Moving the Goal Posts

White House emissaries head abroad to recast war

Washington — Seeking to recast its reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the Bush administration is sending high-ranking officials abroad to justify the war as good for humanity, despite increasing evidence that Baghdad did not possess stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Also, despite having decreased world security with the invasion of Iraq, thus making it a difficult case to prove on the grounds of being "good for humanity".

"The former dictator sits in captivity. He can no longer harbour and support terrorists, and his long efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction are at an end," U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney said yesterday in a speech to political and business leaders in Rome.

Normally, one would have to prove that Saddam first harbored or supported terrorists in order for him to "no longer" engage in those activities. Also, the veep should really not be allowed to make such bellicose statements about Saddam's efforts to acquire WMD without ever having proved that he was making such attempts in the first place. But these are not times of critical thinking, so most here in the U.S. will let him get away with this. It's sad that it takes non-U.S. media sources to call this maladministration to the carpet on their tactics. Good luck getting Faux news or Corporate News Network to point out that it has yet to be proven that Saddam had, or was seeking to get, WMD. And, by logical extension, if it has yet to be proven by now, the chances are slim that it ever will be. I'm actually quite surprised. I'd have thought BushCo would've planted some evidence by now.

In Vienna yesterday, Attorney-General John Ashcroft said that even if weapons of mass destruction are never found in Iraq, the war was justified because Mr. Hussein can no longer resort to "evil chemistry and evil biology."

Evil chemistry and evil biology? And what the hell, exactly, would those be? This guy really is a Fundie Bonk Job, isn't he. Chemistry and biology are inanimate. They are fields of study and can be neither good nor evil.

Mr. Bush laid the groundwork for redefining the war's rationale in his recent State of the Union address. "For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place," he (Bush) said.

The implied message is, of course, that anyone who is, or was, against the war is not for peace and freedom. Of course, this is nonsense. Those who were against the war should be considered more for peace and freedom than anyone in the Bush cabal. Yes, Saddam was a terrible despot. But that was not the rationale BushCo tried to sell as the reason for going to war against Iraq. This is Machiavellian politics at its best. Or is that worst? As a side note, many would argue that the world is in worse condition since 1) BushCo stole office, and 2) America invaded Iraq.

But he made no mention of a rogue regime that posed imminent danger to the United States because of stockpiles of weapons.

Ah yes, North Korea. Quite inconvenient to the BushCo war hawks. And quite ignored by the very same.

And his Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is sounding increasingly vague about the lack of evidence found in Iraq, despite months of searching. "What is the open question is, how many stockpiles they had, if any.

None.

And if they had any, where did they go?

See above.

If they didn't have any, why wasn't that known beforehand?" Mr. Powell said on the weekend, en route to the Georgia capital of Tbilisi before heading to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It was known before hand. BushCo simply refused to listen because it didn't fit with their hegemonic plans for Middle Eastern domination.

Meanwhile, the White House was adamant yesterday that the war was justified. "Saddam Hussein was a dangerous and gathering threat,

yeah, right

and the President made the right decision to remove him from power," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. But Mr. McClellan also seemed to suggest that there would be no more pre-emptive wars against rogue regimes, the controversial Bush doctrine that many regard as flouting international law.

"Iraq was unique," Mr. McClellan said.

Indeed! Iraq was an easy target; no military to speak of with which to repel a U.S. invasion. Not only was Iraq an easy target, militarily speaking, it was a rich target! They have oil, we could take it without even breaking a sweat.

""Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction, (which were really our WMD since they were purchased from the U.S.) they used weapons of mass destruction on its neighbours and on his own people (which the U.S. cared so much about at the time it was happening that it did nothing to stop it), and they failed to account for the weapons and weapons programs. . . . Given his history and given the events of Sept. 11, we could not afford to rely on the good intentions of Saddam Hussein."

There it is, folks! The nefarious link between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein. Can you believe that these morons are still using that one? Yeah, me neither.

But Washington's efforts to recast its justifications for the war seem unlikely to satisfy critics, or defuse it as an election issue.

One can only hope that the U.S. public will be smart enough this time around to recognize this steaming pile of "efforts to recast the justification for war" for what it is. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Democratic presidential candidates have stepped up their attacks on the war. "We were misled," said Massachusetts Senator John Kerry...

Come on, Senator! You hold one of the most powerful offices in government. You're a U.S. Senator. You should be intelligent enough to recognize a sham of an argument when you see one. Shame on you!