Thursday, June 09, 2005

Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble

What IS it about George Dubya, Imposter President, that brings my blood to a steady boil? Is it his boyish good looks, with that sly sneer? That damn it I'm right self-assurance? That joie de vivre in the face of absurd accusations about torture, loss of civil rights, murder?

Hard to say, generally speaking; there are so many possibilities. But today, my little arteries are all astir about the Downing Street Memo. Have you read the Downing Street memo? Here are some of my favorite parts of the memo, parts that really give me a great deal of respect for Bush and his Administration's intelligence and (most of all) honesty.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. 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."

Facts were being fixed around the policy. Hey, what's the problem with that? Facts are fungible, aren't they? A tweak here, a twist there. Soon, the facts are, hmmm, not the same facts we started out with. In fact, they become lies. Like a child who desperately wants something, the facts becomes disposable in order to reach the goal. "But mom, everyone's doing it." "Lighten up, Mom. It's no big deal. You're so old-fashioned." Dealing with feelings, rather than facts, is far more persuasive, isn't it? And much harder to refute.

Here's more:

"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."

Shocking, simply shocking. I wonder why we chose to take military action, then. What possible reason could George Dubya, scion on an oil-rich family, would have to want control over Iraq, an oil-rich country? It boggles the mind, the motives of these politicians.

And this lovely gem:

"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation."

I feel much better about our military involvement now. Clearly, we did this legally. After all, our intervention was, and continues to be, humanitarian in nature. After all, think of all those schools we've built. The children we've killed who might otherwise have attended those schools. And the soldiers whose lives have been ended or ruined through their service in this war. Killing people is worth the price of a free Iraq. Isn't it? Now Iraq is free from the terrany of Saddam. Instead, Iraqis can look to those bastions of liberty, The Bush Adminstration, authors of the Patriot Act and Gitmo, to guard their oil, er, civil liberties.

Thank goodness this was released. Now I can rest easy, and urge my reps to full-heartedly support our President. Think I'll go fly my flag now.

Ahem. If you haven't already, you might want to go here and sign Rep. John Conyer's (D-MI) letter to Bush about the Downing Street Memo.

Until tomorrow,


Post a Comment

<< Home