Snap shot or not, the McClellan book has re-opened the Iraq debate, though superficially. What is interesting is the Bush pundit response; "puzzled", "confused", "saddened" in McClellan. Are we to believe their tack on this? The admin's statements reflect another diversion in changing the subject of the reporting from what is being said by McClellan, to McClellan himself. Of course, the MSM once again is not doing their job by challenging their talking points and digging for the truth, "Why did we really invade Iraq"? Instead, they are defending themselves in their own complacency for the lead up to the war and falling into the White House talking point banter.
Yes, this is all old news, and I'm sure the theories have been debated, dissected, investigated, and discussed. So, I apologize if this is just a rehash. But, with McClellan, comes possibly an opportunity for the press to finally do its job, as argued by McClellan.
I took the opportunity this morning to seek out some analysis of the press coverage and the lead up to the Iraq war. Most of you probably saw Bill Moyer's piece "Buying the War" back in April, 2007, so this will be old news. But given the current discussion with McClellan's book, it's interesting to take a second look and also digest the most frightful statement from McClellan, that the real reason Bush wanted to invade Iraq was the "opportunity to create a legacy of greatness" by transforming the Middle East into a land of peace and brotherhood. I'm willing to take it perhaps a bit further, conspiracy theory or not, but also to add it was an "opportunity to create a legacy of 'oil' greatness". Okay, this isn't new news, there is overwhelming agreement that it's all about oil, but how do all the pieces fit exactly, that is the question? Everytime I tend to go down this road, I feel Woodward and Bernstein, invoking the old line, "Just, follow the money". God, how many times can one think that and not step into "motives" retrospect.
It may be easiest to start with Moyer's piece as the primer.
For those interested, please watch or read the transcript of the PBS Bill Moyer's: "Buying The War"
Here are a few snips:
"From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," says Howard Kurtz, the POST's media critic. "But there was only a handful of stories that ran on the front page that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions."
"More and more the media become, I think, common carriers of administration statements and critics of the administration," says THE WASHINGTON POST's Walter Pincus. "We've sort of given up being independent on our own."
Bill Moyers Conclusion:
BILL MOYERS: WE WANTED TO TALK TO SOME OTHERS IN THE MEDIA ABOUT THEIR ROLE IN THE RUN UP TO WAR.... JUDITH MILLER, WHO LEFT THE TIMES AFTER BECOMING EMBROILED IN A WHITE HOUSE LEAK SCANDAL, DECLINED OUR REQUEST ON LEGAL GROUNDS.
THE TIMES' LIBERAL HAWK THOMAS FRIEDMAN ALSO SAID NO. SO DID BILL SAFIRE, WHO HAD PREDICTED IRAQ WOULD NOW BE LEADING THE ARAB WORLD TO DEMOCRACY. PRESIDENT BUSH RECENTLY AWARDED HIM THE MEDAL OF FREEDOM.
THE WASHINGTON POST'S CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER ALSO TURNED US DOWN. SO DID ROGER AILES THE MAN IN CHARGE OF FOX NEWS.. HE DECLINED BECAUSE, AN ASSISTANT TOLD US, HE'S WRITING A BOOK ON HOW FOX HAS CHANGED THE FACE OF AMERICAN BROADCASTING AND DOESN'T WANT TO SCOOP HIMSELF.
WILLIAM KRISTOL LED THE MARCH TO BAGHDAD BEHIND A BATTERY OF WASHINGTON MICROPHONES. HE HAS NOT RESPONDED TO ANY OF OUR REQUESTS FOR AN INTERVIEW, BUT HE STILL SHOWS UP ON TV AS AN EXPERT, MOST OFTEN ON FOX NEWS.
Now for the more blurred information that has been purported across the web since 9/11. I'm not going to list all of the obvious conspiracy theories, like we blew up the buildings, but something a bit more disturbing. The notion that the Bushies, their ties with the Bin Laden family, Saudi Oil investors, the Taliban, CIA, etc., coordinated in some respect, to take down Hussein.
Before I get labeled a whack job for promoting wild conspiracy theories, I want to say that I have not supported, believed, or written about this topic before. I am just trying to digest and think through what McClellan may be really saying, without really saying it. The one mind that I would love to get inside at this point is Colin Powell, but that's a whole other epic story.
After eight years of Bush administration secrecy and constitutional breaches, I sit here, pondering the reality: could this administration have had the lack of moral fortitude to provoke a 9/11 action to achieve their objectives? Can we actually not consider the thought that Rove, Cheney, Bush are capable of such a thing at this point?
An interesting blog I found gives an interesting account for the argument of an "oil" tactic. It's worth a read, though I did take with a grain of salt, like you may as well.
"War on Terror" aka "War for Oil"
Here's an old Boston Herald article on the Saudi/Bush Admin link from December 2001, entitled "Bush Advisors Cashed in on Saudi Oil Train"
Okay, now for some loose and additional food for thought about the Bin Laden investigation in Afghanistan, the Taliban relationship, and the failure or lack of capture of Bin Laden. From an article published in January 2002 on "Upgrade":
The connections between Bush and the Taliban became so close that the Taliban went so far as to hire an expert on U.S. public relations named Laila Helms, so as to smooth the way between the two regimes. Meetings between the two nations continued at a high level, the last of which occurred in August, scant weeks before the September 11th attacks. All of these actions were taken to exploit the vast energy reserves in Turkmenistan for the benefit of American energy corporations.
Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill stated, "The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it."
The cozy relationship between Bush and the Taliban frustrated the investigative efforts of former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill. He was the FBI's chief bin Laden hunter, in charge of the investigations into the bin Laden-connected bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, the destruction of an American troop barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the African embassy bombings in 1998, and the attack upon the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.
It's 2008, Bin Laden is alive and well in Pakistan, the Iraq war did not go as planned and open up the oil fields, Hussein is dead, the Saudi's have their oil and we don't, and the Bush administration leaves in 8 months, and McCain is positioned to continue the initiative.
I guess in posting this diary, it is an argument with the MSM and the Press. Whether McClellan is an angry ex-employee or not, he has invited the press to engage, challenge the Bush administration. I doubt they will do it, as lifting up the covers and peaking at the underbelly is something that the American public just does not want to see and the MSM doesn't want the responsibility of taking us there. We are at a brink of a new Presidency, a chance for redemption. This administration will get the pass and we will move on. I just would have liked to see these guys get challenged!