Why wasn't Gates admitting the reasons for the Iraq war were invalid

[mmonk]

a story worthy of attention?

[spanone]

1. i've heard no one admit that or even seem to care

[mmonk]

3. Does it mess up the narrative of a country drowning in falsehood?

[WinkyDink]

2. Why should we bother our beautiful minds about this?

[Octafish]

4. Because Corporate McPravda are organs of the national security state.

The Secret Government doesn't want people knowing too much, as they might get around to askin' questions.

Look at the non-uproar over The Washington Post series about the Secret Government.

[mmonk]

6. I never read the series.

Do you have a link or remember the author?

[Octafish]

11. Top Secret America

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/

[mmonk]

7. Never mind. I think I found it.

[Octafish]

12. Bill Moyers brought the term up during Iran-Contra treasons...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430#

[mmonk]

13. Thanks

[malaise]

5. Because M$Greedia is owned by corporations

who profited from the lies and the illegal war and occupation.

[Solly Mack]

8. Did you notice how Gates framed his statement?

"The problem with this war for many Americans is that the premise on which we justified going to war proved not to be valid," - Even if the outcome is a good one from the standpoint of the United States, it will always be clouded by how it began."


He's not saying invading Iraq was wrong. (It was)

He's not saying we shouldn't have invaded.(We shouldn't have)

He's not saying the entire enterprise was one big pile of shit, lies, trumped up evidence & war crimes. (Which it was)

Look at his choice of phrasing "premise on which we justified going to war proved not to be valid"

Which premise? WMD? Yellow cake? Spreading democracy? Saddam is bin Laden's buddy? Bush's premise changed all the time - and all he told were lies and trumped up evidence.

"not to be valid"

How lame is that phrasing? How mild even. How different that sounds on the ears than just telling the truth and saying *Bush lied*



He's saying the problem is that some Americans won't see the good (and make no mistake, the US is framing it as a good) of it - because of how the war started.

So his remarks weren't meant to bring attention to the reasons for the invasion.....but to get out the framing that the problem wasn't the war or how it came about - but the people who refuse to see the good to the U.S. in the outcome.

He's saying the beginning doesn't matter....he is saying the end justifies the means - and that "many Americans" (such as myself) are just refusing to see the "good" of it all. He was pointing the finger away from the lies and at people like myself.

Such framing allows those who don't plan to forget the lies, trumped evidence & the crimes to be labeled as malcontents or "playing politics" - to marginalize us and in the doing, marginalize the reasons ( the lies, the crimes, etc..) we think as we do.

It's part and parcel to the revision of America's war crimes.

The media got the message.

[mmonk]

9. Yes but of course he just put a bullet in the gun if anyone wants to

push the idea the war was based on lies and illegal and I think people who want accountability should jump on it.

[Solly Mack]

10. Of course people should....and there were articles and stuff about his comments.

But the establishment and or official line...well, that's another matter.