Most in U.S. say Iraq war not worthwhile

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] They Lied to Us

Memo proves leadership knew Saddam was not a threat

by Molly Ivins

Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going to leave out of this column everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it was wise, and or whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I did plan to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that pus-riddled question.)

Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as Americans is shrewd practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the hell do we do now?"

However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned.

On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct cliché is "smoking gun."

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. 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. (There it is.) The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. 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."

After some paragraphs on tactical considerations, Rycroft reports, "No decisions had been taken, but he (British defense secretary) thought the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. congressional elections.

"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 neighbors, 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 U.N. weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

"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-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case."

There is much more in the memo, which can be found easily online. What's difficult now is placing the memo in the timeframe. Can you remember how little you knew about a war with Iraq in July 2002? Most of us who opposed the war concluded some time ago this was the way it went down. There was plenty of evidence, though nothing this direct and cold. Think of the difference it would have made if we had known all this three years ago. Now? The memo was a huge story in Britain, but is almost unreported here.

The memo does get us some forwarder. At least it finally settles this ridiculous debate about how Dear Leader Bush just wanted to bring democracy all along and we did it all for George Washington.

Enough said. What to do? Now that we're there, at least we're on the right side, not even withstanding the disgusting Ahmed Chalabi as oil minister. Unfortunately, our very support for the good guys is making it much harder for them. A tactical Catch-22. I was impressed by the premise of Reza Aslan's new book, "No God but God," which is that all of Islam is undergoing a struggle between the modernists and the traditionalists, between reformers and reactionaries.

But in Iraq, which already had a secular state, we have the additional complication of sectarian/ethnic divisions -- your Sunnis, your Shiites, your Kurds -- not to mention, the tribalism within those divisions. (Am I bitter enough to point out once again that Paul Wolfowitz said under oath, "There is no history ethnic strife in Iraq"? You bet your ass I am.)

Our most basic problem in-country is that having the U.S. of A. on your side automatically makes you about as popular as a socialist in the Texas Legislature: We are working against the guys we want to win by supporting them. This requires some serious skulling but is not, in politics, all that unusual a pickle.

There is a political solution. Like all politics, it requires a deal. What about letting the interim government make a deal with the Sunnis for us to withdraw -- as in, "You cooperate with us, and we'll get the Americans out of here for you." We can't make that deal, but the Iraqis can.

[/]

[Ron Lambert]

Bravus: Yes, of course. I said anyone, anywhere on earth, who is suffering, and we have the ability to do something about it, gives us a moral obligation to do what we can. As a practical matter, we may not be able to intervene everywhere all at once. But we can prioritize and work our way down the list, starting with the most egregious situations. And I do think we should have intervened militarily to stop the genocide in Sudan, and we should have imposed severe penalties on France for having the unmitigated gall to defend the perpetrators of the genocide, just because France gets much of its oil from Sudan. France showed it values oil over human lives, and is willing to accept oil sold to them by genocides. All that oil therefore must be cursed by God, and France will surely be cursed for receiving that oil.

[Dr. Shane]

Brothger Neil, your constant posting of liberal editorials only go to show that you do not get your news from a variety of sources and are content to be spun like a little toy. Very well. you can isolate yourself in the world of liberalism. I choose to be more informed. I am not a top. I don't spin.

[Neil D]

As opposed to your mirroring the ultra-conservative republican agenda and calling it "middle of the road"? Don't tempt me to be cynical, Shane. The word is " cynical", not cylindrical, as a top, Shane.

[Dr. Shane]

I am a moderate and not ultra conservative. You like to label me ultra conservative but just because I am to the right of you does not mean I am all the way at the other end of the spectrum.

[Jeannieb43]

Thanks for that Molly Ivins column, Neil. I'd seen it elsewhere but forgot where I read it.

She has the evidence. We know it now: we've been had.

[Anthony!]

[:"red"] Ron Lambert: [/]

Quote:

---

All who fail to see the need and rightness of our intervention in Iraq do not deserve to be Americans, or to live in any peaceful society.

---

Whoa! Once again, "Iff'n yer not fer us, yer ag'inst us" prevails.

[:"brown"]Iraq, the litmus test of patriotism...[/]

This sounds too much like my late father, when he was a redneck racist who said of the Kent State Ohio tragedy of 1970 "Well, that's what happens when you speak up against your country... tough s--t".

From The Ethical Spectacle, May 1995 regarding Kent State, May 4, 1970:

Quote:

---

I was fifteen that year, raised in a very comfortable middle class environment and very naive. Kent State was my political education. What I discovered that week, and that year, was that America in those times was perfectly willing to harass, beat and kill its own children if they disagreed with government policy.

The step from being a member of the protected American mainstream to being a marginalized outsider, not entitled to the protection of law enforcement and fair prey to any violent, flag-waving bully who happened to pass, was to stand up and say you did not believe the Vietnam war was right...

I led demonstrations that week outside my high school protesting the Kent State killings and, afterwards, the principal summoned me and my father to his office and threatened to have me expelled as a trouble-maker. My father--I am very proud of him, as he was not an ideological man and his opposition to the war was very muted--replied that if I was expelled, he would fight it "all the way to the Supreme Court."

I had done nothing else than exercise my First Amendment right of protest.

We heard nothing more about expulsion, but a close friend of mine, who didn't have an assertive parent to stand up for him, was thrown out of school.

That week, people came out of the woodwork--wearing black leather, chains wrapped around their fists, waving American flags--people we had never before seen in our neighborhoods. These patriots set up a counterdemonstration across the street from ours. For hours, a rumor was rampant that they would attack us and that the police would not intervene--exactly what had happened on Wall Street a day or so before. Their cursing and chain-rattling became uglier until finally they summoned their courage and charged. Someone shouted "Link arms!" and five or six teenagers, me among them, joined to interpose our bodies between the attackers and demonstrators. The Brooklyn police, unlike those on Wall Street, or the National Guard in Kent days earlier, did not seek or condone the killing of children. They ran in and forced the attackers back. I was fifteen then and am forty now, but I have never had a finer moment in my life.

It was the only moment in my life that I came close to living up to Gandhi's statement that "we must be the change we wish to see in the world.

"

---

(bold italics supplied)

My Lord and my God, why do men seek my life, thinking to do you a service?

[bevin]

Quote:

---

I am a moderate and not ultra conservative.

---

Labels are no longer helpful. Each group claims to be the moderate one and all others are the extremes.

Everyone who takes up weapons to oppose some government we like is a terrorist. Govenments we don't like support terrorism.

In the information age, everyone has learned to use propaganda.

In the polarized USA that GWB has created by trying to use his 49% of the vote to force policies that are disapproved over by more than 60% of the population, clear reasoned analysis and carefully researched facts are the only way forward. Every group is claiming they are the moderates.

Labels are no longer helpful.

/Bevin