Our blogs about
America's Wars
War on Iraq
War on Drugs
War on Afghanistan
War on Columbia
War on Philippines
War on Venezuela

MORE
Matrix Masters
Blogs
World Events
Katrina's Aftermath
US News
Bush Crime Family News
Science & Health
Earth News
Free Speech
News from Africa
News from Palestine
Bill of Rights Under Attack

Support Bloggers' Rights!

Lorenzo's
Random Musings
. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope

Al Jazeera (English)
    Baghdad Burning Blog (by Riverbend, an Iraqi civilian girl)
            Dahr Jamail's Blog from Baghdad
                Imad Khadduri's blog "Free Iraq" (scroll down for English version)

Iraqi Civilian Deaths ... caused by Bush's unprovoked war

 

Saddam, So Not Worth It: Dubya, now that you've got your dime-store thug, can you stop the warmongering and death?

It turns out Saddam actually did have some old stashes of weaponry, a bit of rusty, small-scale WMDs, after all -- because we sold them to him, 20 years ago. But they were never any sort of direct danger to America -- or anyone else, for that matter -- and regardless, most evidence points to the fact that the stash was completely destroyed more than a decade ago. (Just like reasonable people were saying all along.)

Can anyone remember that far back? Twenty years? Right about when the U.S. hushed up all those sales of biological weapons and computer technology to Iraq? Right about when all those American corporations, from Bechtel to Kodak to AT&T, from Dow Chemical to Hewlett-Packard to IBM and at least 100 more, decided it might be best to begin shredding their records detailing all their Iraq business deals? (We've all seen the photo. Hey, why is Donny Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and smiling in that photo?)

And now, long after Hussein's political usefulness to us has expired, we up and invade his unhappy nation and lay waste to the entire region for no justifiable reason, and we inflate his global stature into this massive inhuman Hitler-esque monster when in fact he was really just an old, tired, small-time thug, and now finally Saddam Hussein, the brutal pip-squeak tin-horn dictator/former beloved U.S. ally who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, has been captured alive.

But whatever. Most lockstep Americans do not care that Saddam was never a threat. Most do not care about how many Iraqi children have died. Does anyone in America care? During the first days of the war, U.S. forces killed far more innocent civilians than were killed by those non-Iraqi terrorists in the WTC (4,300, to be more specific).

Most do not care that the other 10 or 20 despotic heads of state out there right now who are far worse than Saddam are not, apparently, quaking in their dictatorial boots. Most Americans do not care that somewhere, Osama is probably cheering (hey, he hated Saddam, too).

They care only for waving the bloody flag. They care only for the jingoistic PR spin and the hollow neocon punditry.

The capture of Saddam Hussein and the continuing chaos in Iraq have diverted our attention from the original justifications for the war:
- The accusation against Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction
- His threat to world security
- The fact that no such weapons have been found after Iraq's occupation (yet)

More than 240 days have passed without weapons of mass destruction being found. President George Bush is getting prepared for the possibility that we'll never find any. He tries to minimize the whole issue. When reminded that the banned weapons hadn't been found. His response is: "What's the difference?"

Of course there's a huge difference. Was Saddam a threat? (Maybe a threat to Israel, but not much of a threat to anyone else). The world might be better off because we got rid of him. But, those two reasons were never any part of the war's justifications.

Why do people forget? We should remember that Saddam Hussein committed his biggest crimes a long time ago, during his war on Iran, with the support of the U.S that remained his ally until his invasion of Kuwait. And no one believes the United States is safer since the war on Iraq.

In a roundabout way, a big threat to U.S security is Israel and Ariel Sharon. Not that it would ever happen and I don't recommend this, but if President Bush was to invade Israel and capture Ariel Sharon, this would lead a billion Muslims around the world to go to the streets to praise Dubya. Then, the U.S. would be protected from the biggest threat of all. Why do Muslims hate Israel? They have some good reasons (and some bad reasons too). They empathize with the Palestinians who have lots of reasons to be upset with Israel.

Why does everyone forget?

Last October, President Bush announced in Cincinnati: "The Iraqi regime has violated all obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith… If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today, and we do, does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

Last February, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council, and it seems that he already knew about the lies in the administration's reports that would enable them to build excuses for war, so he did not mention the issue of Niger's uranium, or the contact between terrorist Mohammed Atta and officer of the Iraqi intelligence Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani, who totally rejected any encounter with Atta during later investigations.

But Powell repeated the lies concerning weapons of mass destruction, and said to the Council members: "The report I am giving today is based on evidence, solid evidence. These are not simple assurances. What we are showing you today are truths and conclusions that rely on ascertained investigative information."

What facts are these? The administration's evidence of war was not only weak or lacking, it was wrong in practically all its details, and completely wrong in essence. There was no urgent or far danger; Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction to provide to Al Qaeda or others.

posted by Hal 11:33 AM