Which lie will Bush and Blair use now to justify their war with Iraq?
1. WMD? What WMD? Where are they? I just read an interesting article about how upset the MPs are in England that no WMD have been found so far. I have to agree with Mr Hinchliffe in the article about concerns that even if some evidence is found, that it could be doctored by the coalition forces. Here is another article on the subject: Ex-spies slam US over failure to find WMDs
2. Oust Saddam? It appears that just like Bin Laden, Saddam is either dead or has escaped unharmed. Sure, his regime appears to have been destroyed, but where is Saddam? And then I was reading this article last night about our forces giving the upper echelons of the Republican Guard some kind of deal if they didn't oppose the US-led invasion into Baghdad. Although I am inclined to think that this article could just be propaganda or even misinformation, especially since no sources are given, it still makes me pause to wonder if this is why Baghdad fell so easily, especially with all the media build-up of Baghdad being the"big battle" of this war. This also makes me wonder if perhaps Saddam wasn't given some kind of deal as well.
3. Liberate the Iraqis? I guess if you can call bombing them into submission liberation, then they were liberated; however, what I do find ironic is that these liberated Iraqis are now exercising their new-found freedoms and are demostrating against their liberators. They may be glad that Saddam is no longer a threat to their lives, but they are dead-set against having the US setting up their government. The Washington Post article states: Converging from several mosques, the demonstrators carried banners with such slogans as "No Bush, No Saddam, Yes to Islam," and "No to America, No to Secular State, Yes to Islamic State." Organizers said the demonstrators included both Shiite Muslims and Sunnis, who represent the majority branch of Islam in most Muslim countries but a minority in Iraq.
I wonder how well this will go over with the Bushites. It also makes me wonder if we will cause long term problems if we stay in Iraq too much longer. Tension is already on the rise in Iraq because the Muslim Iraqis, mostly Shiites, want an Islamic State and not a secular one. If there is to be democracy in Iraq, there will have to be freedom of religion and with an Islamic State, this may not be possible. Chalabi, the pro-US Iraqi opposition leader, said in another Washington Post article: "There is a role for Islamic religious parties, for they have some constituencies," he said. "But they are not going to be forcing any agenda or forcing a theocracy on the Iraqi people."
Are we really in a position to deal with a religious revolution in Iraq? Only time will tell.
~Did You Miss These?~
Just a Reminder - Tuesday, Nov. 04, 2003
Ravyne Is Moving - Friday, Oct. 17, 2003
The Mission - Sunday, Oct. 12, 2003
Siege Heil - Thursday, Oct. 09, 2003
Litany Of Lies - Wednesday, Oct. 08, 2003
Since I have such a huge readers' list for both my Politcal and my Personal diaries, please see my buddy lists for:
I now collaborate with Chris Vargo, JR. at The Underground Files. Many of my articles can now be found there.
Is This Your Government?
Penguins Are Geeks Too
Chaos In Motion
Post 9/11 Timeline
Show your support for a political writer. Check out Lisa Walsh Thomas' book and order your copy today!
Bev Harris' Black Box Voting
Order at Plan Nine Publishing or Visit Scoop to download free chapters of her book