John Bolton's nomination as U.N. representative has aroused misgivings. "Deep Throat" has outed himself, reminding us of the Watergate scandal. George McGovern (target of the Watergate burglary that led to President Nixon's resignation, avoiding impeachment) and Daniel Ellsberg of "Pentagon Papers" fame have called for insiders to expose the lies and deception that led to the Iraqi invasion.The rationales the Bush administration used to promote the Iraq war as necesary to counteract an imminent threat from Iraq have fallen by the wayside. None of the commissions or congressional investigations have gone beyond the facile conclusions that "mistakes were made" or that the intelligence was "dead wrong." No official who gave the orders or held the responsibility has been named. President Bush took his re-election as a referendum on his previous policies, implying that we should move on. Correspondent Charles J. Hanley has done a public service in his investigative report for The Associated Press revisiting Bolton's drive to have Jose Bustani fired in 2002 as director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Recently Brian Richards wrote in OficialWire at http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20265 that eighty-nine members of the House of Representatives have called on George W. Bush to answer a series of five questions:
1. Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2. Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3. Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4. At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5. Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?
That was more than one month ago, shortly after the so-called Downing Street memo was made public by The Times of London.
According to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, the president had no need to respond. The president does not need to respond to questions?
Something seems fishy here?
No comments:
Post a Comment