|
PEACE:
Foreign Policy & Terrorism | May 19, 2005
WRITE
BEFORE
OUR
VERY
EYES
When
it comes to re-writing history, the Bush Administration would
put Big Brother to shame.
First,
we were told that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein
had something to do with 9-11. Although Cheney still repeats
that whopper now and again, even
Bush had to eventually 'fess up that it wasn't true.
Then,
we were told that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein
had weapons of our mass destruction...based in large part on the
unsubstantiated testimony of a notorious liar related by blood
to the darling of the Neo-Cons, Dr.
Ahmad Chalabi, previously convicted of swindling millions in
Jordan and recently appointed Oil Minister in the new government
of Iraq (who says crime doesn't pay?).
Then,
we were told that we had to invade Iraq because if we liberated
the Iraqi people we would spread democracy and peace throughout
the region. What
region was that again?
Now,
I just read the latest reason why we had to invade Iraq, stated
almost off-handedly -- the very best way to re-write history is
to simply throw in your revision as a given, in support of
another point, more in the spotlight (I think we can pretty much
count on this fabrication being repeated, more and more overtly,
in the days and weeks ahead, until it becomes "the
conventional wisdom").
The
article containing the new party line, Official:
Al-Zarqawi Ordered Iraq Attacks, by Paul Garwood, Associated
Press Writer, indeed does deal with a vitally important topic;
it begins:
BAGHDAD,
Iraq - Iraq's top al-Qaida terrorist, angered by a postelection
lull in violence, ordered insurgents a month ago to intensify
attacks, and his lieutenants began plotting their deadly mission
during a secret meeting in Syria, a top U.S. military official
said Wednesday.
Well,
the article doesn't indicate whether the Bush Administration is
now considering going into Syria and
other "foreign countries" in which al-Zarqawi and
his leaders have met (notably excluding Iran, "a Shiite
theocracy"), to flush out terrorists re-entering Iraq, as
the Nixon Administration had gone into Cambodia, to flush
out North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces re-entering South
Vietnam; but quite ominously (and undoubtedly correctly), the
article does go on to say:
A
chilling, rambling Internet audiotape purportedly by al-Zarqawi
denounced Iraq's Shiites as U.S. collaborators and said killing
them is justified.
...the
senior U.S. military official, who briefed reporters on
condition he not be named...said that U.S. forces were
constantly disrupting insurgent activities, but success was not
guaranteed and could take "many years."
OK,
that sucks (although it's not really new news, is it?)...but in
the wake of that potentially demoralizing statement, here comes
the new rallying cry:
"If
we fail, the different groups would be at each other's throats
and warfare would continue for some time," he [the senior
U.S. military official] said. "If we take our foot off
their throats, this country could be back into civil war and
chaos."
WHOA!!!
"Back into civil war and chaos"?
Say
what you will about ol' Saddam; but like Marshall Tito, whose
"iron fist" suppressed ethnic and religious warfare in
Yugoslavia for decades, Saddam Hussein ruthlessly, yet
effectively suppressed ethnic and religious warfare in Iraq
(another artificial creation out of the old Ottoman Empire).
Sorry,
kids; if Iraq continues to descend into civil war and chaos -- happily helped along by the likes of that murderous bastard
al-Zarqawi -- it's not a return to the "good ol' bad ol' days"
of Saddam.
Nope.
It'll
be George Dubya's little gift to the Middle East. Tied up in a
ribbon as red as all the blood that's been shed.
No
matter how the story is written, or re-written.
Return to
Archive of PEACE: Foreign Policy & Terrorism
Home
| Editor | Values
& Issues
| Feedback
| Legal | Links |
