Thursday, June 12, 2003

After insisting over and over that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction would be found, and then pathetically claiming that the trailers used to produce hydrogen were the weapons of mass destruction, Bush now appears to have settled on a position remarkably similar to that elucidated by John Bolton. Bush said:

"Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program."

Bolton had said on May 24:

"The most fundamental, most important thing that was not destroyed [by international weapons inspectors] was the intellectual capacity in Iraq to recreate systems of weapons of mass destruction."

and went on to refer to inspectors who

". . . could have inspected for years and years and years and probably never would have found weapons-grade plutonium or weapons-grade uranium. But right in front of them was the continued existence of what Saddam Hussein called the 'nuclear mujahadeen,' the thousand or so scientists, technicians, people who have in their own heads and in their files the intellectual property necessary at an appropriate time . . . to recreate a nuclear weapons program."

It is completely fair to say that both Bush and Bolton are justifying the attack on Iraq based on the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction. It is apparently sufficient if there was a possibility of there being weapons of mass destruction, weapons which might have at some time been built under the 'program', with the 'program' consisting of the fact that there were scientists in Iraq. This is somehow appropriate given that:

  1. the war was 'won' when the Iraqi generals were bribed to stop fighting, an imaginary victory;

  2. the attack was waged by a massive 'coalition' consisting of two counties and a couple kangaroos;

  3. the people of Iraq were going to welcome the 'coalition' tanks by throwing flowers at them, flowers which turned out to be rocket-launched grenades;

  4. the attack, using only the latest in 'high tech' weaponry, was supposed to be the most 'humane' ever, with thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, the country littered with DU and cluster bombs (which weren't really 'cluster bombs', but were munitions that behave exactly like cluster bombs), and the most accurate missiles ever invented landing in other countries;

  5. the 'rescue' of Private Lynch was essentially a made-for-television Pentagon propaganda movie, with only the tiniest connection to reality;

  6. the result of the attack is a great 'victory', although it has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars and will cost billions more, there will be a constant stream of dead American soldiers until the occupation is ended (and the funniest thing is there is no way to end it as the oil production facilities will have to be guarded forever), the reputation of the United States in the world has been permanently ruined, and the attack and occupation will certainly result in a massive increase in terrorist attacks against American and British targets, with the only real victors being a handful of Bush's richest friends; and

  7. the people of Iraq were 'liberated' into a world of censorship; lack of promised democratic government; poverty, hunger and disease; violent anarchy and lawlessness; and permanent violent occupation, all while the assets of Iraq are being liberated by Bush's parasitic corporate cronies.

Now, the attack on Iraq is justified on the basis of virtual 'weapons of mass destruction' to be built under a 'program'. The people of the United States are going to buy this because they 'won', which means the people of the United States are not only stupid but are also deeply immoral.