Sunday, October 26, 2003
(7:50 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Preview of the President's Next Press Conference
I have received some inside information from Donald Rumsfeld himself about the upcoming final stage of justifying the war on Iraq. Let's list off the attempts that have been made so far:
- Claim that Iraq is an immanent threat -- this is clearly ridiculous. Iraq's neighbors didn't think it was a threat, much less an immanent one. Even Kuwait, whom the Iraqis, you know, actually invaded, were not at all concerned that Iraq would be a military threat. The idea that Iraq could threaten the US or the UK was simply ludicrous and indefensible.
- Claim that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction" that could fall into terrorist hands -- I think we're all familiar with how that one panned out: they don't have any WMDs, at all. The weapons inspectors and everyone else who Actually Knew Stuff and claimed that Iraq didn't have substantial weapons were right.
- Claim that Iraq plans on making WMDs at some vague future date, which might then fall into terrorist hands -- turns out that one doesn't work, either. Even the ambiguous "evidence" presented in the Kay report has been discredited.
- Claim that we are doing it out of the goodness of our heart -- but if that's the case, why wouldn't we choose to invade the country that is suffering the worse abuses, and work our way up from there? Why "do" Iraq now?
- Strongly imply that Iraq had ties to 9-11 -- this one was just a plain old lie, on which the press eventually called the administration out.
- Claim that Saddam's very existence and evilness tied him to 9-11 in the great chain of being -- this argument is a little bit metaphysical and hard to follow.
- Claim that the Iraqis are a lot better off without Saddam, because we're building schools and hospitals now -- um, weren't there schools and hospitals before? In fact, wasn't education in general one of Saddam's greatest successes? Plus, before, weren't there, like, police and stuff to make sure people could go out at night without dying? And finally, was Iraq subject to almost daily terrorist attacks before we got there? How are they better off again? I hate to be cynical -- I know the big statue of Saddam was torn down and everything -- but seriously.
At this point, there are only two options:
- Admit that this is part of a larger strategy to ensure American hegemony well into the next century by securing access to Middle Eastern oil supplies and by creating a situation in which the military must be constantly expanded while social spending must be nearly eliminated -- well, that one's a little wordy, so we're left with:
- "It just happened at random, okay? We don't know why it happened. We wish it wouldn't have. But here we are. Iraq's our baby now. Deal with it."
Rumsfeld told me in his e-mail, which he wrote to me, that the administration plans on releasing this new "happened at random" explanation the day after Thanksgiving, just in time for the holiday season. When that happens, remember: you heard it here first, at The Weblog, the all-time #1 best blog in the history of blogging.
