Uncivil Discourse

Because civility is overrated.

Monday, June 13, 2005

More Thoughts On The Cabinet Memo (Or Why The NYT Likes Pussy)

Oh, lordy, the second memo is good. Recall, if you will, the Downing Street Memo, which said in no minced words that not only did Bush have a major hard-on to go to war, but we were in the process of cooking the intelligence like you might cook a piece of rotting meat, with lots of spices so no one notices that it's, well, rotting:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action....It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
There's nothing new here, but of course, for those who are willing to be convinced, but it's all nice and official. It states nicely that Bush wanted to go to war, had to go to war, was in a rush to go to war, and all we needed to do was to justify it.

And on a slight tangent, this take is just fucking ridiculous. Anyone who's read the damned document knows that it doesn't say "They were preparing for war as if it were inevitable." Of course, you all know I agree with Kevin Drum, that there's not much surprising here, just like nobody was really surprised by the Pentagon Papers. The nice thing about this document is that it's what historians will use to condemn this cocksucker, to turn "Saddam made the decision to go to war" into "I am not a crook."

But what is it going to say when historians look at the press and their virtual lack of coverage, in favor of white girls going missing? That I'll be interested to see, and of course, conservatives will be out there decrying how the press turned the public against the war. This war is Lebanon on the ground, but it's definitely Vietnam politically.

And that's the telling thing about this new memo. Sure, it says even more explicitly that we didn't give a fuckall about the postwar: "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point." This is, of course, nothing new, and I don't think it'll change anything in terms of public opinion. After all, listening to Perle, Wolfowitz, and those other motherfuckers, you'd think we were going into France in 1944 to kick out the Germans, what with the sweets and the flowers that were going to be thrown at us as we walked on cake. Where are those goddamned rose petals now, Rummy, huh? And it says that, to a large degree, we didn't give a rat's ass about even trying to justify it beyond the already-established stovepiping before Tony Blair decided that the Brits needed to save at least some face. Shakespeare's Sister breaks it down a little more.

But how is this being covered in the press is interesting. Particularly given this particular journalistic turd, compliments of the anus of the New York Times. "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made"? Please. The memo, right in the damned beginning, says
"1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it."
Can we all read that? When, taken in conjunction with Downing Street, doesn't that entirely kill the thesis that "the decision wasn't made"? If I had a subscription to the Times, this would make me cancel it. Fortunately, I haven't wasted money on them since before Judith Miller decided to be Ahmed Chalabi's echo chamber.

But now imagine what the headline would be if, instead of dealing with a war that the Times had helped pimp, it included something about Bush having sex with interns? Especially if it involved, I don't know, a cigar sex toy? Wouldn't this just be everywhere? Would the Times run a headline saying "British Memo Reveals Bush's Feelings On Cigars in Pussy"? Ok, probably not, and not just because the Times can't use the word "pussy."

And that's the entire problem. This scandal needs more pussy or more money. If we had either, by god, Bush would've been impeached last week and we'd have nothing else in the news, except for maybe a bit of Michael Jackson, because that's the celebrity equivalent of pussies filled with money. And that's why, ultimately, it seems this will go nowhere, to the same place that the other Bush scandals went, to vindicate those of us written off as conspiracy theorists in the eyes of history, and to show to posterity just what a cocksucker Bush is. Because the media will never, ever learn that, perhaps, if you keep getting diseases from fucking a particular whore, you should maybe stop fucking her. They're perfectly content to be on a constant stream of antibiotics, even if it means their dicks burn like the dickens.

But it's nice to dream, isn't it? And there are still some unanswered questions, particularly, what the fuck were they thinking? Why was there such a rush? What was the hurry? So let's all thank John Conyers for making sure this gets into the spotlight, for having hearings, just so it can all be fleshed out. This might get shunted off into history, but by god, you'll have to fight to throw it there. We'll grandstand and we'll use it, and maybe we'll swing a few votes here or there. Because now we can use the word "lie," even if the press won't, and if they try going off at us for it, we can shove these memos right up their collective ass. And maybe, eventually, if we keep this in the spotlight, something will come up that the media decides is worth its time to report. Because there is one more question that's important, for both posterity and for ourselves, and it's why all this shit happened. I don't know if there are any answers in the offing, but we still need to look.

Update: Digby nails it as usual.