My deepest appreciation goes to the Star Tribune editorial pages for printing the leaked minutes and memos regarding the secret march to war with Iraq.
In the Downing Street minutes, we learn "[T]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
In the latest, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote in March of 2002, "We have also to answer the big question -- what will this action achieve? ... Most of the assessments from the U.S. have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better."
Herein lies the current crisis. This administration willfully ignored all planning and advice regarding a war on Iraq, and now there are tens of thousands dead or maimed. Yet the president and his cronies think they can win this war by simplistically denying the truth and stubbornly "staying the course."
Only a child believes that shouting louder will change the facts.
Lisa van Dyke, Minneapolis.
How about if I shout the facts louder, you dimbulb? Then will you get it?
I'm betting "no".
Here's the perspective from those of us with a Goodyear Blimp's vista of the forest to all you van Dykes out there who continue to pick tree bark out of your teeth:
It doesn't freaking matter.
You folks are wondering why there's no uproar over these memos?
Because it doesn't matter.
Remember back before September of 2001. Remember how every world leader fretted openly about Saddam's weapons programs and aggressive nature. Worry based upon the thinnest of evidence such as a 10 year war of aggression against Iran (featuring the use of those lied-about chemical weapons) and the invasion of a weak neighbor?
And remember how Iran had all that oil that we supposedly went to war (twice) over; providing this rather aggressive dictator with an unlimited river of money into his military-industrial complex?
And remember how the Middle East has been an unstable cesspool of violence since the Middle Ages?
And remember how 19 people from that very same unstable cesspool of the world killed a whole bunch of people on our own soil (not to mention the other countless incidences of bloodshed that can be traced back to a group of people from a region where the only law is God's law, and He doesn't mind the killing of "infidels")?
Of course you do - you folks have "historical perspective".
[CAUTION: RUN-ON SENTENCE ALERT]
So, after the September 11th attacks the choice was to either maintain the status quo (status quo meaning Saddam gaming both the weapons inspectors and the oil for food program in perpetuity, and, given his personality and hatred for this country, douse these islamo-fascists in all the money they could spend) allowing the most destabilizing force in the most unstable part of the world to keep on keeping on, or something could be done about it. Something that was the policy of the previous administration. Something that would require short-term pain in pursuit of a long-term good. So when Jack Straw says that regime change isn't a "legitimate reason" for invasion, it's the opinion of one man following in the storied foreign policy tradition of another woefully misguided Brit politician [CAUTION: RIGHT WING CLICHE' ALERT!] Neville Chamberlain, not an "indictment" of the war.
WMD were part of the equation, but not an indispensable part of it.
But you guys keep on opining by hindsight. You can keep on saying "the adminstration didn't plan this" or "no WMDs that" based on the leaked memo du jour that uses language suspiciously similar to your own, which was eminating from every oriface of your body well before the statues fell.
Because it doesn't prove you right about the big picture. Because it doesn't matter.
It's like looking at the Sports page to see who won yesterday's games, then running to the sports book to bet on them.
The only people who would take such a bet are the chronically stupid.