Friday, May 13, 2005

"Britain's intelligence boss believed that Bush had decided to go to war in mid-2002"

"and that he believed U.S. policymakers were trying to use the limited intelligence they had to make the Iraqi leader appear to be a bigger threat than was supported by known facts."

Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.

And yet the American people were told that the war was because of terrorism, WMDs, the "nucular scenerio" if we do nothing, spreading freedom and democracy, and what is it now? Cheap sand?

"Some people" are asking: "Is this not irresponsible? Is this not lying while innocents are dying?"

And now we hear from CNN that "Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002."

"The White House has not yet responded ..."

Responsible? Or Irresponsible?
Should Mister Bush respond to the inquiries? Or should he be irresponsible?

What was it they say about tangled webs and "when first we practice to deceive?"

My suggestion? Untie the knots, one at a time, and in the correct sequence.