Boston Globe: Newly Leaked Memos Add to Debate on War Motives

[geckosfeet]

Three references to DSM that I saw in the Boston Globe. But nothing on the front page.

First, a half page AP entry above the fold AP on page A9 by Thomas Wagner, a British journalist. A good historical accounting of events from a British journalists perspective. That is, void of the hybridized WH/MSM propaganda spin that we are deluged with in the US of A.
Newly Leaked Memos Add to Debate on War Motives (need to register)

<snip>
When Prime Minister Tony Blairs chief foreign policy advisor dined with Condoleeza Rice six months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, she did not want to discuss Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Rice, who was then President Bush's national security advisor, wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the US-led invasion more than a year later.
<snip>

He goes on - quoting Toby Dodge, a specialist on Iraq at Queen Mary College, University of London.

<snip>
The documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.
"The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the intelligence to the level of mendacity."
"He (Blair) knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."
<snip>

Towards the end of his piece, he makes a statement that I found a bit curious:

<snip>
At a July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."
"In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar 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."
<snip>

Does anyone care to venture what was meant by the "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks" comment? What benefits? Regime change? Occupation/destruction of a country? Cheap oil? Safety from terrorists? Revenge for Bush? from Iraq's WMD's?

I have thus far failed to see any benefits justifying the billions of dollars and endless resources being poured into Iraq. I for one, am quite curious as to what benefits Bush and Blair expected to reap from this. Please, educate me.

OK. Enough British journalism. We all know how dry and factual their writing can be. Lets move on to the Ideas section of the Globe. Always one of my favorites after Doonesbury. Page D5.

Well,,, look what we have here on the heels of an NPR interview aired earlier this week. A half page above the fold spread containing a phone interview with Nation publisher Victor Navasky by Drake Bennet. And, right below the Navasky piece, continued from page D1, is the bulk of Geoffrey Wheatcroft's (another Brit) oblique, somewhat convoluted and well padded critique of the "Special
Relationship" between Blair/England and Bush/the USA.
Downing Street Secrets discusses the second class status Britain has had to accept in the process of making war on Iraq. Wheatcroft's finely honed point is that

<snip>
Looked at cooly, there is something very curious about Blair's argument that it would be more dangerous if the Americans were seen to act alone. Either Washington was doing something wise and virtuous, in which case it should have been supported for that reason, or it wasn't, in which case a true friend would have counseled caution. "My country right or wrong" is bad enough, but "their country right or wrong" is barely sane."
<snip>

Finally, Thomas Oliphant continues his recovery with a nice op ed piece on page D11.
Conservatives Spin Befuddles the Media. Oliphant points to the DSM as one of the many Bush administration foibles that have caused a bit of a Republican retreat. He warns however,

<snip>
"... that the Retreat Machine is simply the pause before the next round of attacks."
<snip>