Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Downing Street....as if we needed more....

Christopher Hitchens weighs-in. Not much new here, although his insight on the Brits' usage of the term "fixed" and his catch on MI6's reference to the "Sunni majority" are helpful. Really just posting to show that there's a real unanimity on DSM among those with brains. Moneyquote:

I am now forced to wonder: Who is there who does not know that the Bush administration decided after September 2001 to change the balance of power in the region and to enforce the Iraq Liberation Act, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1998, which made it overt American policy to change the government of Iraq? This was a fairly open conspiracy, and an open secret. Given that everyone from Hans Blix to Jacques Chirac believed that Saddam was hiding weapons from inspectors, it made legal sense to advance this case under the banner of international law and to treat Saddam "as if" (and how else?) his strategy of concealment and deception were prima facie proof. The British attorney general—who has no jurisdiction in these 50 states—was worried that "regime change" alone would not be a sufficient legal basis. One appreciates his concern. But the existence of the Saddam regime was itself a defiance of all known international laws, and we had before us the consequences of previous failures to act, in Bosnia and Rwanda, where action would have been another word for "regime change."

2 comments:

Paul Hogue said...

Key word being "brains."

I love people running around saying the orginal memo "proves" that Bush lied.

It proves nothing, least of all what it alleges...

Simian Logician said...

The Memos are clearly important historical documents. They reflect four key things that folks with brains already knew:

1. Bush was prepared to use force in 2002 with or without the UN.

2. The UK preferred the cover of UN resolutions and prevailed upon Bush to go that route. That, as Wolfowitz said in the famous Vanity Fair article, the legalistic framework was the one thing everyone could agree upon to advance the policy in persuading the world of the necessity of regime change.

3. There was serious concern on the part of both governments about Saddam's WMD capacity. The memos show they were alternately concerned about:

a) use against invading forces
b) use against Israel
c) use against Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
d) that a follow-on government would retain or pursue WMD

This proves that no one lied even though many have died.

4.That not enough work was done to prepare for the war's aftermath.

  • Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Daniels
  • Evangelical Outpost
  • One Hand Clapping
  • Camp Katrina
  • TPMCafe
  • Dodger Thoughts
  • Boy of Summer
  • Irish Pennants
  • tabletalk
  • Fire McCain
  • My Sandmen
  • Galley Slaves
  • Michelle Malkin
  • myelectionanalysis
  • Iraq the Model
  • Mystery Pollster
  • A Bellandean! God, Country, Heritage
  • Right Truth
  • The Fourth Rail
  • Counterterrorism Blog
  • Just One Minute
  • Broken Masterpieces
  • Kudlow's Money Politic$
  • Econopundit
  • Tapscott's Copy Desk
  • The Blue State Conservatives
  • Palousitics
  • Christian Conservative
  • Outside the Beltway
  • The Belmont Club
  • Froggy Ruminations
  • The Captain's Journal
  • Argghh!!!
  • Chickenhawk Express
  • Confederate Yankee
  • Reasoned Audacity
  • Taking Notes
  • ThisDamnBlog
  • Three Knockdown Rule
  • Dogwood Pundit
  • Dumb Looks Still Free
  • Unfettered Blather
  • Cut to the Chase
  • Alabama Improper
  • Austin Bay Blog
  • Michael Yon-Online
  • The Trump Blog
  • A Lettor of Apology
  • GM Fastlane Blog


  • Powered by Blogger

    Listed on BlogShares Who Links Here