Friday, April 09, 2004

The TV weatherman said it was going to rain the other day but it didn’t. He lied.

Prior to Copernicus, people said that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. They lied.

People in George Washington’s day said that it was not possible for man to fly and that diseases could be cured, provided that you have enough leeches. They lied too.

It wasn’t the case that they looked at the available information, considered what was believed to be true at the time, and then made decisions based on that information, which was later shown to be inaccurate. Nope. They lied.

That is the only conclusion I can come to after reading numerous letters to the editor in the Dallas Morning News and hearing similarly disposed Democrat politicians sound off about why the Bush Administration took us to war in Iraq.

As I now understand it, George W. Bush, unlike the intelligence agencies of the United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, not to mention the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) weapons inspectors, and the rest of the civilized world, somehow knew that Iraq had unilaterally disarmed without telling anyone.

Knowing that our troops faced no danger from Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bush then decided to go to war in Iraq in order to look strong and thereby enhance his chances of re-election, because the outcome of going to war is always easy to predict and was guaranteed to work in his favor politically. And Bush apparently assumed that people would calmly accept the fact that no vast stockpiles of WMD would be found and cheer him on to a glorious second term anyway. Bush knew all of this. What an evil genius.

Now some people would have you believe that Bush and the rest of his advisors looked at the available information the intelligence agencies were providing, considered the ramifications of leaving Saddam in power, and decided it was better in the long run to take him out. After all, he had stockpiled and used WMD in the past. He was supporting terrorism through payments to suicide bombers in Israel and by providing terrorist training at a place outside Baghdad called Salman Pak, where they practiced taking over airplanes with knives. Saddam was also quite efficient at filling mass graves with anyone who spoke out against him, or just knew somebody who did. And with all the oil he was sitting on he could afford to finance his activities until Uday and Qusay’s grandchildren were ready to take over.

So, either you believe that Bush looked at the available information, weighed the pros and cons of taking a drastic step like war, and decided to act against Iraq in an effort to “drain the swamp” that was breeding so much instability in the Middle East that it resulted in 9/11; or you believe Bush is an evil, yet moronic, simian sock puppet who was somehow able to convince Tony Blair and John Howard of Australia (not to mention about 50 other countries) to set aside their own national interests and go into Iraq along with us for no other reasons than Bush’s re-election and to somehow enrich his friends in the oil and construction industries. Those seem to be the choices.

Thanks to all the people who write in to the Dallas Morning News letters page and heroes like Sen. Teddy Kennedy I know now what to believe. Next, I’d like to learn from these clear thinkers how we never really landed on the moon and how O.J. Simpson was framed.


Post a Comment

<< Home