Monday, May 02, 2005

Not Impeached Yet, Why...? 

Eschaton and The Washington Monthly both look at a just-released, previously confidential memo concerning the British government's discussions with the US over the start of the Iraq war. Or, more specifically, how it had nothing to do with fighting terra, stopping WMD or any off that booshwah. Here's one particular money shot from this damning document:
The [UK] Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
Date of the memo, 23 July, 2002 -- nearly eight months before the beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

But why isn't this smoking gun being aired in the American media? What clearer statement do they need that the attack on Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terror, little to do with regime change? How many times must we say, "Saddam was no threat, and had no WMDs"? How long must we wait until the impeachment begins?

Blow job. Illegal invasion. Yeah, those are comparable crimes...

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?