I think most of us have probably known for quite some time that the Bush administrations reasons for invading Iraq were shaky at best, but now the newly revealed second “Downing Street” memo gives us some hope that we won’t have to wait 40 years for these types of things to be revealed.
To sum up the memos, found here and here, they more or less say that the US was intent on going to war way before having a reason (a real big shocker considering the Project For The New American Century’s ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’, released in 2000 called for the need to eliminate the threat from Iran, Iraq, and North Korea… wait… isn’t that the “Axis of Evil” Bush talked about after he got elected?! Wasn’t that a whole year before 9/11? Wait, wasn’t Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban from Afghanistan? They wouldn’t have used 9/11 as an excuse to implement their preconceived plan to “rebuild America’s defenses”, would they?! What’s going on here!!).
Michigan representative John Conyers, Jr. (D) has penned a letter to President Bush asking him to clear up a few questions the memo’s revealing have raised:
1. Do you dispute the accuracy of the memo?
-
Did you guys really have a plan to go to war before seeking Congressional approval? (Since it was outlined more or less in the PNAC’s document above, I’m guessing the answer to that one is “Yes”).
-
Did you guys really create the ultimatum presented to Iraq in order to fabricate justification for the invasion?
-
When exactly did you and ol’ Tony Blair decide it was time to invade?
-
Did you and the Brits work together to “fix” intelligence to make your story look better?
As expected, Bush hasn’t responded, yet, but the greatest non-response can be found in the White House Press Briefing the day after the letter was sent:
Q: Scott, on another topic, has the President or anyone else from the administration responded to the letter sent last month by Congressman John Conyers and signed by dozens of members of the House of Representatives, regarding the Downing Street memo? Has the President or anyone else responded?
MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I’m aware of.
Q: Why not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Why not? Because I think that this is an individual who voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed. And our focus is not on the past. It’s on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq.
These matters have been addressed, Elaine. I think you know that very well. The press –
Q: Scott, 88 members of Congress signed that letter.
MR. McCLELLAN: The press — the press have covered it, as well.
Q: What do you say about them?
Q: But, Scott, don’t they deserve the courtesy of a response back?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this has been addressed. (Mr. McClellan continues to next reporter)
Nice job, Scott! So who knows where this one will go… I just hope we don’t have to wait 40 years or so to find out the truth.
Post a Comment