Iraq Revelations + MLP
Published by Warrior Tang May 25th, 2005 in WorldHow’s this for a headline:
Brits in 2002: Bush Lying About Iraq Intel
Doesn’t that make an attractive headline? Wouldn’t it sell papers?
Above all, don’t you think it’s a pretty big news story?
Here’s
a British memo from 2002 stating that “intelligence and facts were being
fixed around the policy” of invading Iraq. This isn’t the yet
more proof of Bush lying that some bloggers are claiming it to be,
just the report of a British diplomat that he was. However, it’s pretty
clear now that the Blair administration was lying given that David Manning
and all the CCs on that list were aware that “Saddam was not threatening
his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya,
North Korea or Iran.”
An equally big news story is the stunning lack of attention
given this by the media, which took more than a week to decide to
give the chatter about it back-page mention.
The Washington
Post says they were too busy covering the UK election to notice the importance
of the memo, while
the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution refused to publish it because “it’s not news that Bush
lead us to war based on lies”. Congressman Conyers has gone to the point
of putting out
a press release
calling for Bush to be prosecuted for war crimes.
In response, St. Louis Post
Dispatch wryly slams the whole media, itself included.
To make this more interesting, this was the second
big memo leaked in the span of two weeks to be totally ignored by
the US media.
The first
leaked memo is from Britain’s Attorney General Lord Goldsmith considering
and finally accepting Bush’s argument that Resolution 1441 authorizes
an invasion of Iraq, but adding that since no one else believes it does,
Britain should seek a new resolution explicitly authorizing force.
Goldsmith soon made
a more
explicit declaration fully endorsing the Bush line that
the UN Security Council had already authorized his invasion.
The theory is that
Resolution 678, authorizing the UN to use any force to implement
Resolution 660
for the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, can be “revived” to authorize
the full conquest of Iraq even with Kuwait no longer under threat, and that
Resolution 1441 had performed this revival. However, it’s clear from
paragraph 12 of the resolution that it only authorizes a meeting
to make the final decision as to what “serious consequences” Iraq will face
for violating it. This meeting was called
and in the process of heavy lobbying for votes when the US suddenly
dropped it and just invaded anyway, as it became apparent that they could not
garner the votes in the Security Council to authorize an invasion of Iraq.
A lot of people like to pretend that there was never a need for a second
resolution, but the US considered it serious enough back then to
pass out bribes for it and
tap
the phone lines of other Security Council representatives.
Other Iraq war news: $8.8 billion went missing in Iraq.
That’s a lot less than I suspect has been embezzled, but this is only
those monies lost after being earmarked for transfer to the new Iraqi
government.
Al Franken notes that members of the Senate Foreign
Affairs Committee were not aware of this!
In related news,
Body and Soul claims that the Bush Administration has designed the
Iraq war finance system
to allow embezzlement without the possiblity of prosecution.
Also:
George Galloway, the British Member of Parliament
expelled from the Labour Party for opposing the war
and accused of taking bribes from Iraq,
blasted the US congress when called to testify on the oil-for-food
scandal. It was apparently such powerful testimony that
the Senate
censored his remarks from their website. I hope that Galloway
is innocent because there need to be stronger voices against the madness
in DC, and he is the first person to speak the truth about the Iraq
war on the floor of the Senate. However, his “I have never seen a barrel
of oil” remark and noting that nobody has ever paid him in money, to my
ears, is the same kind of evasiveness that Bush uses all the time to mean
one thing and be able to later say he wasn’t lying when the opposite turns
out to be true. It also brings to mind “need some wood?”
Speaking of powerful speeches, Howard Dean tries to meet
the press head-on
and, in the midst of a number of effective attacks on
the Republicans in Congress,
chokes badly by denying (twice!) that “that Osama bin Laden had something
to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States.”
It’s obvious from the context that he meant Saddam Hussein since
he was referring to the leader of Iraq, but there’s no excuse for
getting the two mixed up. I’m surprised Tim Russert didn’t jump
on him for that, but that line’s probably going to put a cap on
Dean’s political career.
The US military’s tactic of letting soldiers shoot everything in sight
is not helping towards peace in Iraq. Of course, we all know that
if you’re not actively encouraging neutral parties to join the enemy
and blow up our soldiers, you’re supporting the enemy.
Another interesting story: a reporter traveling with Marines brings back stories of war crimes and other bad news. Snippets and quips:
So here we have theft (unless they paid for the pillows), destruction of property, and torture. Not good towards endearding a population to your cause.
This practice was considered so offensive to the Founding Fathers that they outlawed it in the Third Amendment.
It’s a good thing that, in this case, the commanders told the troops to hold off. However, somebody had already fired on someone who was not confirmed hostile, which used to be a big no-no before 2003. To the point of ridiculousness, troops in Afghanistan reported seeing known hostiles maneuvering and transporting arms in plain sight but not being allowed to even arrest them due to the rules of engagement. In Iraq, there seems to be less disciple about it.
That is not good to hear.
Several soldiers were lost to mines on this campaign, and not a single terrorist or rebel was caught. Tough luck like this is apt to demoralize men quickly and leave them capable of doing the kinds of things noted above, things that can turn otherwise neutral-minded civilians against the occupation.
Repeating my standard disclaimer: I’m not a real Warrior, I just play one on the Internet (my gamer handle predates my blogging). However, I am aware that actions have consequences and it is a duty of soldiers to have the discipline to prevent a tactical non-victory from becoming a strategic failure through their own anger or exasperation.