1 I see Dan Rather has gone freelance... and it's all according to the plans of my evil Jooooooish overlords in the Trade Federation™. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

2 Goodness me. They were fake but accurate? If one wishes to take the time and read the Butler Report, they'll get a better picture of what went on in the UK's JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) in the run up to the war. It's 190+ pages, but completely analyzes all the intelligence. I'm only at page 92 so I won't comment on it yet. I will say that I can see where rabid anti-war people will use it for their own argument and rabid pro-war people will use it for theirs. But if one will simply be objective they'll see the real balance in the report and understand why someone who bore the responsibility for the well being of millions of souls would make the final decisions they did make. One first has to shrug off their lazy bones and actually read it through though. It's fascinating. Many of the "anti" people are trying desperately to lay their blame at Bush's feet and in turn are going with the "he made me do it" argument for Blair. That's silly.

3 Oyster: Frankly, it would not suprise me all that much to find that the Bush administration had more or less made up its mind to go to war long before Powell gave his show and tell at the UN, though I think they'd have backed away from that decision at any time if Saddam had acquiesced to the "full monty" implied by Blix's statement that we regard the regime as guilty until proved innocent. There was precedent for such transparency, in South Africa... but meeting that standard was not commensurate with Saddam's threat to shoot down unannounced U2 flights, or his resistance to having his scientists interrogated on some neutral ground. In spite of what the anti-war movement says, Saddam was simply insufficiently forthcoming to be trusted in the way that Blix and the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese were prepared to trust him. My recommendation at the time was that he simply back him into the position of taking the first aggressive step himself. Since he was threatening to shoot down unannounced U2s we should have put up half a dozen of them. But clearly, asking the UN to manifest the cojones to actually resolve a situation as thorny as the Iraq/Saddam confrontation was simply unrealistic. Ultimately what forced the US hand was UN wimpiness, a fact that no one seems to have registered, either then or now.

4 A couple things aren't adding up for me about this memo: If the memo were a fake, Tony Blair certainly would have had every reason to say so by now. And if the memo were a fake, why would British sources have confirmed its authenticity for the Washington Post?

5 "If the memo were a fake..." I have an anecdote to put this into perspective. During a campaign, Lyndon Johnson, one of the most vile scumbags to ever darken the Oval office, told his people to put out the word that his opponent was known to have sex with pigs. When his people responded responded that nobody would believe such an outrageous allegation, Johnson said "I don't care if anyone believes it, I just want to hear the SOB deny it." Smearing is the oldest political tactic that exists, and time has proven that the best response is to ignore it. Since the 2000 election, the leftards have been trying to sling mud on Bush, but to no avail. He's like teflon; nothing can stick to him. In fact, the constant smear tactics have had the opposite of the intended effect, because everyone is so used to hearing his opponents cry wolf, if there is any real evidence of wrongdoing, it will be discounted as just another attack.

6 Sorry about the extra "responded" above, I was interrupted and sort of skipped when I restarted. It won't happen again again.

7 IM - see to it that it doesn't happen again ;-)

8 Demosophist, Rather than clutter Rusty's comment section up with a monolithic response, I've posted it here: http://oyster(dot)journalspace(dot)com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=1065&entryid=1065 You'll have to replace the (dot)s actual periods. Rusty's blog still deems my site as "questionable content". My apologies.

9 Correction: You'll have to replace the (dot)s WITH actual periods. (IM - I won't let that happen again)

10 IM,I would like to point out that although LBJ was one of the most manipulative and conniving politicians in our history, he was one the most effective Presidents we have ever had. He was much more effective then both daddy and son put together. He got things done like a true Texan, a cattleman rancher and not some slick willy oilman.