Iraq pact 'decided before war'
Sounds like a declarative statement to me. An assertation that some new evidence shows that the declaration is true. I've seen dozens upon dozens of headlines over the past couple of years that appear to make that claim. Well, headlines are what people see. If they see the same thing repeated day after day in the headlines -- they might develop a sense that it must be true.
So what does the article say?
It says that some human rights lawyer (a group definitely known for their balanced view of our government) has updated a book (not written a new one) that asserts that that it is true. And this is news... why?
Oh, because it gives BBC a chance to print a headline stating their view again, even though this has been hashed and re-hashed and fried to a crisp of hashed browns. If they repeat the charge incessantly enough, it wil become true. I mean, look at all those headlines.
Is the man an insider in the foriegn policy dealings of the US or the UK? No. He's a human rights lawyer. And if he can win a case as huge as "Bush Lied, Thousands Died" that yields a monetary payout to some class-action suit, why, he could make millions.
So let's go over this one... more... time...
- Were there lots of good reasons to go to war against Saddam Hussein? Yes.
- Were those reasons communicated? Yes.
- Was it just WMD? No.
- Was there a decent chance the UN Security Council wouldn't call for war? Yes.
- Would that have been the case if a few countries on that council weren't up to their necks in economic interest conflicts with Iraq? No.
- Did Bush and Blair discuss what should be done in that case? One would think so.
- Would that be a reasonable thing to discuss? See #1
- Did it turn out our intelligence was fautly about some of those reasons? It appears that might well be the case.
- Does that mean Bush Lied? No.
- Does that mean there was no reason to go to war against Saddam Hussein? See #1.
I'm done.
No comments:
Post a Comment