A higher standard

Should today's revelations about misleading of country by the intelligence community come as a surprise to anyone? Or how about the fact that the summary of the report on WMD they produced ommitted all the caveats and dissenting opinions in the main report, and of course no one in congress even bothered to read the actual report, just the summary, before voting to go to war? And what the hell is this "group think" they have dreamed up as an excuse for their errors? Why don't they just call it what it was - deliberate massaging of the facts, deliberate omission of contrary information, and deliberate misleading of the country to meet George W. Bush's desire to go to war with Iraq. Basically the intelligence community turned into a giant propoganda machine and a company of yes men who were too afraid to tell Bush where to stick his WMD.

If there is one thing the Kerry is saying now that I agree with, is that he wont send American troops to war unless it is absolutely necessary. I believe there has to be the highest of standards to define "absolutely necessary" and that no super secret intelligence report that hasn't been thoroughily analysed and challenged for validity will do. Any politician that failed to challenge the validity of such information before voting owes the world an apology and can feel ashamed to have the responsibility for Iraqi and American blood on their hands. As such I think Kerry should be apologizing for being mislead so easily, and he should be calling for Bush to be impeached for instigating this disgusting deceit. Similarly the US media should be resigning en-masse for their complete failure to critically challenge the information coming from the Whitehouse.

I guess we can sit back and wait for Bush to blame "bad eggs" for the bad intelligence. But once again this is something he simply cannot blame on his minions. It was clear that the desire to supress information and massage what there was to be favorable towards Bush's desires came straight from the top. Think about it, this country sends people to death when their guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, and yet it still makes mistakes. Why should we invade another country on any less a standard, should we not require a higher standard than that used to execute one person?

What would comprise such a standard? Well how about if Saddam had been parading long range missiles up and down through the streets of Baghdad, launching a few into the desert for good measure, and issuing daily decrees of "I'm gonna git yer Uncle Sam". Maybe that would comprise the a clear and present danger... maybe.