Iraq Was a Choice

The Corporate Media has come to the "Downing Street Memo" story late, but I'm glad they're finally on it. Blogs everywhere have already been analyzing the situation exhaustively, which is good. My problem with that though, is that the average person isn't like me: they don't sit at home in their spare time ferreting through the internet to determine the truth of what's happening in the world, assessing and analyzing the news because TV reporters and "journalists" are too lazy to do the job they're supposed to do. Most people, understandably, have lives and the priorities that come with such lives. Because of this, most people have time for the morning newspaper, or perhaps the news for a half-hour before dinner or bed, and that's that. So when news gets filtered through such a fine spectrum, it's easily manipulated.

This is especially the case when just a handful of companies/individuals own the newspapers, TV networks, cable companies, and radio stations in this country.When reporters fail their obligations to disseminate information as objectively as possible, that means it's easy for the average person to either misunderstand what's going on or exist in a state of ignorance.

But it's not just the "Corporate Media" that's at fault; often the newsmakers themselves manipulate the news, and this is especially true of politicians. It bothers me when I see that so many people supposedly think Smirk is an honest, upstanding guy, a "straight shooter" in his words. This is a man who has changed his rationale for Iraq every five minutes, who most likely was wearing a hidden mike during the debates last year, and according to the Downing Street Memo (which neither Bush nor Blair has categorically denied thus far! Hmm...) lied to Congress and the nation about war against Iraq being a "last resort."

This article from the other day just convinces me even more that Bush and Blair knowingly lied to their respective governments and citizens about what their real intentions were in Iraq.

The opening paragraph of this London Times article from June 12 says, "Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal."

This was long before Powell's U.N. speech, Bush's State of the Union speech, the start of hostilities, the beginning of the occupation, the retraction of the "sixteen words", Wilson's article about the non-existent attempt to obtain yellowcake from Niger, the subsequent exposure of Valerie Plame, the lack of WMDs, the ever-shifting rationale for war, Abu Ghraib, similar abuses at Guantanamo, and the slowly spiraling toll of the dead, both military and civilian... and now the Downing Street Memo.

"Saddam had to be removed." "Iraq is safer with Saddam gone." "Saddam was evil."

This seems to be the sole justification left, the only fallback that Smirk and Poodle have for the incursion and occupation. I doubt you'd find too many people who'd disagree that Saddam Hussein was evil, or that he should be brought to justice for the things he's done (his treatment of the Kurds being Exhibit A). But there are tons of other governments and headsof state that are just as bad, or worse. North Korea is an excellent example. So I don't buy that argument.

Going back to that first paragraph, it states that during a meeting of the ministers in Blair's government, they were told that Britain was "committed" to going to war against Iraq and that they "had no choice but to find a way of making it legal."

If that isn't a load of b.s., I don't know what is. War is never a "commitment" beforehand. It is *always* a choice made by the aggressor. It especially aggravates me that Britain's leaders knew that what was transpiring was illegal, and that facts would have to be shaped so as to justify any invasion. The same is true for the U.S.-- Smirk and his henchmen knew beforehand that their "reasons" were awfully weak, their evidence woefully pitiful and thin.

The war in Iraq certainly could have been avoided. As it stands, the only valid reason to go in (and the only thing that is "positive") was to "get" Saddam. No matter how despicable Hussein is, there are and were better ways to go about it: the U.N. sanctions was one tool that was effective to a point. Additionally, "pre-emptive attacks" and "regime change" are not only unusually agressive behavior, but they set a chilling precedent: What's to stop some other country from determining we need to be contained, and that our leaders need to be toppled?

So far we have more than 1,000 soldiers KIA, thousands more wounded and maimed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, wounded, and maimed. People left homeless, lives and careers disrupted, children orphaned. All so Smirk could get the guy "who tried to kill my dad." We would all have been far better off if we had gone in, seized only Saddam Hussein, and then locked Bush and Hussein in a room by themselves. Then they could have settled a vendetta that was tragically taken public.

Hopefully the Corporate Media will follow-up on the Downing Street Memo; if we're really lucky (probably not possible, given Republican domination of the gummint), we'll get the investigation and hearings into the origins of this war that we deserve. But no matter what happens, don't let anyone fool you into thinking there was "no choice" in Iraq; the whole war, from start to present, was a "choice."