I have a dream...

[ebonlock]

Maybe, just maybe if enough of these kinds of stories come out, somebody in our media might start taking them seriously. Maybe.

via Pandagon

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.

Yeah, I know it's just a dream, but it's an awfully nice one...

And then No More Mister Nice Blog goes and ruins it all with his damn "logic" and "reason":

Mainstream press outlets in the U.S. aren't taking the memo seriously -- and they never will. The reason, I'd say, is that, on some level, they feel they can't -- taking it seriously would mean taking seriously the question of whether the president of the United States should continue to hold office.

The press won't go there.

The press publishes plenty of critical articles about the war and about Bush's domestic policy -- but a story that suggests the president deliberately lied his way into this war, which would mean that perhaps he ought to step down or be removed from office, just won't get traction.

*sigh*

Comments

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Oh I should've known you'd say it much better than I ever could :) Don't you love that we treat Amnesty International the same way we treat international law at present? We like them when they give us reasons to do what we want to, but not when they try to tell us not to do stuff we really shouldn't be doing anyway.

"See? Amnesty International thinks Saddam is bad! We should do something about it!"

"Wait, AI thinks we're doing something wrong? Well to hell with those guys!"

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Unfortunatly, our national government has generally tended to view these treaties as 'binding by convenience only'. It's not just this administration. And honestly, who's going to have the military might to enforce prosecution if we decide that We Don't Care Because We're Bigger Than You?
I did smile when I heard that Don Rumsfeld had decided not to visit Germany after all, but I'm sure it had nothing to do with concerns over being arrested.