33 more

You know, I just wanted to weigh in on this little tidbit, even though it was reported a few days ago. Of course, I'm talking about the revelation of more complete details and conversations that took place during George Bush and Tony Blair's not-yet-infamous-enough meeting in January 2003, subsequent to their "fixing the facts" chat a few months earlier. According to Monday's New York Times:

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

Were we not told, with unshakable, "slam dunk" certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, and that the continental U.S. was in "imminent danger" of terrorist attack with Iraqi chemical, biological, or (gasp) "nukular" weapons? Yet these men knew that nothing had been discovered in Iraq, or would be found any time soon.

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected"...

Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.

The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."

Didn't this President pledge to Congress and the American people that war would only be an act of last resort? Sounds like proof that, as we "traitorous" Liberals have been saying for years, our unwarranted attack was a foregone conclusion, regardless of the evidence or the blessing of the global community.

And, "[d]espite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain," that additional U.N. Resolution never was obtained.

At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said - and the prime minister has constantly said - this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."

Well, here I go back to that "imminent" part of "imminent danger" again. Why the rush? Were we not assured that every reasonable, international, diplomatic solution was being attempted before committing to the last desperate choice available to nations in resolving their differences, the sign that all else has failed - war? A "matter of weeks" seems to me like the dare of a bully, the unrealistic and arbitrary deadline imposed by someone just itching for a fight.

What's most outrageous to me is not that these conversations took place. The aspirations of the key policymakers of this Administration have been no secret since they were charter members of the PNAC in the late 90's.

No, what I find shocking is the very lack of sustained outrage in our traditional media, and the general populace, over this and previous revelations about Bush's plan to invade Iraq from the moment he and his cronies assumed control by judicial fiat in 2000. Imagine, for a moment, if similar evidence had surfaced that Bill Clinton had knowingly manipulated the nation into an unnecessary, unprecedented, pre-emptive military attack that had bankrupted our coffers; killed and maimed tens of thousands of brave American citizens, who believed that they were protecting their loved ones from the immediate threat of known nuclear terrorists; and, as a previously released passage from this same memo indicated, actually looking for ways to provoke an incident (again, at the cost of American lives) that would serve as "justification" for his self-serving commitment of our country to a world of "all war, all the time."

The man would have been publicly crucified in a prime-time television "event." Good God, this same crowd has been relentless in its criticism of the former President for not dispatching with bin Laden on his watch to begin with.

So where is the collective outrage? Where is the rush among our Congressional officials to support censure, at the absolute f#%ing least, for a President who's been proved to be such a two-faced liar? Where are the front-page, 70-point headlines, and lead news stories every weekday evening about the fact that our Dear Leader didn't really even expect to find WMD in Iraq, but basically sold us on the image of nukes for sale at open bazaars on the streets of Baghdad? Where are the blistering editorials, and angry letters to the editor, and calls to radio show hosts from a furious public, demanding the removal of this duplicitous, incompetent, disastrous CEO for the good of the corporation?

When is enough simply enough?!

There is an "imminent danger" to the continued safety and security of America, and to the survival of its most precious liberties and democratic philosophies. But that threat is less about those international criminals that are plotting terrorist attacks against our population (and they are out there), and more about the character of "the most powerful man in the world," the one that sits temporarily in the Oval Office. The type of person who would so casually and callously talk about inciting a reason to go to war, come Hell, high water, or facts to the contrary, is precisely the type of despot we've been convinced had to be removed from Iraq for the peace and stability of the globe.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe we can afford to wait almost three years more for regime change in Washington - and this fact should, by now, be evident to the rational Conservatives that I'm sure comprise the majority of Republican voters. For Heaven's sake, America, make a noise and keep making one - 'cause right now, truth be told, the silence is deafening, just as it was over the Downing Street memo, and last month's exposure of snippets from this same 2003 meeting. How much more evidence do we need that this individual and his pals are utterly unfit to call themselves the "leaders" of our nation on every level imaginable?

Within the first 26 months of his illegitimate reign, President Bush was willing to play fast and loose with the facts, caring not one bit what his actions would cost the nation in lives and treasure. Imagine what he can do with 33 more.