Bankrupt

Rumsfeld opened his mouth and removed all doubt (not that there ever had been any) that the United States is opposed in principle to crimes against humanity -- or, at least, those committed by Saddam Hussein.

Back when, Saddam was a major U.S. ally, and, even after he'd fallen out of favour, and his country had been destroyed, he was allowed to crush a popular rebellion that might have overthrown him. (In fact, a few years back, I attended a lecture by an Iraqi refugee who claimed that the U.S. actively aided Saddam's crushing of the rebellion.) His crimes are now being used to make a case for war. But wait! Rumsfeld (whose recommendations carry the moral and legal weight of Jehova himself, you see) on Sunday averred that, "To avoid a war, I would personally recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership in that country and their families could be provided haven in some other country." No doubt Rumsfeld prescribes some manner of "Saddamismo without Saddam" for the Iraqis Saddam leaves behind.

Joining Rumsfeld in the Hall of Shame are:

• German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who "dearly wants to avoid further antagonizing the Bush administration, which viewed his anti-war position as a betrayal. But he knows that retreating even a half-step on Iraq could cost him his coalition government, which holds a reed-thin majority in the Parliament." Schroder's "dilemma" is described as (for him) a "no-win situation". Yeah, gee, risking the ire of the United States (knowing full well the U.S. only bombs niggers), or authorising the absolute destruction of an entire culture. Very difficult choice. • A Turkish businessman opposed to the war because "all the businessmen will be affected." Turkey is "torn" generally because, on the other hand of the United States' proposed $14 Billion in aid should it support the war is the prospect of a repeat of "dealing with the torrent of Iraqi refugees that flooded across its borders," during the first Gulf War, or the "worries that the Kurds in northern Iraq could use the war as a pretext to declare independence, perhaps reigniting Turkey's war against its own Kurdish separatists, which after nearly two decades seems finally to be coming to an end," or the fear that, "At some point, the U.S. will withdraw and Turkey will still be here." God forbid the Turkish genocide of the Kurds should be interrupted by a silly little American war of genocidal scale against the Iraqis! • France, which has publicly "vowed" to veto any new Security Council resolution authorising a war upon Iraq (which the Bush Administration has promised to ignore anyways), but has "dispatched its only aircraft carrier to the gulf" so that it can join in the nigger-bombing at the "last minute", and "told Secretary of State Colin Powell in closed meetings that France would be more inclined to support war if United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed after another two months or so that Iraq was not willing to disarm peacefully." (Ah, the old rule of thumb still applies: Niggers with Nukes = No Good, Whites with WMDs = Won-der-ful.) • Russia, which took a break from pummeling Chechnya for just long enough to accept an Iraqi bribe. Will Russia eventually flop? Well, can Iraq really, in the final analysis, offer better bribes than the United States?

But back to Rumsfeld and the Beast of Baghdad. Why is the U.S. suddenly trying to "avoid war"? Perhaps the "hundreds of thousands of demonstrators across four continents", including a "cool" half-million in DC, and perhaps 200,000 in San Francisco, had something to do with it? Has the Bush Administration suddenly entered full-on face-saving mode, trying to spare itself the political fallout of embarking upon a massively unpopular war while at the same time being able to boast of having elicited "regime change"? Assuming so, let's keep up the pressure. We may just have the motherfuckers on the run!

Posted by Eddie Tews at January 21, 2003 06:09 PM