So if it wasn't about WMD

[Chris Alger]

The latest in the WMD follies is that the same CIA officials that vetted SOU speech tried to get British intelligence to withdraw their allegation of an Iraqi-Africa connection because they knew all along it was bullshit, months before Bush's claim of reliance on "British intelligence." (Today's W. Post).

It should be obvious to all but the most craven state-worshipping apparatchiks that the US officials lied about an Iraqi WMD threat that they didn't believe in. It follows that things other than Iraqi WMD were the prime movers behind their desire for invasion. Although pundits have speculated that there were "good reasons" other than those officially provided that justified the war, what really motivated the White House liars? Was it

(a) Human rights. Bush is a closet nation-builder. Alone among the tyrannies and torture chambers that dot the planet, the White House selected Iraq to be the beneficiary of democracy via war and occupation, for only $4 billion per month indefinitely.

(b) The credibility of the UN and the Security Council. Despite the inability to convince the Security Council itself and dozens of unenforced (thanks to the US veto threat) resolutions against Israel, Turkey and Morocco, the US decided to take a stand to prevent Iraq's flagrant "tissue of lies" (Krauthammer) that threated to turn the UN into a "debating society" (Bush).

(c) Oil conspiracy. The White House is run by interest conflicted former oil excutives and directors, or the toadies of same, whose pockets will be lined with petrodollars once the fields are privatized.

(d) 9/11 "changed things." As Rumsfeld tried to explain the other day, US officials previously had no idea that someone, even the FBI's most wanted (bin Laden), would ever consider commandeering an airplane and driving it into a building. This heretofore unimaginable circumstance means that the US officials could no longer tolerate dicators who might have WMD if they live in Iraq. Rumsfeld pointed out that 9/11 created a new "prism" through which Iraq had to be viewed. Or al Queda told us that we should look at Iraq through a prism. Something about prisms.

(e) Imperialism/hegemony. International power, like water and bureaucracy, seeks its own level, and with a military force greater than the rest of the world combined, there is no logical reason why US power should tolerate strident opposition.from a nearly defenseless country run by a complete [censored]. Further, a pro-US government strategically priceless Iraq would be a gem in a regional crown that includes Israel, Turkey and used to include Iran. Resorting to the age-lold tactic of masking aggression as defense is vital because most Americans think imperialism is wrong and unAmerican and wouldn't want to foot the bill in any event. Hence, the need to manufacture consent by conjuring up a non-existent threat, and an ability to do so courtesy of al Qaeda.

[MMMMMM]

If the WMD threat wasn't immediate (and I think the administration did not say it was, but rather that it was "emerging"--and more rapidly than had been expected)--then it was just a matter of time anyway.

Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons which could threaten the United States. And as long as Bush is in there, I think we have a good chance to keep them from so doing. If these countries remain potential threats even after Bush's second term, then hopefully Rummy might be elected the next President.

"Never allow your sworn enemies the means to destroy you"

--Klingon benediction

[Cyrus]

"If the WMD threat wasn't immediate then it was just a matter of time anyway."

(sigh) We have embarked for good into an era where policy is formed from hypotheticals rather than facts. Moreover, those hypotheticals are formulated according to no rules, no precedent and no consistency. Simply according to what Washington today thinks is best.

A better recipe for stability and peace I have not heard.

"Hopefully Rummy might be elected the next President."

I didn't know Rummy had a brother governor somewhere!

"Klingon benediction"

Yes. Star treks and star wars. This is the stuff that makes Reaganite eyes glow in the dark. Keep up God's work, golks.

[Jimbo]

"sigh) We have embarked for good into an era where policy is formed from hypotheticals rather than facts. Moreover, those hypotheticals are formulated according to no rules, no precedent and no consistency. Simply according to what Washington today thinks is best."

Poor Cyrus, haven't you realized yet just how some facts are tardy predicters of future events? 911 should have shown you that waiting for the act to occur is not in our best interest.

[ripdog]

I know that the conservatives will bring this thing full circle and blame Clinton for the mess that we're in, but enough already! Does "not waiting for an act to occur" mean that lying your "Christian" ass off to instigate a war that kills thousands of innocent people becomes acceptable? The current administration is so pathetically transparent in their lies, it makes me sick. How can anybody actually buy into this [censored]? Perhaps if you find yourself aligning with the majority, it's time to re-think your position--a line stolen from Twain, but quite appropriate here.

[Men the Master]

MMMMMM:

I couldn't have said it better my self. Anyone who disagrees with you on this is clearly Anti-American and Pro-terrorist. We have to take it to the enemy. Another 9/11 is the last thing this great country of ours needs. N.Korea and Iran should be punished for even intending to create nuclear weapons. The sooner the better.

[MMMMMM]

This is one reason why we need a Missile Defense Shield ASAP, along with complete control of space-based weapons systems, and Hellfire missiles capable of targeting any enemy leaders. If we had those now we wouldn't have to go to war and kill thousands of innocent people in order to prevent evil leaders from gaining, or using, WMD.

As things stand I think we could afford to share such technology with the U.K. but not with France or Turkey.

[andyfox]

911 should have shown you that an empire reaps what it sows. Now we're warring against terror. Terror is not an enemy, it is a strategy. Nobody seems to get this in the adminstration, which of course is not surprising given that they use language not to communicate but to cajole. By saying our enemy is terrorism, it avoids any rational discussion of the cause of that terrorism and they can resort to nonsense such as "they hate our freedom."

I would add one more reason for the war to Chris's list: many in the administration had already made up their mind that Saddam must go, long before 9/11. They had been calling for it for years.

[Jimbo]

Ripdog since we are using famous quotes to make a point here is my choice: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Yes if Clinton had acted properly and premptively we might have avoided 911 and heck you might even have the founder of the internet as our commander in chief today rather than our action president.

[andyfox]

There is only one reason Gore is not president today. The Republicans on the Supreme Court decided he would not be president. Ms. O'Connor gave her opinion when she heard Gore would win the election if he carried Florida; she said, "Oh,no!" And oh, no indeed, he did not carry Florida. He lost Florida 5-4.