Editorial: Memorial Day/Praise bravery, seek forgiveness

[Paul Dlugokencky]

from the Minneapolis Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5427823.html

- - - - - -clip- - - - - -
In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.
- - - - - -clip- - - - - -



http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[MoJoWorkin]

1. FINALLY a US newspaper calls Bush a liar!!!!

Now, we can just watch the Downing Street Memo die an un-natural death, as I don't have confidence that this will be the start of something big and honorable, unfortunately.

[tuvor]

2. "President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them."

"Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse."

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Editorial: Memorial Day/Praise bravery, seek forgiveness

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5427823.html

[dennis4868]

3. Our men and women....

who went to battle in Iraq who trusted their president deserve a full investigation by our Congressm and the media no matter how biased each of these bodies are. This is not a lie simply about a blow job people!

[chemp]

4. Recomended.

Just saw it on buzzflash and was about to post it myself.
Insightful and damning.

[indepat]

5. The system of check and balances and separation of powers are to assure

that no one man will never lead this nation far astray. Those constitutional powers, a watchful media, and an interested and informed public in combination are sufficient to assure that no one man will ever jeopardize this nation's fiscal integrity or destroy the environment, the rule of law, or international goodwill, order, and organizations. Americans should be mindful that such a man might one day become president, but can take great comfort that our constitutional system of protections, together with a watchful media and an interested and informed public, will keep the reins on any miscreant president and keep our Republic in good stead. All it takes is for the Congress, the courts, the media, and the people to perform their sacred duties.

[Warpy]

6. This is a great editorial, even 2 years late

What I want to know is how the junta managed to fool every journalist in this country, when they didn't manage to fool US?

Maybe they need to approach Washington press releases with a Chinese proverb: "To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be certain is to be ridiculous."

My guess is that they bought the lies because everybody in an official position was telling the same lies, and they were all so CERTAIN. I think that's why Congress bought the lies. Only those of us with fully operational bullshit detectors didn't buy them, like Dean, Kucinich, the Greens, the far left, and other marginalized people who have learned the hard way to mistrust the morally certain.

[murielkane]

10. It was a lot easier to be for the war than to be against it

It seems to be a rule of life that most creatures, most of the time, will make the safest choice. You can see this in evolution -- it's why species remain stable for millions of years. Under normal circumstances, each member of a species will keep doing exactly what the fellow-members of its species are doing all around it.

It's only under exceptional conditions of either unusual danger or unusual opportunity that some members of a species will cut loose and start doing things differently. That is when you get evolutionary leaps and the emergence of new species.

We humans are not as locked in as most creatures. At least some of us like doing new things just for the hell of it, and some of us will go against what everyone is doing just out of pure persnicketiness. That is why our species has come as far as it has as fast as it has. (Compared to, say, Neanderthals, who were content to sit in the same valley making the same tools for tens of thousands of years at a time.)

But the innovaters among us are still the oddballs. We get to try new things in the areas of art or technology, where the stakes aren't as high. But the core areas of politics and business continue to be ruled by the principles of follow-your-neighbor and cover-your-ass.

The Bush administration has been very, very good at making supporting them seem to be the safe, comfortable decision and opposing them seem to be not worth the risks. This works for them almost every time, because they're playing to billion-year-old instincts which are stronger than reason or morality.

Our only way to combat it is by changing the equation. We have to reward politicians and media people who take a stand on principle (even if they might be wrong, even if they're being blamed by others.) And, though it sounds harsh, we have to make them pay for making the easy choices (even if they're our own guys.)

One thing that works in our favor is that, when it comes to instincts, follow-your-neighbor is far older and more powerful than follow-the-leader. This is what is tripping Bush up over Social Security. We can be the neighbors that others follow -- but only if we have the courage of our convictions and only if we speak out.

[Liberty Belle]

7. Great to see this in a major newspaper.

:kick:

[wurzel]

8. No Congressional hearings over those British memos.

Which show without any doubt we were lied into a war where over a hundred thousand people have died. They had an impeachment over a deposition in a rigged sex case. Silence from our media on these memos. Enough paper wasted on Whitewater to reach the moon. That "Librul" press.

[Pirate Smile]

9. Here are four paragraphs:

"Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.

In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.

The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.

At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "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 (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. 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."

more...
Link at Atrios takes you in without registering. It is titled Aggrieved - Too sad, but too true: http://atrios.blogspot.com/