Michael Moore points out on his site the glaring omission of coverage on a leaked British memo from July 23, 2002 – prior to the Iraq war. The memo details how:
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 NSC had no patience with the UN 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.
I mean, we already know he’s a sonofabitch liar (and moron); it’s just that Americans have also been too thick-headed to see it. Although maybe some folks are finally coming around.
Another interesting piece from the memo:
The 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.
How can this not be on the front page of every paper??! Why do we protect this criminal? Why isn’t Congress calling for his resignation? Boy, I’d love to see that idiot Bush at the Hague on trial for war crimes. If he isn’t guilty of treason, I don’t know who is. Execution is the punishment for treason. How fitting that would be! How many lives (U.S., Iraqi, British, Australian, you name it) has he cost?
trea·son 1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
from Merriam-Webster
Further article on this in the LA Times (registration may be required).
2 comments for “As if there was any doubt…”