Avedon writes, in relation to this post:
I think it’s a bit sad that John Cole is still willing to buy into the right-blogosphere’s reinterpretation of this thing. It’s as if the word “political” in the document is invisible to them, or is a synonym for “military”.
I don’t get what I am buying into. Correct me if I am wrong or what I am missing:
The Downing Street Memo is one person’s interpretations of his meetings with several people. Other memos are now being released that don;t paint the same picture, including the one Sanger wrote about
The military absolutely had plans for invading Iraq well before 9/11, and they were updated afterwards.
Bush, after 9/11, asked people to clear Iraq from guilt, and then invaded Afghanistan. As part of a larger stream of thinking, the belief was that something had to be done about Iraq, the Middle East in general, and that Hussein had WMD and was a legitimate target of opportunity.
Bush felt the UN was a lost cause on the issue of Iraq, and while he publicly stated he was going to do everything he could to engage them and avoid war, he believed that wasn’t going to turn out.
The real crime is that it appears that there really was inadequate post-war planning prior to going to war in Iraq.
And, as a general principle, military decisions are political, as use of military force is the extreme end of politics by force.
What am I mixing up here? Why am I wrong to not be all up in arms about the Downing Street memos…