Newsweek or the Downing Street Memo -- priorities and importance

I can't believe this administration's incompetence and how it is not reported in the mainstream media. There was a story that broke in a London newspaper on May 1st concerning a memo that outraged the public in the UK. It broke here a couple of days ago on the blog Tomdispatch.com. It has been reported here today without much outrage or concern.

On the other hand Newsweek reports on a flushing of the Quran, which caused riots and outrage around the world. Who gets all the heat . . . Newsweek. The story has not been proven wrong. The source now is uncertain of the accuracy of the reporting. Many other stories of the Quran being disrespected have been reported, an example -- by spraying it with black paint. Anyway, this story is not the one that should be taking front page status, especially if the blame for all the abuses doesn't fall on this administration, as it should.

The story that needs to be out front is the Downing Street Memo. According to an article in the Chicago Tribune:
A British official's report that the Bush administration appeared intent on invading Iraq long before it "fixed" intelligence to fit its intention -- has caused a stir in Britain. But the potentially explosive revelation has proven to be something of a dudin the United States. The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war.

Analogy -- let's say someone murders someone, and he's a likely suspect but there is not enough proof to convict him. But things just keep surfacing little by little. Do we just get tired of hearing about it and just let the guy off rather than rehash the same old crime over and over.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq 6 months before he did it. That's the point of this memo. While he was telling us, just before he got the okay, that this option would be a last resort. He would only do it if it was absolutely necessary. He got the okay. What people don't remember is that he got the okay only after all other options failed. He got the okay and he was on his horse and gone to war.

Another form of manipulating the public came out earlier this week when Tom Ridge said that against his better judgement, the terror threat level was raised and lowered for obvious political reasons. How do you think this guy got back in office. He kept that fear factor high with the premise that changing leaders would hurt our safety.

The new Star Wars movie comes out this week and I've heard hints about parts of it being compared to this administration. At a news conference, George Lucas was asked if the movie Republic's collapse into an evil Empire was directed at the Bush administration.

Lucas said he originally wrote Star Wars during Vietnam era and the Nixon administration and that he studied democracies that turned into dictatorships. "As you go through history, I didn't think it would get quite this close," he said. "I hope this doesn't come true in our own country. Maybe the film will awaken people to the situation and how dangerous it is."

One line in the movie has drawn a lot of attention: "If you're not with me, then you're the enemy," Darth Vader says. The line echoes Bush's ultimatum after the Sept. 11 attacks, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Maybe the force is against you!!!!!!!!!!!!!