Home > On Memorial Day Praise bravery, seek forgiveness
On Memorial Day Praise bravery, seek forgiveness
by Open-Publishing - Wednesday 1 June 20053 comments
Wars and conflicts International USA
Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.
In exchange for our uniformed young people’s willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don’t expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.
The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he’d just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration’s intentions toward Iraq.
At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "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. The (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill were right. Both have been pilloried for writing that by summer 2002 Bush had already decided to invade.
Walter Pincus, writing in the Washington Post on May 22, provides further evidence that the administration did, indeed, fix the intelligence on Iraq to fit a policy it had already embraced: invasion and regime change. Just four days before Bush’s State of the Union address in January 2003, Pincus writes, the National Security Council staff "put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims" about Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs. The call went out because the NSC staff believed the case was weak. Moreover, Pincus says, "as the war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein’s alleged weapons programs." But no one at high ranks in the administration would listen to them.
On the day before Bush’s speech, the CIA’s Berlin station chief warned that the source for some of what Bush would say was untrustworthy. Bush said it anyway. He based part of his most important annual speech to the American people on a single, dubious, unnamed source. The source was later found to have fabricated his information.
Also comes word, from the May 19 New York Times, that senior U.S. military leaders are not encouraged about prospects in Iraq. Yes, they think the United States can prevail, but as one said, it may take "many years."
As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths — the most since January — comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious.
Forum posts
2 June 2005, 06:04
Memorial day is a day when America honors his war criminals!
2 June 2005, 16:31
Which is why everyone who planned for this war should be tried as a war criminal, and those who voted for "4 more wars" should be sent to finish the job the cowards started. BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! (Except Republican soldiers) A Soldier’s Mother
3 June 2005, 18:55
So far it seems that the surfacing of the Downing Street minutes has not produced even so much as a flinch of a reaction in the great American giant — not a reaction the media, nor in the politicians, nor in the public. Only a few websites going up, and a handful of Congressmen signing a letter to Bush, which has so far gone unanswered, has happened as a result of the secret minutes coming to light.
WHEN THE HELL IS SOMETHING GOING TO HAPPEN? Is this not enough to start a full-fledged investigation into the criminality of the war both on the part of Bush AND on the part of Blair? WHEN will these men stand trial for what they did? I don’t want it to be their subordinates either; the men responsible — the President and the Prime Minister — need to be the ones to stand trial, for they are the ones with the ultimate responsibility. There needs to be accountability in our society, ESPECIALLY for the leaders. Hell, if Clinton could be impeached for lying about Monica Lewinsky then how can this go unnoticed? It just goes to show the conservative nature of the mass-media companies.
I have placed phone calls to both of my Senators and I will write letters as well. I encourage all of you to do the same. We cannot let this be swept under the rug!!!
– Jon Gilbert
http://jsgilbert.blogspot.com