Mike Berry OpEdNews.Com
March 27, 2003
As I sit watching endless hours of MSNBC and CNN coverage of the carnage
in Iraq, that operation cynically named "Iraqi Freedom" by G.W.
Bush, I think back over the weeks and months leading up to the invasion
about the differing reasons given by Bush for such an aggressive war.
There were so many implausible reasons given that it is impossible to put
them in order of their chronology at this point. I do, however,
remember the first reason given: "Saddam Hussein is responsible for
the 911 attack on America." That one stuck like Superglue.
When I ask people with whom I come in contact during the day why they
think we are in Iraq, the vast majority of them mention 911. The
Saddam/911 connection was the most successful piece of disinformation
created by Bush and his craven fellow chicken hawks. Even though the
Bush FBI and CIA both have stated there was no connection between Iraq and
911, many hardcore right-wing Bushites hold to it as if God had personally
inscribed that awful lie on a stone tablet.
Another reason given for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had a
nuclear program and was on the verge of producing an atomic or hydrogen
bomb that would kill millions of Americans. This one did not hold
water for long with most intelligent people; how was he supposed to
deliver such a weapon? The mere fact that Bush put it forward with a
straight face demonstrates the intellectual and ethical level on which the
man operates.
A piece of disinformation on a par with the nuclear bomb lie was the one
about Saddam being on the verge of supplying Al qaeda with chemical and/or
biological weapons of mass destruction. If Bush did not invade Iraq
immediately, the terrorists would be here shortly with these indescribably
horrible weapons to kill millions of us. Think about this one.
Al quaeda and other Islamic fanatics have branded Saddam Hussein's secular
regime as the work of Satin and anathema to all true believers. Al
qaeda and Saddam Hussein are blood enemies. Alqaeda is more likely to hook
up with G.W. Bush, himself a rather fanatical religious Fundamentalist,
than with Saddam Hussein.
Furthermore, since Saddam Hussein has not attempted to attack the U.S. and
its interests in 12 long years, why are we to believe that he is about to
do so now? To avoid ruthless destruction by Bush and his "neoconservative"
advisors, how long does Iraq have to remain peaceful toward the U.S., 1200
years? Another Bush lie exposed.
Then there was the one about Saddam ignoring numerous Security Council
resolutions. What about Israel ignoring one Security Council resolution
after another pertaining to its maltreatment of the Palestinians?
Why has Bush not invaded Israel? His record for consistency is just
about as good as his record for veracity and credibility.
Another implausible reason Bush has given for war is that Saddam is a
cruel tyrant and has used poison gas on his own people. In this one
case, unlike all the other many lies told by Bush in this sorry affair,
the facts as Bush states them are undeniably true. What makes this
reason so disingenuous is that two of the chief Bush chicken hawks--Cheney
and Rumsfeld--have courted and wooed Saddam in the past for business and
political reasons. And this in not even to mention that it was a past
Republican administration that delivered weapons of mass destruction to
Saddam's Brutal Baathist dictatorship in the first place.
Here is another good one. Bush is invading Iraq to protect that
country's neighbors. The only problem with this absurd lie is that
all of Iraq's neighbors are enraged by the bloody Bush invasion.
They are even petitioning the U.N. Security Council to condemn the unjust
and aggressive war Bush is waging. Also, thousands of private
citizens from countries bordering Iraq are streaming across the border to
join Saddam in defense of that beleaguered nation. Another lie
exposed.
Bush and his cronies have told so many lies that I simply cannot remember
them all, but I do remember the most recent one. Bush is invading
Iraq to free its people. Proof of the need for this war to
"free the tyrannized and oppressed Iraqis" will be found in the
way people will flood into the streets waving American flags and throwing
flowers the minute U.S. troops defeat Saddam's thugs. Sure they
will. After U.S. troops kill thousands and thousands of their husbands,
sons, brothers and cousins, they will flood out of their wrecked homes and
kiss the bloody boots of the first "liberators" to enter their
field of vision.
So, as I watch on cable TV as G.W. Bush rains thousands of tons of deadly
high explosives down on the hapless nation of Iraq, all the while
searching my thoughts for the real reasons behind this inhuman Bush
outrage, I finally reach a conclusion that will at least satisfy logic.
It will not get at the ultimate answers that might be found in the many
concomitant issues--fossil fuel use and control, revenge for offences
against the father, venal political ambitions, pay back to oil industry
supporters, the testing of new weapons systems for the military, Hussein's
support for surviving families of martyred Palestinian nationalists, a
favor for the ultraconservative war hawks running Israel, etc.--but it is
a "surface" reason that no thoughtful person can deny. The
most immediate and uncomplicated reason, then, is that Bush is waging
aggressive war on Iraq because Saddam Hussein does not possess
nuclear weapons. Think about it in the context of the so-called Bush
"Axis of Evil."
Mike Berry ce1992@swbell.net is a freelance writer in Belton, MO
