Agendas in Iraq

So Sadam was storing WMD and plans for global warfare:

The War On Terror: The government is finally getting around to unloading some of Saddam Hussein's secret documents. A look at just a few pages already leads to some blockbuster revelations.

In the early stages of the war that began three years ago, the U.S. captured thousands of documents from Saddam and his spy agency, the Mukhabarat. It's been widely thought the documents could shed light on why Saddam behaved as he did and how much of a threat his evil regime represented.

Yet, until this week, the documents lay molding in boxes in a government warehouse. Now the first batch is out, and though few in number, they're loaded with information.

Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters.

... but as Glenn Reynolds reports, do not expect to see this written up in the main stream media any time soon: agendas, after all, run higher on a scale of importance than facts. Part of the problem is now that big media and global goverance have invested so much in the claims that the war on Iraq was declared on bogus information,  any indications to the contrary can hardly be reported and debated accurately without making them seem hypocritical, or at worst, downright wrong in their initial assumptions. Just to make matters worse, those who have been claiming that there only agenda is the truth, have by and large been clothing an anti-war stance.

What is needed now is classicly, not a pro-war agenda, and not an anti-war agenda: the war in Iraq has happened, after all: we need someone in a position of influence and power with no agenda at all.

Comments

[Jay Liew]

Haha .. I like that. And I would agree.

Do we have a person in a position of influence with NO agenda at all?

I sometimes wonder if that can be possible because it appears to me that in order to be in any position of influence, you'd need some kind of agenda in the first place.

But specific to the war, maybe there is someone in such a position who got to such a position with a non-war agenda, thus having no agenda on the war (but not necessarily something else).