"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US.....
'military intervention' is necessary.


Oh...of COURSE the article doesn't SAY that the report recommends military intervention. That would be wrong wouldn't it? Would they DO is assemble two
completely unrelated quotes into one sentence to make it appear that way.

The intended message of the article is abundantly clear. That it attempts to portray a VERY misleading message is abundantly clear. The fact that it makes bullshit quotes from the report making it seem legitimate is also true (but apparently less clear). Look at the quotes underlined above. Know where the ONLY place where the phrase "military intervention" is used in the report? ......right here....

Under this scenario.... [Taking The Easy Approach]..., the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma, suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic energy shortages. These consequences can include recession, social dislocation of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military intervention. Moreover, this approach leaves festering the conflict between rising energy demand and its potentially devastating impact on the global environment.

-Mike

Incidentally......one quote from the report which gets left out but seems somehow relevant

Actions and policies to promote these goals should endeavor to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime\ufffds ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction.


Oh yeah......this is their way of saying "bomb the bastards" ..... right?