The face that launched a thousand...?
Posted on 07/17/2004 3:52:40 PM PDT by O.C. - Old Cracker
The face that launched a thousand...?
WASHINGTON -- If President Bush has any grand plan for another preemptive war, he had better forget it.
Bush has crash landed on the fallacy of the invasion of Iraq. It will take time for the self-described "war president" to make a recovery.
It brings to mind an old saying: "Some day they will give a war and nobody will come."
The Senate Intelligence Committee recently delivered a thorough trashing to the U.S. intelligence that nourished administration hawks in their rush to invade Iraq.
The senators unanimously -- Republicans and Democrats -- rejected the reasons Bush had given to justify his attack.
The panel summed up the American intelligence about Iraq's links with al Qaida and Iraq's weapons programs as "false, overstated, and deeply flawed."
If nothing else, that condemnation should rid Bush of any ideas he may have for other ill-advised preemptive wars in the Middle East or for "preventive wars," as they are euphemistically called.
The bad news is that Bush shows no indication that he has learned the lesson.
Earlier this week, Bush told a campaign rally in Marquette, Mich., that "America must remember the lessons of Sept. 11. We must confront serious dangers before they materialize."
This is another indication that he still endorses preemptive war. The president's comment also stands as further evidence of the administration's dishonest -- and continuing -- propaganda program aimed at merging the war on terrorism with the war on Iraq.
Days after the Senate committee's report, a British inquiry also found its government intelligence "seriously flawed" in drumming up excuses for the war.
Although the U.K. inquiry absolved Prime Minister Tony Blair of "deliberate distortion" or "culpable negligence," Blair said he assumed "full personal responsibility" for the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, despite his frightening warnings of imminent danger.
Faced with the grim reality that their original public rationales for war have been demolished, Bush and Blair have resorted to a vague feel-good generalization that "the world is better off" without Saddam Hussein in power.
While Blair did a mea culpa, we have yet to hear a similar refrain from Bush.
If it matters at this stage of the game, unprovoked attacks against other nations are illegal under international law and the United Nations charter, which American leaders helped draft after World War II.
Meanwhile, Bush's vaunted "coalition of the willing" -- never much to begin with -- is facing vaporization.
A small troop contingent from the Philippines is pulling out of Iraq at the end of the month to save the life of a Filipino captive held by Iraqi insurgents.
Four countries have already left: Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras. Planning to depart soon: Norway, Thailand and New Zealand.
These allies trickle out as the White House and the Pentagon struggle with credibility problems created by their sorry record in truth telling about the war. One wonders if the administration can ever recover the trust it needs to rally the necessary public support for the war against terrorism.
There are two other institutions that should indulge in serious self-examination.
One is the American news media, which -- generally speaking -- accepted the administration's jingoistic march to war without skepticism.
The other is Congress, which gave Bush a blank check to invade without deeply probing the reasons.
The lawmakers should be asked if they still would have voted to go to war, knowing what they know now.
Although popular support for the Iraq war is waning, both Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina -- the presumed Democratic Party standard bearers in the Nov. 2 election -- are playing it politically safe -- too safe.
Incredibly, both continue to defend their pro-war votes in the Senate, instead of saying that they, like the American public, were misled by the Bush administration.
Challengers are expected to make a difference. On the question of the Iraq war, Kerry has passed up a chance to offer voters a choice.
(Helen Thomas can be reached at the e-mail address hthomas@hearstdc.com).
Copyright 2004 by Hearst Newspapers. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
One is the American news media, which -- generally speaking -- accepted the administration's jingoistic march to war without skepticism.
Look, I know that Helen is a vitamin fortified nutburger, but I couldn't resist posting her lunacy.
I appreciate how she ignores all the lies and distortions that have been generated and perpetuated by the media and only castigates her colleagues for "...accept(ing) the administration's jingoistic march to war without skepticism."
You typically have to pay for this kind of entertainment, but Helen provides it without charge.
No it goes "What if they gave a war and nobody came" you doddering old biddy.
She certainly seems to enjoy spreading her own dishonest -- and continuing -- propaganda program, aimed at emboldening America's enemies. To mangle a cliche, isn't that like the old hag calling the pretty young thing "ugly"?
The new Bush doctrine is:
So many countries supporting terrorism,
So little time......
Obviously, Helen is more concerned over the appearance of politics than in the reality that WE ARE IN A WAR ON TERRORISM AND THEY ARE OUT TO KILL US, Helen.
Buy a vowel! Get a clue!!!!!
Got news for you, Helen, you old hag. If Bush is re-elected, and there is causus belli in the form of a serious terror attack or ironclad evidence that Iran is about to get the bomb, then Bush can go in and preempt anything he wants. The American people will support him, and no amount of whining by wicked or clueless leftist (here or in Europe) will make a whit of difference.
Could it be that she is defending her Syrian terrorist friends?
Does anyone have the date when Ari Fletcher skipped Helen Thomas for questions?
That should be posted everytime a Freeper posts a Helen Thomas article.
Senile old bat.
Isikoff: 9/11 Report Implicates Iran:The Iran Factor
And this:
President Bush sets sights on Iran
And:
US sets sights on toppling Iran regime
The above is from Times Online of the UK.
Background on our foes:
I'm sure Helen was on Clinton's back (now there's a visual for you) about Kosovo? Lobbing cruise missles here and there like a sugar-powered kid at a video arcade?
Forgot to mention my mandatory Helen Thomas observation - that woman eye-burningly ugly.
We all remember Ari's encounters with Helen, but if her articles irritate you so, don't read them. I find them entertaining.
That's right Helen, he does. And you better get used to it, 'cause John/John's going to do the Fritz/Geraldine crash and burn.
It's actually pretty sad, really.
Very nice. I chuckled out loud.
Helen doesnt seem to notice that Iran is surrounded......Of course I don't think she's noticed that she died years ago.
She's become an old twilight zone episode.
"The Senate Intelligence Committee recently delivered a thorough trashing to the U.S. intelligence that nourished administration hawks in their rush to invade Iraq.
The senators unanimously -- Republicans and Democrats -- rejected the reasons Bush had given to justify his attack."
You have to love this quote from Helen...
did not the Senate Intelligence Committee just last week said Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger or was that some other committee?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.