Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
Make your own free website on Tripod.com
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« May 2005 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Monday, 9 May 2005

Topic: Iraq

Fretting: The Price of Failure in Iraq

Juan Cole, that professor of history at the University of Michigan, the middle-east expert on Iraq who travels down to Washington to testify before congress now and then is worried.

Why?

Because he reads Rolling Stone. And finds this in the latest issue.

The Quagmire
As the Iraq war drags on, it's beginning to look a lot like Vietnam
Robert Dreyfuss, May 05, 2005

The first paragraph opens with a simple contention: The news from Iraq is bad and getting worse with each passing day. And detail is provided.

The second paragraph opens with another: But to hear President Bush tell it, the war in Iraq is going very, very well. And detail is provided.

The third paragraph starts with thus: In private, however, senior military advisers and intelligence specialists on Iraq offer a starkly different picture. And detail is provided.

What follows that is an analysis, filled with carefully chosen detail, of the prospects, real, for a major civil war – with the Shiite folks on one side supported by Iran, the Sunni folks on the other with the rest of the Arab nations piling on, and the Kurds. Do we back the Kurds, along with Israel?

And the paragraph in Rolling Stone that gets Professor Cole really worried?
If it comes to civil war, the disintegration of Iraq will be extremely bloody. "The breakup of Iraq would be nearly as bad as the breakup of India in 1947," says David Mack, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state with wide experience in the Arab world. "The Kurds can't count on us to come in and save their bacon. Do they think we are going to mount an air bridge on their behalf?" Israel might support the Kurds, but Iran would intervene heavily in support of the Shiites with men, arms and money, while Arab countries would back their fellow Sunnis. "You'd see Jordan, Saudi Arabia, even Egypt intervening with everything they've got -- tanks, heavy weapons, lots of money, even troops," says White, the former State Department official. "If they see the Sunnis getting beaten up by the Shiites, there will be extensive Arab support," agrees a U.S. Army officer. "There will be no holds barred."
Oh crap. Why did he have to quote this Mack guy – the former assistant secretary of state who knows that part of the world well? And this White fellow too?

Well, does one listen to the State Department, really? Over the last several years it has become clear that the Defense Department holds all the cards, and is where the president turns on international matters. Powell was ignored, and Rice seems to be redoing State as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defense ? doing her Mistress of Pain dominatrix thing in those black boots and putting the tough back in tough love. This is the new face (or foot) of diplomacy.

But the traditionalists at State, in sensible shoes, are worried, it seems ? that a civil war, if it comes, would pull in all the players in the region, and force our hand with the Kurds. What WOULD Israel do?

But will this happen?

Dreyfuss ends with this ?
In fact, it may already be too late to prevent Iraq from exploding. Iraq's new government is stuck in a fatal Catch-22: To have any credibility among Iraqis it must break with the U.S. and oppose the occupation, but it couldn't last a week without the protection of American troops. The Bush administration is also stuck. Its failure to stabilize Iraq, and the continuing casualties there, have led to a steady slide in the president's popularity: Polls show that a majority of Americans no longer think that the war in Iraq was worth fighting in the first place. Yet withdrawing from Iraq would only lead to more chaos, and the rest of the world has exhibited little interest in cleaning up America's mess. Of the two dozen or so countries that sent troops to Iraq, fewer and fewer remain: Spain, Portugal, Hungary and New Zealand have already quit, and the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Italy have announced they are getting out. Even if the United Nations agreed to step in, there is little or no chance that the administration will internationalize control over Iraq. In the face of a full-scale civil war in Iraq, says a source close to the U.S. military, Bush intends to go it alone.
And that fellow says - "Our policy is to make Iraq a colony. We won't let go."

We say that isn?t our policy. In a private email from an Army officer in Mosul I received this ?
The elections started the constitutional process which could throw even the most democratic societies (which this one is not yet) into a tail-spin. I offer to all of you to watch this as we try to create or at least grow democracy in a cycle of less than five years. It will become a model of either true success or discouraging defeat often not because we don't want it to work -- but rather because it is not up to us but the Iraqis and people like the UN and the Independent Elections Committee - Iraq or IECI.
So it is up to the Iraqis ? and to the Shiites backed by Iran, the Sunnis backed by the other Arab states, and the Kurds hoping we?ll back them, and maybe pull in Israel. Who knows what the Turkish government would make of that?

This should be interesting.

But Professor Cole makes one more point. He comments that ?the full horror of it? has been ?expertly laid out? by Dreyfuss, with ?an acumen and imagination one doesn't see often? in the mainstream media. As a former English teacher I thought it was a fine composition. Cole wonders why he was reading it in Rolling Stone.
We live in a bizarro American were Jon Stewart's Daily Show and Rolling Stone are the venues for the real news, while the major cable news networks have confused themselves with the sort of thing the local television stations out in places like Peoria do at 5:17 pm for their human interest segments.
Indeed. Of course, one must know what?s up with the Michael Jackson trial, and did you know that runaway bride served jail time for shoplifting several years ago ? something about $1,700 worth of merchandise she lifted from a mall. And the prosecutor in that case is now serving as her attorney? MSNBC carried the Associated Press story and it has been talked about all over the news.

So by default sources like the Daily Show and Rolling Stone are where we traditionalists ? news hounds - now turn for our fix of things that matter to us.

Jonathan Klein can have his new and improved CNN. Michael Jackson can be convicted or not, and the runaway bride can be as strange as she likes. The likelihood of a major war of many nations across the whole of the Middle East, drawing us in, along with Israel, may be of little concern to the target demographic of the corporate news providers ? Time-Warner, ABC-Disney, Murdoch?s News Corp, Viacom and whomever ? but I?m sure they?ll send crews of earnest young ?reporters? when it starts.

Until then those of us outside the target demographic will hunt around for information. It?s a do-it-yourself kind of thing.

Posted by Alan at 22:34 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Monday, 9 May 2005 22:36 PDT home


Topic: Oddities

Our Turn: The Greatest American of All Time

In the middle of 2002 the British, via the BBC, got to vote on the Greatest Briton of All Time. Earlier this year the French, via France-2 television, got to vote on Le plus grand Francais de tous les temps - no need to translate that. And now it is our turn.

If you check with the BBC you can see how they voted.

From the BBC top 100 these were the winners:

- Winston Churchill - 456,498 votes (28.1%)
- Isambard Kingdom Brunel - 398,526 votes (24.6%) And that would be this fellow (the son of a Frenchman!)
- Diana, Princess of Wales - 225,584 votes (13.9%)
- Charles Darwin - 112,496 votes (6.9%)
- William Shakespeare - 109,919 votes (6.8%)
- Isaac Newton - 84,628 votes (5.2%)
- Queen Elizabeth I - 71,928 votes (4.4%)
- John Lennon - 68,445 votes (4.2%)
- Horatio Nelson - 49,171 votes (3%)
- Oliver Cromwell - 45,053 (2.8%)

Surprised? It was a popular vote, not a poll of historians after all.

For a jaundiced view of the French vote this year, The Guardian (UK) see this ?

French baffled by list of national heroes
Jon Henley in Paris - Wednesday March 16, 2005 - The Guardian (UK)
Victor Hugo, Moliere, Marie Curie and Charles de Gaulle are still in there fighting. But Alexandre Dumas, Jean-Paul Sartre and Belmondo and even - bit of an upset, this one - Napoleon are sadly out of the running.

? France's top 100 contained some surprises. "What the hell were they thinking of?" asked Le Parisien, noting that the anti-globalisation activist Jose Bove (87) and film director Luc Besson (91) were deemed to have contributed more to Gallic glory than Jean-Paul Sartre (96) and Simone de Beauvoir, who did not even make the list.

The full list contains 90 men and 10 women. Sixty-eight of the candidates are dead, and 32 alive. Even in a country which turns philosophers into household names, the world of show business comfortably tops the French poll with 44 representatives, while the arts and literature muster 22, politics 17 and sport just eight.

The top 10 contains few major upsets, with the possible exception of the anarchic comic and one-time presidential candidate Coluche, and the legendary comedian and actor Bourvil, who starred in 55 films and recorded 300 songs.

France's favourite priest, the Abbe Pierre, who founded the Emmaus charity for the poor and homeless, is in there, as are undersea explorer Jacques Cousteau, two-time Nobel prizewinner Marie Curie, General de Gaulle, the great romantic poet and novelist Hugo, the 17th-century dramatic genius Moliere, groundbreaking chemist Louis Pasteur and singer Edith Piaf.

Among the notable also-rans, the late president Francois Mitterrand (24) trounced the incumbent, Jacques Chirac (42). However, the diminutive Corsican emperor who created modern-day France could only manage an undistinguished 16th - while the show's two hosts, TV presenters Michel Drucker and Thierry Ardisson, both made the top 70.
Yeah, whatever.

Just Above Sunset?s Paris columnist, Ric Erickson, editor of MetropoleParis, in his "Our Man in Paris" columns reported on this for our readers.

See March 20, 2005 - France Picks Its Nose -
The hit British TV reality show 'Great Brits' has been given a Gallic scent of garlic, amusing offshore news organizations somewhat more than the French, who have seldom wondered who among them is most popular national hero because Charles de Gaulle snared the top spot between periods of being a traitor and the ex-President of France.

Despite the heavy advance promotion by France-2 TV for last Monday night's 'Le plus grand Francais de tous les temps,' I easily managed not to watch it. I have nothing against diverting television entertainment but French TV is usually too silly to be diverting, even though veteran host Michel Drucker is not a total jerk. For Monday's amusement he was back-stopped by Thierry Ardisson, who used to pretend to drink jars of whisky in the Palace disco on Saturday night TV.

To compound my error, I failed to read Le Parisien's account of the show on Tuesday. ?
And that was followed by April 17, 2005 - Runners-Up - with the results -
This Frenchman contest only yielded two TV broadcasts. A poll in September of 2004 selected the '100 greatest Frenchmen of all time,' and after the first broadcast 10 remained in the running. With no suspense for the top spot in France, the vote's real interest fell on the nine runner-ups.

The scientist Louis Pasteur was chosen as the number two 'greatest Frenchman of all time.' Pasteur developed pasteurization, vaccines, and invented the science of microbiology. Hardly a random choice, because Marie Curie landed in the fourth spot.

Born in Warsaw, she discovered radium and won Nobel prizes in 1903 and 1911.

Between the two, a very old but living Abbe Pierre was chosen for the third spot. Since the end of World War II he has been saying that some people are poorly housed in France. He is a popular and longstanding moral force even if people are still poorly housed.

It's a surprise to see the dead comedian Coluche edge out Victor Hugo, but not such a surprise to find the writer in the sixth place. But the consistency holds with another comedian, Bourvil, in seventh spot, followed by Moliere the playwright, who died during the fourth performance of 'Le Malade Imaginaire,' in 1673.

In ninth place it's back to science again with the selection of the undersea's Jacques-Yves Cousteau. In the tenth place, the list is completed with name of another entertainer, Edith Piaf.

This adds up to one statesman, three scientists, a moral leader, two comedians and a singer, one writer and one playwright - that the French have chosen to be the 'greatest Frenchmen of all time.' If they were all attending a party, it would probably be an interesting evening, French style.
Yes, it would be, non? And The Nose won ? Charles De Gaulle, of course.

Now it is our turn. The Discovery Channel and AOL are teaming up on this one - seven hours in primetime to be telecast this summer. The idea is to make our choice for ?the person who has most embodied the American dream, having the biggest impact on the way we think, work and live.?

Is the American dream to rip off another BBC television show? Well, All in the Family with its quintessential American, Archie Bunker, worked our for Norman Lear. Any number of American movies have been adaptations of French movies ? Renoir?s son made "Boudu sauve des eaux" in 1932 and we got ?Down and Out in Beverly Hills? forty years later. This might work. Some of us think AOL is a really crappy service, but millions use it. And the Discovery Channel often runs pretty amusing stuff ? this coming weekend you can watch ?Who Killed King Tut?: Case Reopened? for example. The butler did it.

As for the Greatest American of All Time, the top one hundred (so far) can be found here, and the show itself premieres Sunday, June 5 at eight in the evening.
Millions of Americans nominated their choices via AOL to create a list of 100 candidates. Each candidate will be profiled in the four-part weekly primetime series. After learning more about the candidates, viewers will have the chance to make their voices heard through several forums including online voting through AOL, telephone voting and text messaging. After each show, they'll narrow down the candidates until only one great American remains.
As they say in Chicago, vote early, vote often.

Of course there is a web log that accompanies this ? an AOL promotional affair and hardly independent and cutting edge. Since March 15 it shows around 18,000 hits. There you can read AOL members arguing the case for their choices. And the stirring prose so far has suggested one of these is clearly the Greatest American of All Time:

- Michael Jackson
- Howard Hughes
- Bob Hope
- Thomas Jefferson
- Hugh Hefner
- Tom Hanks
- Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Walt Disney
- Elvis Presley
- George W. Bush
- Lance Armstrong

And to think the Brits had fun ragging on the French and their choices.

Other things to do on June 5 should you not want to watch? As it is the anniversary of the first public balloon flight - and that would be Joseph and Jacques Montgolfier in 1783 ? you could get high. Or think about other June 5 events ? in 1968 Robert F. Kennedy was shot at the Ambassador Hotel down on Wilshire, and in 1888 the Democrats nominated Grover Cleveland for president. Or you could celebrate the birthday of famous people on June 5 - Adam Smith (1723), Federico Garcia Lorca (1898), Francisco "Pancho" Villa (1877).

Or you could watch the show, and vote for??

Mark Twain is one of the finalists. So is Rush Limbaugh.

But so is Bobby Kennedy.

Posted by Alan at 16:47 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Monday, 9 May 2005 16:52 PDT home


Topic: In these times...

Speaking of Kansas…

Over at the generally strident site BartCop - with the daily subhead BartCop’s most recent rants - you will often find graphics of interest, or at least of interest to lefties. This is the site that uses the acronym BFEE for the efforts of the current administration and its friends – and that would stand for the Bush Family Evil Empire, or Enterprise. I’m not sure which. You get the idea.

The editor of the site often posts, in full, current cartoons – Doonesbury and Boondocks most frequently. Since Doonesbury has an exclusive arrangement with SLATE.COM – see the Daily Dose there – one suspects such things are posted without permission. In my discussions of copyright issues with Rick, The News Guy in Atlanta, he suspects so.

So I don’t feel bad posting this below, referencing the current hearings in Kansas, and this weekend’s top-grossing movie – Ridley Scott’s epic about the Crusades starring Legolas the Elf. (Yes, you can make bad jokes about Ariosto’s epic Orlando Furioso here. But Ludovico Ariosto and Orlando Bloom never met. Ariosto died in 1533, after all, while Bloom recently made a wildly successful pirate movie with Johnnie Depp.)

Anyway, given the times, the graphic is pretty good. And visit BartCop for some choice rants.



Posted by Alan at 09:20 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Monday, 9 May 2005 09:21 PDT home

Sunday, 8 May 2005

Topic: Backgrounder

Heads Up!

The new issue of Just Above Sunset, the weekly online magazine that is parent to this web log, went live last night around midnight, Pacific Time, or three in the morning Eastern, or for our readers in Paris, at nine Sunday morning. This issue is Volume 3, Number 19 - for the week of May 8, 2005 – and contains much you will not find here – like drole quotes on the subject of Mothers Day.

There are seven pages of high-resolution photographs.

Don Smith of Left Bank Lens sends photos and comments from Paris, if you ever wondered how they actually do get that stuff upstairs. See Moving Paris for that.

Many of the photos in the Just Above Sunset albums (see a list of those in the left column of this page) are done right at the weekly site, as the Earthlink site software used for Just Above Sunset provides far greater detail and depth, and richer colors, than the Lycos photo album servers and software. The photos of note are Cherry 54: A 1954 Chevrolet Corvette in all its glory and Beach Shots: Hermosa and Manhattan Beach (with jazz notes) - and Beach Sports: Surfing and Volleyball and Beach Blooms: Growing at the Edge and May Day: Botanical Detail and Old Birds: The Western Museum of Flight.

Did you know that the new Pope’s old car – a VW Golf – was just auctioned off on eBay in Europe? No? Well, then see Our Man in Paris: Cult Car where Ric Erickson, editor of MetropoleParis, explains it all, and adds two cool photos. And I think I was supposed to use the title Kult Kar.

And course the Book Wrangler and The World’s Laziest Journalist is back – Bob Patterson.

The nine other items in the issue first appeared here – and there they are extended with further comment. In Meme Watch: Things fall apart, the center will not hold… and people are buying gay cars! see the footnote, new, where the Christian Values Coalition says what everyone thinks they said isn’t what they said at all.

It’s all good.


Posted by Alan at 16:43 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 8 May 2005 16:45 PDT home


Topic: For policy wonks...

The Smoking Gun You Have to Admire

Note: A version of this item also appears in today’s issue of Just Above Sunset, the parent site to this web log.

___

As mentioned last Tuesday in Media Notes and again in this weekend’s Just Above Sunset, seven days ago Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London broke a story concerning Tony Blair and George Bush that was curious – but the Times story broke almost exactly when the first lady was addressing the annual White House Correspondents Association Dinner, so her comedy routine got the airtime on the news and key real estate in the papers over here. There was no room left for the Times story – given the reluctant bride and the naughty First Lady and Michael Jackson and whatnot.

Too bad. That London paper got their hot little hands on an odd document - what appears to be a memo from the Blair and Bush discussions in the summer of 2002, and that would be some months before Colin Powell made his presentation to the UN laying out the clear evidence of the reasons the UN should join us in a war. You remember – all those facts about all those weapons of mass destruction. The memo - dated 23 July 2002 by Matthew Rycroft, a former Downing Street foreign policy aide? The Brits understood that the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq and toss out the government there – but Bush just hadn’t yet decided why. The war came nine months later. So the Brits decided they’d jump on board. Why not?

But there has been precious little coverage of the whole matter.

The Knight-Ridder wire service finally picked up on it Thursday -
A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.
Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly puts it in perspective -
Look, I know this isn't going to change anything at this point. We've already spent months on the issue of intelligence manipulation and nobody really seems to care all that much. But it would still be nice for the American media to report this stuff just for the record.

According to the memo, the bottom line is this: By the summer of 2002 George Bush had already decided on war regardless of Saddam Hussein's actions; democracy promotion was not even mentioned in passing as a reason for the war; postwar reconstruction was an issue of no concern; and the "marketing campaign" for the war was deliberately timed to coincide with midterm elections.

Just for the record.
One of Drum?s readers ? one Libby Sosume - is not pleased.
If he was a Democrat, he would be impeached (and tried for treason if it were possible).

We need this story out there, with lots of exposure. It doesn't change anything, much less bother the hard core base who believe that lying is necessary for the greater good. But it will be highly unsettling for the moderates who have kept him and the party in power. Those Americans will remember this - AND the social security lies, AND the Shiavo case, and other things. Reasonable Americans can put up with incompetence, but they don't like being lied to.

The story is well worth hyping.
No. It?s history.

The University of Michigan professor of Middle-Eastern Studies, Juan Cole, does have an issue or two.

He sees a smoking gun in the memo ?
C [Dearlove] 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.
His comment?
It is not surprising on the face of it that Bush had decided on the Iraq war by summer of 2002. It it is notable that Dearlove noticed a change in views on the subject from earlier visits. By summer of 2002, the Afghanistan war had wound down and al-Qaeda was on the run, so Bush no longer felt vulnerable and was ready to go forward with his long-cherished project of an Iraq War. What is notable is that all this was not what Bush was telling us.

Bush was lying to the American people at the time and saying that no final decision had been made on the war.

Godfrey Sperling of the Christian Science Monitor could write on August 27, 2002, "Indeed, Bush has said he welcomes a 'debate' on Iraq from those in Congress and from the public. But he has made it clear that he will make his decision based on what his intelligence people are telling him."

But Dearlove's report makes it clear that Bush had already decided absolutely on a war already the previous month, and that he had managed to give British intelligence the firm impression that he intended to shape the intelligence to support such a war. So poor Sperling was lied to twice. Any "debate" was meaningless if the president had already decided. And he wasn't waiting to make his decision in the light of the intelligence. He was going to tell the intelligence professionals to what conclusion they had to come. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Why would it even be necessary to turn the intelligence analysts into "weasels" who would have to tell Bush what he wanted to hear?

It was necessary because the "justification" of the "conjunction" of Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorism was virtually non-existent.
Well, in the memo British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw does say this: "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 neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Cole?s conclusion? Bush was just going to make things up, since the realities did not actually justify his planned war ?
? and the British cabinet sat around and admitted to themselves that a) there was no justification for the war into which they were allowing themselves to be dragged and b) that the war would be gotten up through Goebbels-like techniques!
And Cole adds ?
It is even worse. British Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith was at the meeting. He had to think up a justification for the war in international law. Britain is in Europe, and Europe takes international law seriously. You could have war crimes trials. (Remember that Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet almost got tried in Spain for killing 5000 people in the 1970s).

Goldsmith was as nervous as a cat in a roomful of rocking chairs: "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-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."

The driness of the wit is unbearable. "The desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action"! Naked aggression is illegal, he could have said. Then he reviews the three possible grounds for a war. You could have a war if Iraq attacked you. Iraq had not attacked the US. Or you could have a war if it was a humanitarian intervention (e.g. under the genocide convention). But Saddam's major campaigns of death had been a decade before. Or you could get a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the war, in accordance with the UN charter. But Goldsmith makes it clear he thought you would need a new resolution, that the old ones wouldn't work for this purpose.

The Attorney General of the United Kingdom thought the reports Dearlove and Straw were bringing back from Washington reeked of an illegal war. People who plan out illegal wars are war criminals. He knew this. He was stuck, however. They were all stuck.
Ah, we were all stuck. Oh well. You have to admire George Bush for his brass balls ? or not.

And who is going to admit anything? Note this from late in the week, in the Seattle Times -
The memo, first disclosed in full by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington referred queries to another official, who didn't return calls.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on the leaked document.

However, a former senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during Dearlove's visit to Washington.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating a letter among fellow Democrats asking Bush for an explanation of the charges, an aide said.

In July 2002, and well afterward, top Bush administration advisers were insisting that "there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president's desk."

But the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close colleague of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying "Bush had made up his mind to take military action."

Straw is quoted as having doubts about the Iraqi threat.

? The document said Straw proposed that Saddam be given an ultimatum to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors, which could help justify use of force. Powell in August 2002 persuaded Bush to push for such inspections.

But there were deep divisions in the White House over that course of action.

The memo says the National Security Council, then led by Condoleezza Rice, "had no patience with the U.N. route."
What does it matter now?

But eighty-eight members of Congress have now signed this letter authored by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) calling on President Bush to answer questions about all this.

But the major media have not picked this story up ? and the Conyers letter shows some disappointment -
"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers."

"This should not be allowed to fall down the memory hole during wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial and a runaway bride. To prevent that from occuring, I am circulating the following letter among my House colleagues and asking them to sign on to it."
Yeah, yeah.

You don?t mess with the guy from Texas.

And people don?t want to hear this.

And, as above, those who support Bush will think this just shows how clever he is. In your face, godless liberals!

Posted by Alan at 15:41 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 8 May 2005 15:42 PDT home

Newer | Latest | Older