about a year, we've been hearing how intensely George W. Bush wants
to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Mr. Bush has made all sorts of
accusations against Hussein, but offered no public evidence to support
this past Monday evening we were to hear the full case for going to
war against Iraq.
we heard Monday were more assertions with no offer to make public
any "evidence" the Bush administration claims to have.
don't expect George Bush to bore a room full of sycophants with photos
and forensic evidence. But this long-awaited speech could have at
least pointed to places where the administration's evidence is available
for inspection. Instead, it was simply the same old tired litany of
until George Bush presents some hard evidence to back up his lurid
tales, no one should take him seriously. After all, the man is a politician,
for crying out loud! Are we just supposed to accept his word for anything
he tells us?
President gave us the same old song & dance: "The Iraqi regime
has violated all [its] 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
No, just take his word for it. He spoke of "surveillance photos,"
but didn't offer to show us any. He mentioned "intelligence"
discoveries, but provided no details or proof.
he invoked September 11 the always-handy justification for anything
of all, he trotted out the already discredited charge of "Hussein's
links to international terrorist groups." Even
the CIA has refuted that one.
month presidential advisor Condoleezza
Rice said, "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and
Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some
of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship
here." But don't hold your breath waiting to see any of this
documentation; it's available only to the true believers inside the
is actually a secular nationalist and socialist and an enemy
of the kind of religious fundamentalism represented by Al-Qaeda. Whatever
Saddam Hussein might be, he has nothing to do with the so-called War
to call Hussein's support for Palestine an excuse for attacking innocent
people in Iraq is to say that the U.S. should bomb every Muslim country
including Pakistan, whose dictator has George Bush's full support.
Bush is forced to support the "terrorist" excuse by saying,
"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a
common enemy the United States of America." Yeah, and so do
a few billion other people around the world people who are sick
and tired of watching American Presidents bully other countries, people
who are scared to death of the terrible consequences George Bush's
reckless plans could unleash.
truth, every one of the assertions made against Saddam Hussein could
easily be made against U.S. foreign policy. And, unlike George Bush,
you or I could easily come up with evidence to support such charges
against American Presidents who have invaded other countries without
provocation, undermined foreign governments, blocked the delivery
of food and medicines to people in need, and even gassed innocent
civilians at Waco in 1993.
we're supposed to stop predators before they go too far (advice we
hear over and over), why not start with the predators in Washington?
the Gulf War, RAF pilot John Nichol was shot down, captured, and tortured
in an Iraqi prison. Two weeks ago Newsweek
published an interview with him in which he pointed out that the
Bush administration is jumping around from one argument to another,
trying to find a reason for war that resonates. As he said, "Iraq
is a war waiting for a pretext."
called attention to the U.S. government's complicity in Hussein's
infamous "gassing of his own people," about which the war-mongers
never tire of reminding us. And there's much more in that
interview. I suggest you read it.
his most important statement was:
suppose what the Gulf War showed me as it was my first war was
the brutal reality of war. That doesn't mean war isn't sometimes necessary,
but when you see it at first hand you view with suspicion politicians
who are so ready to wield the military stick."
Bush pointedly ignores the consequences of attacking Iraq trying
instead to stampede you by saying, "Facing clear evidence of
peril, we cannot wait for the final proof the smoking gun that
could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." But that "mushroom
cloud" might come only if the U.S. attacks Iraq.
the CIA director has said that if Hussein really has dangerous
weapons, he has no reason to use them unless he's attacked by the
George Bush truly believed that Saddam Hussein could harm the American
people, he would be negotiating with him just as U.S. Presidents
negotiated with the Soviet leaders who were in a position to destroy
America with nuclear weapons. In the past 55 years the American military
hasn't attacked a single country that had the capability of inflicting
any damage on America.
your Seat Belt & Stiffen your Self-Respect
says he'll leave Hussein alone if he complies with all the U.S. demands.
But Bush has said over and over "Saddam must go" and the
White House is already drawing up a list of "war criminals"
for prosecution. You can't have war criminals until you've had
a war the war that's currently searching for a pretext.
Democrats have spoken up against the madness that will mean the death
of hundreds (or even thousands) of Americans and the death of thousands
(or even tens of thousands) of Iraqis. But one by one, those Democrats
are caving. After all, they're politicians, too.
may not be able to stop this out-of-control freight train. But at
least you can preserve your self-respect by not supporting the mass
destruction that a megalomaniac in the White House is so determined