April 20, 2003
Donald Spills The Jellybeans
Donald H. Rumsfeld, referencing the fabled Iraqi WMDs, doesn't "think we'll discover anything", because, "It is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around looking everywhere, hoping you find something." (Dubya will surely become cross upon learning of this piss-poor display of Easter spirit!) He says that we'll instead "discover people who will tell us where to go find it."
Right, well, this squares nicely with the Administration's repeated pre-war assertions that U.S. intelligence had proven (to the Administration, if not to its own agents, nor to anybody else) that Saddam had "failed to disarm" -- thus the critically urgent need to for the second time in a decade blast the holy fucking shit out of the country's beleaguered millions.
U.S. Brig. General Vincent Brooks insists that, "We remain convinced that there are weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq and we remain unwavering about that." But he doesn't say why they remain convinced. It must be based on some evidence, right? If so, then, what is the evidence, and where are the weapons? Maybe the Bush Administration is now tangling its feet in the inverse of its, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" axiom. Existence of evidence is not evidence of existence, apparently.
It is, in fact, now fairly widely assumed that WMD will not be found in Iraq unless planted there by the United States. Given that the U.S. is unwilling to allow the UN inspectors back into the country, preferring its own "more muscular" inspections, one could hardly be blamed for this suspicion. But here's a question for scientist-types. Can the U.S. really hope to get away with planting weapons? If a few weapons are uncovered in the absence of an active programme or facilities, won't it be pretty obvious that something isn't quite adding up? And even if Saddam had air-mailed his entire arsenal to Syria, evidence of an ongoing programme capable of producing such an arsenal would stick out like a sore thumb, yes?
While it's an issue this blog has discussed before now, it may be worth noting that expression of the glaringly obvious logical corollary to the widespread assumption that the "legitimacy" of the war could only be retroactively "repudiated" (that'll make the hurt go away) by a failure to unearth an Iraqi weapons programme -- viz., a devastating military attack and occupation of the United States would be a legitimate avenue for dealing with its weapons programmes -- has not yet found purchase in the mainstream media.
Posted by Eddie Tews at April 20, 2003 10:37 AM
Comments
Eddie, Not that I care to comment on your latest assinine display, but would you care to explain your "Capitalism fuck off now" quote which is found in big, bold letters on your homepage?
Response: Uh, I wish it would.
-- Posted by: passerby on April 20, 2003 01:25 PM
yeah, I was wondering about that myself, Eddie. I don't think your reply suffices, either.
but I came to rant about something else. I didn't even read your latest post, Eddie, because I'm sure it will be just as ridiculous as any of your previous ones. I was just rereading one of "Frank Rizzo's" posts and thought I should mention: Eddie, do you realize that by your anti-war stance, you MUST be arguing that Saddam should have remained in power (clearly he never would have stepped down or given himself up so merely hoping that he does is not a valid stance on the issue). What's more, by saying this, you are essentially saying that you care nothing for the millions of Iraqis who are impoverished over there, and the countless more that will be born into poverty under Saddam's rule. Funny how the very Iraqis your purport to empathize with (i.e. the civilians) are doomed to continue that type of existence under Saddam's rule. Do you see the contradiction here? You claim that the coalition's invasion is killing "thousands" of these people, and you're all up in arms about it; but if the coalition hadn't gone in, these people would continue to be murdered, beaten, raped, starved, etc. by the dictator and his party. And you are saying that that dictator and his henchmen should have been left alone, to continue on as they pleased. Face it Eddie, you think the US government is just an evil empire that can do no right and you're looking for something to complain about. Like I've said before, the collateral civilian deaths incurred during the brief war will be miniscule compared to the number of deaths that would have continued to occur under Saddam's reign. And that's not even considering those who would have lived but lived MISERABLY. As Donald Rumsfeld said, "Saddam Hussein has killed more Muslims than any person on the face of the Earth." What's wrong with you, Eddie? Why can't you see that?
Your view reminds me of an argument I had with a stupid ex girlfriend of mine. I took her dog to the vet and got it some innoculations and had some other tests done as well, one of which was taking a urine sample. To take a urine sample from a dog, they locate the bladder, isolate it, and then stick a long syrnge into the dog, through the bladder, and extract some urine. The vet said that the procedure is painless for the most part, but every now and then a dog will whine or squeal slightly when the needle goes in. As it turned out, the dog had a urinary tract infection, for which they prescribed antibiotics. Later, when I relayed this info to my girlfriend, she complained because, according to her, the procedure sounded barbaric and painful. I told her what the vet said, and reminded her that it was in the dog's best interests because they had discovered a urinary tract infection (which was the reason he couldn't hold his bladder for very long and kept peeing the house) and had prescribed meds which quickly cured it. She still claimed that she would not have gone through with it because it sounded cruel; the dog's health be damned. In her eyes, the brief, minimal pain or discomfort the dog felt was not justified by the cure. The point: you're just like my ex, Eddie. You're saying, "To hell with those Iraqis who were oppressed in every conceivable way! They can go on suffering because our government is wrong for killing a relatively small amount of them so that the VAST majority of the rest of them can live better lives in the future." That, my friend, is pathetic and stupid! Also, the Iraqi people are like her dog: aware there's a problem but powerless to do anything about it without outside help. -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 20, 2003 11:29 PM
So, just to summarize... Saddam is a bladder infection, the United States is the well-meaning veterinarian, and the Iraqi people are dogs. Ok, got it. Thanks for the info Billy. -- Posted by: Rand McNally on April 25, 2003 09:42 PM