May 12, 2005

THE CEASE FIRE WAS CONDITIONAL:

Indignation Grows in U.S. Over British Prewar Documents: Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an option with Hussein. (John Daniszewski, May 12, 2005, LA Times)

Reports in the British press this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain.

But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy.


Not quite accurate--as the President spelled out in September 2002, the UN resolutions required Iraq to liberalize and democratize, so had Saddam had free and fair elections and convinced Kurds and Shi'ites to vote Ba'ath he could have stayed on.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 12, 2005 12:02 AM
Comments

I would think at this point either you agree with taking out Saddam or you don't. Information like this just adds more noise.

Posted by: AWW at May 12, 2005 6:48 AM

Agree with AWW.

Posted by: Mikey at May 12, 2005 8:13 AM

Those angry at Bush seem to rationalize Saddam's defiance of the U.N. resolutions due to the fact those resolutions were not all that important resoultions to begin with, and certainly nothing to go to war over. But since most of this group never said boo when Bill Clinton went after Miolsevek in Serbia without U.N. backing, their cries of protest today car hardly be seen as sincere.

Posted by: John at May 12, 2005 10:10 AM

Can't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Remember, it's the capitalist superstructure and last gasp imperialism at the root of it all.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at May 12, 2005 10:16 AM

"Indignation grows," the headline says. Oh really? Future historians certainly won't be able to learn anything about the politics of the average American from today's papers. You'd think that there was a massive uprising of outrage over Abu Ghraib, when most people either didn't care at all or thought that things should have been far more brutal...

Posted by: b at May 12, 2005 12:30 PM

b: "The late 20th and early 21st centuries were marked by a schizophrenic politics in which, as reflected in popular culture, the Republican Party was hated for 23 out of every 24 months, but returned to power every other November."

Posted by: David Cohen at May 12, 2005 7:04 PM
« REAL MEN AREN'T REALISTIC: | Main | LET'S SEE REPUBLICANS BUCK BUSINESS: »