least surprising revelation of the day
At a press conference, Gen. Tommy Franks added a great deal of weight to the the increasingly obvious conclusion that the decision to attack Iraq is hardly a recent development:
And the fact of the matter is that for a period of about a year, a great deal of intense planning and a great deal of what-iffing by all of us has gone into this so that we prepare ourselves and prepare our subordinates in a way that we minimize the number of surprises.
As I've said before, the Bush Administration has played for chumps myself and anyone who's debated inspections, UN resolutions and the like. Bush directed the Pentagon to begin preparations on Sept. 17, 2001, according to the Washington Post. Maybe that's why they're still dishonetly conflating Saddam and 9/11--even today:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday urged quick congressional approval of President Bush's request for $74.7 billion to cover the emerging costs of war with Iraq (news - web sites) and other anti-terrorism efforts.
Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Rumsfeld said this "great deal of money" was needed to assure the removal of Saddam Hussein and protect the nation from another terrorist attack
"Whatever it ends up costing, it will be small compared to the cost in lives and treasure of another attack like we experienced on Sept. 11," he said. [Emphasis added]
There is not one tiny shred of evidence that Saddam poses anything resembling such a threat. The addiction of this Administration to this egregious, however widely accepted, lie undermines even more plausible rationales for the war. Regardless of rationale, length or cost, Bush has his war, and I agree that it now needs to be seen through to the bitter end. However, it's clear that the deaths of Iraqis and allies alike represent nothing but bloody sacrifices on an altar of lies.
(via a comment thread at Daily Kos)