Bush and his people repeatedly mislead us trying to shore up support for an unprovoked attack on Iraq. The Bush Administration wants to attack Iraq. If not now, soon.
Impatient with inspections, Team Bush's claims increase in volume if not veracity. The case against Saddam is strong, but the case for war remains unconvincing because it contradicts known facts.
UN chief inspector Hans Blix testified there is no sign Iraq has mobile mass destruction labs. There are no indications Iraq is working with Al Queda. In short, there is no evidence Iraq threatens the United States or US interests.
Bush's team -- now including Colin Powell -- misstate and misrepresent Blix' findings. This is even more cause for concern. I doubt everything about Powell's act. Powell's empty vial and lectures on anthrax remind me of some things.
Whoever committed he anthrax attacks against our Senators -- people blocking Bush's right wing agenda -- were inside the US. These crimes remain unsolved and the criminals remain unpunished. Anthrax which may be in Iraq is more of a threat than anthrax in New Jersey? Anthrax which is "weaponized" and has already killed Americans?
And speaking of empty containers, that seems an apt metaphor for Powell's case for war. Anyone can hold up an empty container and say "if this were filled with plutonium such as George W. Bush has hidden, it could kill millions!" So what?
Even if each claim Powell made is true, are we better off killing innocent Iraqis than letting the inspectors gather and use the "evidence" to disarm Iraq without firing a shot? Bush -- and now Powell -- say the evidence compels us to lash out in brutal rage. Blix and the international experts say this proves inspections are working.
Even if some Iraqis are violating UN resolutions, so what? It doesn't follow that the US should violate the most basic UN edict: "thou shalt not launch unprovoked attacks." Especially when we have much better alternatives. Bush and Powell harp on Iraq "ignoring international will."
If Bush orders an inprovoked attack against Iraq, he will violate international norms, snub world opinion, and create sympathy for Saddam. How would that help US interests? I hear no reasonable explanation from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice or the rest.
Powell's performance insulted our intelligence. He used annotated blurry photographs and told us to take his word for it -- this proves Iraq is dangerous. At other times he used drawings! As proof! Keep in mind that he resorted to this artifice only when there were no photographs to doctor or label.
Why did they stop there? Why didn't they just draw a picture of Saddam and Osama grinning and shaking hands next to a calendar that said "9/11" in huge letters? Probably because the Bush strategy depends on most Americans thinking bin Laden and Hussein is the same person!
Let's be honest here. Bush and his advisors decided to attack Iraq long before 9/11. Before they seized power in the US. Since then, they've been trying to figure out some pretext to justify the decision they made long ago.
Why? Iraq has oil, and invading Iraq continues the Bush family's generations-long quest for oil. Maybe to silence his father's former friend Saddam before the world learned too much about the connections between Baghdad and the Bush family?
