Friday, September 07, 2007

Be reasonable

Hey guys, sorry I’ve been neglectful. Life is busy these days.


If you haven’t seen this BBC interview (above) with former interim UN Ambassador John Bolton, check it out. The dude still won’t admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq! Because to him, see, just even THINKING ABOUT WMDs is as bad as actually having them. And they can prove that Saddam was thinking about them, see? He was thinking about them in the north, south, east and west - right Rumsfeld? Plus, Bolton tells us that our mistake was not invading Iraq, because no reasonable person would ever question THAT, but how it was handled afterward.

What?! He’s admitting that we screwed the post-invasion pooch?

Not really. What he’s saying is that we should’ve let the Iraqis decide things for themselves earlier. For instance, whether or not to disband the army totally should’ve been their call.

Okay, I’m not saying that I would disagree with that as an idea, but exactly who would he have picked to put in charge? Um, Chalabi?

And speaking of totally chock full o’ integrity and non-US puppet Iraqis, there is now more evidence that there were extremely reputable intelligence guys in the CIA who were screaming from the rooftops (or the CIA equivalent, which I think equates to very loud, urgent-type whispering) that Saddam had no WMDs. Their source? An informant in Saddam’s inner circle. But Bush said at the time that he didn’t believe that intelligence. He chose to believe the intelligence from one (now completely discredited) source: Curveball.

Ah, Curveball. We trusted you, and you turned out to be about as reliable as…well… as reliable as your code name would seem to imply. Curveball, Curveball, Curveball, how on earth could someone so completely steeped in “Hi, I’m a crackpot!” hold entire factions of the US government in thrall? Could it be that those same factions didn’t truly believe you, either? But simply propped you up in order to justify their own reasons for invasion? Reasons that had more to do with our reluctance to continue life bent over a Saudi oil barrel, and our eagerness to expand profits for US companies with significant, dare I say familial, ties to aforementioned factions?

No reasonable person would believe otherwise.

4 comments:

dad said...

I would have prevented this war because I would have tried to find every bit of information I could on why not to start it instead of trying to find everything I could on why to start it.

The mindset of Bush and the neocons is now abundantly clear. They wanted to start the war even when they knew it would be a quagmire between Shia and Sunies. I never for one minute believed WMD existed until Secretary of State Powell went on TV. We now know he was duped and fed lies and told to me a good loyal soldier.

I think the question not yet asked is, why did they start the war? No really.

Johnny Yen said...

Another great post.

Bolton is a complete crackpot. And I think the Bushies knew this-- his nomination was a big "fuck you" to all of us.

It seems to go without saying, but every day as there are more dead and maimed and life deteriorates for the Iraqi people, it's even more disturbing to find out how painfully unnecessary this war was.

Grant Miller said...

I read this on Friday and forgot to comment. You're on a roll lately.

vikkitikkitavi said...

Dad: I am hearing more and more people saying that they did not believe in the threat from Iraq until Powell went to the UN. How much more regrettable is it, then, that he did it? What a colossal mistake. But then, Powell was always an ambitious man. His ambition, in the hands of BushCo, turned out to be a very powerful weapon indeed.

JohnnyY: I agree about Bolton's nomination. Yet one more instance where the administration said (with a smirk), "You think I give a shit what you think?"

Grant: I love you and I will always link to you if you will always link to me.