|
Edited on Tue May-17-05 07:27 AM by harlinchi
...to pick up the story and in another breath assert US public indifference? Having seen fit to ignore the story, causing a measure of ignorance on the part of the public, how can they see fit to attempt to explain their lack of coverage by referring to that so-called public ignorance.
But the potentially explosive revelation has shown to be something of a dud in the United States. The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war.
News folk of all sort will now point to the apparently sluggish response given by the three factors listed, the White House, the media and the public and utter their mantra of distraction: Nothing to see here! Move along...! The public has not been informed. One cannot make issue of the public's opinion prior to informing them.
It is as silly to assert that previous investigations discovered all that needs to be known regarding the Iraq war, the intelligence used to justify it and whether that intelligence was framed in ways advantageous to those seeking war when memory-challenged individuals such as myself recall that those investigations were severely limited with respect to 'use of intelligence' issues.
Further assertions will be made by the White House that 'everybody knew' the president wanted to invade Iraq
"I suppose it hasn't played there because, basically, didn't everyone know that Bush decided early on to get rid of Saddam?" asked Philip Stephens, a Blair biographer and associate editor of the Financial Times of London.
The memory-challenged among us still recall hearing assertions from the administration, while they sought their 'coalition of the billing', those to whom the checks ultimately would be sent, that war was not inevitable. The point is that Americans cannot allow the powers that be to tell them something happened when we know it didn't. We have memories. We must use them.
The article tosses a bone and a crumb to those who actually can remember administration pre-war statements.
Public told another story
At the time, the Bush administration was assuring the public that a decision to go to war had not been made and that Iraq could prevent military action by complying with existing United Nations resolutions that were intended to curtail its chemical, nuclear, biological and missile weapons programs.
I'm not sure that is enough. When Newsweek is being vilified for a story which is likely true, though recalled, the importance of this story, because of its truth, cannot be understated. When a story is recalled after a source changes his mind, especially after that source has had time to be exposed to the searing, glaring light and power of powerful retribution, his recanting is called into question. But on the scales of relevance, or of blindfolded justice, 1610 US military deaths and up to 100,000 local civilian deaths along with uncounted injuries resulting from lies on the one side versus maybe 20 deaths, precious though those lives were, on the other present an overwhelmingly out-of-balance situation. Focus on the real wrongs.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
