American people and explain that our mission in Iraq has changed to one of liberating the Iraqi people from the oppressions of a ruthless dictator.

I strongly disagree with those who deny that a mistake was made, including those who now suggest that liberation was a material part of our initial reason for waging war and those who ascribe evil motives to those (majority of Americans) who supported the invasion of Iraq as a means of preempting the prospects for a larger, more dangerous conflict.

So, we made an honest mistake and we cannot turn the clock back and correct the mistake. We can, however, rally around the realistic possibility that we can (eventually) improve the quality of life for Iraqi people and set a standard for democratic reforms throughout the middle east.

History will record the fact that mistakes were made. Hopefully, history will also acknowledge that the ultimate outcome will justify the costs of waging this war. Time will tell...