Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Day of Shame, Sixth Anniversary

vastleft's picture

dayofshame.com was created to promote observances and analyses of the run-up to the Iraq War and of the fateful day when the reality-based community seemingly lost its charter. And we're looking for you to help recollect, commiserate, and if possible, make sense of it all.

On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations to rally support for an invasion of Iraq.

His presentation contained little substance and numerous obvious flaws, and the international community was unimpressed.

America's mainstream media, however, declared it "compelling."

For a nation living in the ghostly shadow of the twin towers, the media's Good Warmaking seal of approval was enough to keep that treasonous question — "why?" — relatively unheard.

The costs — in lives, money, reputation, and more — of this war of whim are nearly incalculable.

This year's sixth anniversary is the first without George W. Bush in the White House. Dare we presume that the factors that led to the war, and its successful marketing, all went packing with him?

If you have thoughts and recollections about the fateful day of Powell's presentation, and the festival of lies and ignorance that preceded it, please send them to vastleft AT vastleft DOT com between now and February 5th. E-mailed commentaries, links to your old posts from back in the day or anytime since, and new posts on your site are all good — however you would like to express yourself about that surreal, world-changing period.

We will link to relevant submissions on the dayofshame.com blog and here at correntewire.com

Thank you for helping commemorate a day that should live in infamy but won't without our vigilance.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Nervine5's picture
Submitted by Nervine5 on

That when 'they' were pushing 'it', that my husband and I said "WFT" and weren't on board.

This year's sixth anniversary is the first without George W. Bush in the White House. Dare we presume that the factors that led to the war, and its successful marketing, all went packing with him?

No!!!! The current President is going to take it to a deadlier level of death and destruction.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

The response to 9/11 did teach me something. It taught me to never forget, but, not in the way the conservatives, their sympathizers, and their enablers would like me to.

As for my recollections and thoughts on that day I remember simply thinking "even if what he's saying is true, it would not justify unilateral pre-emptive war."

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

"even if what he's saying is true, it would not justify unilateral pre-emptive war."

Lack of that understanding could easily get us bombing Iran, and other trumped up pet "threats."

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

That's correct. Many European countries believed Iraq had WMD or were at least trying to obtain them but didn't think he posed a significant enough threat. (See Hans Blix's book.)

One thing that ticks me off to no end is conflating a vote for AUMF as being for war--many who voted for AUMF spoke out later against unilateral war and attacking before inspectors finished. Going to war when it was becoming clear that inspectors were going to show Iraq wasn't a treat was solely Bush's choice. Blaming folks who voted for AUMF takes the blame off the real culprit: Bush and his administration. Using AUMF as a political weapon hurts the case against Bush by giving the measure more weight for taking us to war than it did. Really, without AUMF, do people think Bush would not have attacked Iraq anyway?

Submitted by lambert on

... since nobody who perpetrated this fiasco has any credibility, and should be laughed off the airwaves, off the Op-Ed pages, and out of the think tanks.

Oh, wait....

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

in detail whenever it's been brought up. I'll never forget the total disconnect between his pitiful performance and the media's glowing reaction to it.

It's one of the best examples of "up is down" in the whole sordid eight-year Bush administration reign.

Powell resigned, whether out of shame or disgust, but he had outlived his usefulness by then.

Submitted by lambert on

... with every single one of the lies, and thinking how remarkable it was that when one of the lies was debunked, they'd simply shift to another one. (I didn't know then that the country was the target of a disinformation campaign run by the White House Iraq Group). And when all the lies were debunked... They showed up again in Powell's speech. And the media orgasmed.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Funny you should mention that. Banks had catastrophic failures for bad faith actions* but you still see the media and other folks massaging the line that government is bad bad bad but markets are so much better. We should let the thieves in the banking industry do what they want because they are good and government is bad, we can't take massive government measures. When banks should have no credibility, they are given a free pass.

I know this is a Iraq war thread, but it also applies to many current situations--in other words, getting rid of a symptom of the cancer, Bush, doesn't get rid of the cancer.

* I wouldn't necessarily feel so angry for banks if they had been acting in "good faith" and failed, like I wouldn't blame a person who goes bankrupt because of medical bills or losing their job. But the banks were manipulating the system and coming up with ways to earn an extra buck they knew would lead to problems.