great point by Ivins

[NewJeffCT]

She remembered that Wolfowitz said before that Saddam just being a bad man was not reason enough to invade...

>>>
These are Orwellian days, my friends, as the Bush administration attempts to either shove the history of the second Gulf War down the memory hole or to rewrite it entirely. Keeping a firm grip on actual historical fact, all of it easily within our imperfect memories, is not that easy amid the swirling storms of misinformation, misremembering and misstatement. But since the war itself stands as a monument to what happens when we let ourselves get stampeded by a chorus of disinformation, let's draw the line right now.

http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-ivins0211.artfeb11,1,2837751.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped

(Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere or previously...)

[Brotherjohn]

1. Perfect editorial! It should be published everywhere!

I always agree with Molly, but often, she rambles and gets sidetracked from her main point.

This is one of the clearest, most concise pieces I have read on Bush's ongoing shifting rationales for -- and continued lying about -- the war.

Never have I seen the "imminent" issue so easily and succinctly challenged, ripping the Bush nonsense of "we never said imminent" to shreds.

Then there's the very clear refutation of the Bush assertion that "we were all wrong" and that "everybody thought he had WMDs". Well, most of us here know that's not the case. But most American voters should read this, as she points out a few select people who did not share the administration's opinion: the United Nations, the IAEA, several American generals, and that little "focus group" of a few million American citizens.

Great closer coming around to the Kerry quote, too.

Kudos, Molly!

[dennis4868]

2. And dont forget....

entire agencies like the DIA, DOS, DOE, and the intelligence branch of the United States Miltary did not share PNAC/WH/OSP's opinion.....

[Brotherjohn]

6. Right. But why I think her editorial is so perfect is...

... it puts the major evidence out there, gives people doubts who may not have had them, and makes a great case for anyone who wants to further reasearch such things. It wouldn't take them long to find out about dissenting opinions from DIA, DOE, etc...

The thing about politics today, you have to distill things down to digestible bites for mass consumption. That's difficult with the constant stream of misinformation coming out of the administration (as Molly acknowledges in her piece). She does so very well here.

[Blue-Jay]

3. Hey, could someone please PM me the text of the editorial.

My IT guys don't like registration pages.

Thanks!

[nostamj]

4. no registration needed here....

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=14904&mode=nested&order=0

[11 Bravo]

5. Thanks!

I love Molly Ivins.