You are herecontent / White House: "Quick, Look Over There! No, not here!"
White House: "Quick, Look Over There! No, not here!"
An Associate Press story reports that the White house is objecting to reports characterizing the Bush Administration as having done inadequate planning for "postwar" Iraq. Of all the mistakes and offenses and felonies that recent media reports have suggested Bush is guilty of, why is this the point that the White House objects to?
We've learned that Bush and Blair agreed in April 2002 to launch a war on Iraq, that Bush didn't care about violating international law, that Blair wanted to use the United Nations to try to legalize a war that had been decided upon, that Bush and Blair conspired to lie to the American people and to Congress about phony motives for war related to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
And Bush is now protesting that No, no , no he really DID plan adequately for the "postwar" occupation? How much of the media will dive after this red herring?
White House Defends Iraq Postwar Planning
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON
Featured Advertiser
The White House took exception Sunday to the reported characterization of a British memo questioning the adequacy of U.S. planning for a postwar occupation of Iraq.
"There was significant post war planning," said spokesman David Almacy. "More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began; there was significant post war planning in the time that elapsed."
He was reacting a report in Sunday editions of The Washington Post that a staff paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq concluded that "a post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise" that could result in the United States looking to Britain "to share a disproportionate share of the burden."
"Some things we prepared for did not happen, like large numbers of refugees needing humanitarian assistance, and others we did not expect, such as large numbers of regime elements fleeing the battlefield only to return later," said Almacy. "Anytime you go to war you have to be flexible to adapt to the unexpected. That is why we gave our commanders the flexibility to do so."
The Post said the introduction to the British memo said planning for an invasion of Iraq was well underway, but that "little thought" had been given by U.S. officials to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."
The was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a July 23, 2002, meeting with his national security team that has become controversial since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session _ the so-called Downing Street Memo that raised questions about how intelligence was used to justify the war.
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
By default the White House is admitting that at some point, there was not only post-war, but war planning as well. They were always stressing that "shock and awe" had to occur early in the Spring. Their thinking being, that they would be done, and back out before the Summer heat and sandstorms. So exactly when did this war planning take place? I'm thinking there are documents' with Wolfowitz's name on them, that pre -date election 2000.
The piece says,
"More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began; there was significant post war planning in the time that elapsed."
8 months prior to 9/11, on January 11, 2001---
"History is replete with instances in which warning signs were ignored and change resisted until an external 'improbable' event forced resistant bureaucracies to take action," the commissioners concluded. "The question is whether the U.S. will be wise enough to act responsibly and soon enough to reduce US. space vulnerabilities. Or whether, as in the past, a disabling attack against the country and its people-a 'Space Pearl Harbor'-will be the only event able to galvanize the nation and cause the U.S. government to act." -The Rumsfeld Commission
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200310/ai_n9340392
Why DID we invade Iraq?
Bush gave one reason, Cheney another, Condi another, the Pentagon another, the press another, Rummy and Crew another, each Congress critter cited his or her own, the tubefed multitudes all had their reasons, and new reasons are added almost daily as this thing boils over . . .
Ohhhh, Richard! It's just too complex to ever figure out, to ever finally know -- why DID we invade Iraq?
Unless . . . we talk about what goal every one of those myriad reasons points to. Let's cook it down. What did everybody's individual pot of justification stew have as a common ingredient? What was in every pot?
America Uber Alles. The PNAC creed.
Unspoken. Unexamined. Unquestioned.
Swallowed whole before discussion even began.
The presumption that we must come out ahead. That we deserve to be on top. Always. That America rules -- or else.
That's what we need to face, and disown, as a nation, as a people. That's Lebensraum. That's the Nazi creed of taking what you deem you need.
'Or else' is Cheney's endless war from here on -- until such time as we are stopped, just as the Nazis were stopped. That is all that lies down that road.
Are we, the American people, willing to live in this world without holding a pistol to their heads -- all those variously unwashed, illiterate, multi-colored, billions of Others?
Are they all created equal, too? Are they human beings, with every one of our Declaration's rights inborn? Do they deserve everything we deserve?
Or, are they untermenschen? Can we loot n' shoot them, shock n' awe, Baghdad style, and drive off into the sunset with what used to be theirs? Is everybody here . . . OK with that?
Are we, the people, willing to be one nation among a couple hundred nations? Talk things out, work things out, put the pistols down? Share? Or, is this whole planet our turf? Is Death to the Other our manifest destiny?
Nothing in America's Declaration, Constitution, jurisprudence or international treaties asks or requires our loyalty to the PNAC creed. Quite the reverse.
With the Downing Street memo, and other papers, the recipe for this war is out in the open, and Americans of every stripe are asking themselves, who put Lebensraum in the soup?
The Project for a New American Century will get an up or down vote now, out on the street, where Frist can't fudge or fake it.
As powerful as the sentiments that led to our first Revolution, as powerful as the sentiments that led to our Civil War, is the sentiment building among Americans today, as they realize the comic book creed of world conquest that Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld slipped into our stew, at the cost of our entire Treasury, twice over.
An all American sentiment -- aboveboard, honest, straight and sunny -- just as jake as calling a foul ball when you see one.
It's simply this:
We Don't Want To Rule The World.
And we're not gonna do it, Dick.
ref: www.newamericancentury.org/
One of the other posters has asked the very good question "Why did we invade Iraq?" From the coverage I recall at the time leading up to the invasion of Iraq, this question was never adequately addressed. The "Saddam is a bad man" response that everyone seemed to accept as the reason never rang true. And serious debate was never really entertained.
A formed editor of MAD Magazine (I can't recall his name or where I read his post -- it may have been this site) has said that the reason Iraq was invaded was to keep oil prices elevated, so that the Saudi family, business friends of the Bush family, could keep going to the bank.
Has anyone seen the mainstream media address this issue? Is it credible? What would have happened to oil prices had Iraq gotten back into the world market? If the U.N. had lifted sanctions against Saddam, would gas have dropped in price?
Perhaps the slogan should be "No blood for no oil."