Unspun Logo

How Much Evidence?

Posted by Rick · March 22nd, 2004 · No Comments

Today, two more stories came out which provided more evidence backing up what Paul O’Neil said this past January: President Bush was focused on going to war against Iraq from the first day of his presidency. He only used al Queda and what happened at the Twin Towers in New York as an excuse. That’s right, George Bush, President of the United States, couldn’t really care less about the deaths of thousands of Americans, except to use it as fodder for Halliburton’s war to acquire the second-richest oil resource in the world.

Most of you stopped reading this right after that last sentence — if you even made it that far. That’s okay. As I told a friend the other day, “The voters get the government they deserve.” I just wonder how much more evidence will be needed before people wake up and smell the true Weapon of Mass Destruction. As was once said, “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”

One of today’s stories notes that the UN’s top two weapons experts told the United States government that they were wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction in March 2003. These weapons experts had been involved in searching Iraq for such weapons; they had been there. Vice-President Cheney — who had not been there, but whose teams have been searching unsuccessfully for such weapons since taking over the country last year — said, “We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei [one of the UN’s top experts], frankly, is wrong.”

Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, “I haven’t seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney’s conclusion or statement, so — and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge.” “Iraq war wasn’t justified, U.N. weapons experts say: Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs,” CNN Online, March 22, 2004.

The facts are that this never really mattered. All the President’s men were after has always been Iraq’s oil. This war was never about terror. That’s why today’s other big story (certain to be ignored by at least 60-70% of the American public) had the White House scrambling to dismiss a new book by the administration’s former counter-terrorism coordinator. This man, Richard Clarke, so trusted by President Bush that he became the counter-terrorism coordinator for the Bush administration, said,

Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism…. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We’ll never know. “White House dismisses former adviser’s charges: Clarke’s allegations of pre-9/11 failures called politically driven,” CNN Online, March 22, 2004.

We now have two books by White House insiders — not Democrats making accusations from the outside — that show the President focused on obtaining control of Iraq. One book indicates that the President was looking for any excuse to go to war. Another indicates that he might have prevented the deaths of Americans, but instead used them as the excuse he’d been seeking “from day one,” in order to start an unjustified war.

Frankly, I’d take the foibles of President Bill “I Did Not Sleep With That Woman” Clinton over President George “I Did Not Allow Innocent Americans To Die” Bush any day of the week. But, like al Queda, Monica Lewinsky doesn’t have any oil. And most of you are much more offended by sex outside of marriage — however consensual it may have been — than by a President who uses the United States military and the deaths of innocent American civilians for the personal gain of himself and his friends.

Just remember: You are not his friends.

Update: Thanks to Steve Malm for pointing me towards an Iraqi view on the matter.

Categories: The War President


0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment