Sunday, March 09, 2003

I have not checked for a hard date, but it seems that Bush and Blair (mainly Bush) have been saying for at least 6 months (well over that if you count more indirect rhetoric) that Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat to goodness and righteousness in the world. They have said, at various times (sometimes pulling back a bit from previous declarations) that Saddam 1) has newkewler weapons 2) wants newkewler weapons 3) has biological weapons 4) wants biological weapons 5) has chemical weapons 6) wants biological weapons 7) has helped al Quaeda 8) wants to help al Quaeda

AND

that he 9) has long range missiles 10) wants long range missiles 11) has robot planes 12) wants robot planes (this one is one that I buy: who doesn’t want robot planes?)

AND

that he 13) has attacked his neighbors (true enough) 14) wants to attack his neighbors 15) is a cruel despot (true enough) 16) wants to be even more cruel 17) is a threat like Hitler was 18) wants to be a threat like Hitler was 19) can attack Britain or the US 20) wants to be able to attack Britain or the US

AND

that he 21) hasn’t been effectively thwarted over the past 12 years 22) can no longer be effectively thwarted, like he has been for the past twelve years (it is hard to say #s 21 and 22 at the same time without people noticing, but Bush is a “can do” guy) 23) has ignored the UN without being punished 24) cannot be seen to be able to ignore the UN without being punished

AND

that the 25) UN is a useless talking shop 26) that the UN cannot be allowed to fall to the level of a mere useless talking shop 27) US and Britain will act “alone if necessary” to enforce the expressed will of the UN 28) US and Britain will act “alone if necessary” AGAINST the expressed will of the UN

AND

that the 29) people of Iraq must be liberated 30) people of Iraq must be made to stay together in one country, even if they don’t want to 31) people of Iraq must have democracy 32) people of Iraq must have a stable occupying army guiding them

AND

that this is about 33) forging stability in the region 34) eliminating an immediate threat to the existing stability of the region 35) the Israel/Palestine question 36) basic morality 37) the future 38) the past

AND

that we 39) must act NOW 40) must act SOON 41) should have acted long ago 42) could not have acted long ago 43) can’t wait any longer 44) will only wait a little while longer 45) have waited too long already.

What have I missed? I’m sure there’s something. Maybe “history will be our judge”?

I say all that because it just hit me (and it should have hit me a long time ago) that if it really is true that Saddam is as bad and dangerous as Bush and Blair would have us believe, and if Bush and Blair are as certain of the morality and urgency of this issue as they would have us believe, then WHY HAVE THEY NOT YET INVADED? Why are there not, right now, huge smoldering piles of rubble throughout Iraq being poked through by journalists and investigators brought in for the expressed purpose of seeing how right Dubyah and Tony have been all along? What are they waiting for?

I’m pretty sure they are lying (or at least exaggerating) about almost everything they have said about this issue, so I guess what’s holding them back are the last vestiges of concern they have regarding how they might be judged in the future. Not quite so convinced by their own rhetoric, in other words.

PS: deployment shmeployment! If it really is as bad as they say we should be on full war footing and using all available transport to get troops into position.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home