Bush Somehow Supports Iraqi Conflict

In another show of end-justfies-means rhetoric, President Bush spoke in support of Persian Gulf II during his recent campaign rallies. His comments came in response to the scathing Senate committee report on prewar intelligence that was released yesterday. Bush is quoted in this article as saying, "'We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them.'" That's all good and well, George, but isn't that one of the premises that the report just disproved, that not only was Saddam probably not possessed of WMDs, but he had a much more limited ability to manufacture them than the exaggerated intel claimed?

Next, "When Saddam Hussein refused to heed U.N. resolutions, the United States had no choice but to make good on its promise of action, Bush said." That sounds fine until I think back to the U.N. inspectors being inside the country and Saddam cooperating with them. Sure, he had a few rockets that had inappropriate ranges, but hell, his violations were relatively minor compared to what we were asserting. Then, of course, the inspectors were mysteriously pulled and the war began; US troops had been prepping outside Iraq since the previous October, but nobody really reported that...

Moving on, I'd like to point out this ad hominem by G.W.B. "'We had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or take action to defend America.'" Yeah, reduce the opposition to "a madman" and you can justify almost anything. Saddam, however ruthless, is far from a madman. By controlling his country for 20+ years and waging a war against Iran in the 80s and 1.5 wars against us in the past decade or so, Saddam has proved that he has the power to reason properly, meaning he's not insane. I'm not defending his character, but shit, don't go around calling people madmen to justify your actions. It's childish. I could oppose G.W.B. by saying, "This madman wants to take our soldiers and throw them around the four corners of the Earth. I could either listen to a madman or start this guerilla group hellbent on killing him and his whole administration. I have no choice but to do the latter!" But if I did that, I'd be a fool, so I don't. Hopefully other people learn to avoid ad hominem, too.

This will be my final "picking on Bush" paragraph, but only because I'm out of quotes after this one. "'Because we acted, [Iraq's] dictator is now in a prison cell, and will receive the justice he denied so many for so long,'" Again, it sounds good, but that's simply end-justifies-the-means logic. If I slam-dunked the planet into a black hole, I'd end all murder, rape, pillaging, torture, adultery, corruption, lying, and homosexuality, but I'd also kill everyone alive and utterly destroy our planet. That means of reaching purification is not acceptable because it has incalculable negative consequences. We went about the Iraqi issue all wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times we jail Saddam or hang Saddam or launch Saddam as a human probe to Pluto, because our path was not, as perhaps a Confuscian might say, in keeping with the laws of propriety.

I said the last paragraph was the last Bushwacker, and it is, but it isn't the final paragraph. I have one more comment based upon the text of the article. It's a little off-topic, but I think it's tangentially related. "Conservatives on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections." At first, that sounds like a very simple "protect our party's candidate" screen, and it's easy to simply dismiss it as an election tactic. But upon review, I think this tactic shows something very sinister. Yes, this information, if it comes out a certain way, could hurt the President. But, don't I have the right to know how my government is acting and discipline it accordingly? Remember folks, these guys represent us. They're a government on probation. They have to answer to us. So why are we letting our representatives bind our hands thusly? Beyond that, it shows that the Republicans (on that panel, at least) have more interest in winning elections than preserving the ethics of our government. If anyone in the administration acted unethically, we have a right to know and to let them feel our displeasure at the polls. This trick, though, is like some sort of immunity charm from that God-awful "Survivor" show. No matter how wrong Bush or his cabinet members might be, he's sheltered from all fallout until after it matters. All this comes, somehow, from the party that has always been the Siamese twin of Ethics. Unfortunately for Republicans across the nation, it appears their party and Ethics have had a successful separation.