FLAIT

Originally Posted: Feb. 2005

There's been so many reasons for invading Iraq, that it's tough to keep track. But here's a list of them in the order they were given:

1. A pre-emptive war to strike an "imminent threat" that had "thousands of tons" of WMDs - Couldn't have been more wrong. There were no WMDs.
1B. Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa - Couldn't have been more wrong with that one either.
1C. "Regime change" - All of a sudden Republicans give a hoot about "poor suffering" Iraqis? Since when did the GOP give a hoot about anybody?

And since when have our brave soldiers been willing to "give their lives" for Iraqi's?

The following reasons were floated after the "mission" wasn't "accomplished:"

2. Hussein was responsible or 9/11 - No he wasn't.
3. Hussein had contacts with al-Quaeda - No he didn't. But if he did, why aren't we invading all the other Arab countries that had contact with al-Quaeda?
4. Hussein's "mass graves" - With 20,000 to 100,000 innocent Iraqi deaths, Bush is creating his own "mass graves."
5. Hussein paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - Yea so? Saudi Arabia is responsible for anti-American Whabbaism and funding madrassas, which are nothing more then terrorist training camps for children. Why aren't we invading them?
6. Hussein was siphoning money from the UN "Oil For Food" program - If true, only Republican logic would start a war over that one.

George Bush painted himself so far into the corner with this war, that he needed to punch out the wall to make room for one last rational:

7. To bring freedom and democracy to Iraq - I'm touched to hear Bush and the GOP talk about how wonderful it is for Iraqi's to be able vote. I only wished they cared half as much when Americans are disenfranchised.

But don't kid yourself. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with bringing democracy to the country. This war was about arrogance. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and Feith are so arrogant and so haughty that they assumed Iraq would be "easy" and taking out Saddam Hussein would give Bush the "Ronald Reagan" like legacy he wanted. And since they know everything, are never wrong, and never make mistakes, no one was going to tell them otherwise - the hell with the wars costs, its aftermath, or its consequences.

But Bush is like the guy who gets stuck in traffic, takes a short cut, and gets so lost that he has no choice but to keep going and find another way out. So Bush backed into this latest rational for the war only because of his arrogant incompetence!

Ironically, Bush wasn't the one pushing for these elections so soon. It was the powerful cleric, al-Sistani, who wanted them because he knew the Shiites would win. And we had to appease him and go forward with the elections, despite the violence, or else he would have called for a "jihad" that would have triggered such mayhem, it would have made what's going on now look like a picnic.

And yet, Bush is taking the credit for Iraq's "democracy" (I wonder how he'll spin things if a stable Shiite Iraqi "democracy" does take hold - as slim as that is - and it turns out to be an Islamic Theocracy...with ties to Iran...that slaughters the Sunni's).

But despite the country in total "lock down," about 150 innocent Iraqi's WERE killed or wounded in the 260 insurgent attacks on Election day. And if that was the price to pay so Bush can finally have something to brag about, so be it. What does he care?

And not only did the "liberal" media brush off the Iraqi casualties, they didn't question the voter turnout numbers given to them by the military, or report the low turnout in the all important Sunni areas.

So despite the violence, and despite the fact that reporters were only able to witness a handful of peaceful Shiite polling places where turnout was expected to be high (how convenient) the "liberal" media branded the elections a complete success.

How did one perceived "good day" in Iraq wipe out the 600 disastrous days before it? Heck, even the '62 Mets won a game every once in a while.

The "liberal" media's celebration of these elections continued into the next day when they practically ignored the deaths of four more American soldiers.

So let's not lose sight of the original, and sole reason for this war: "WMDs" and the "imminent threat."

And let's also not forget that once the no-fly zones and UN sanctions were put in place after the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's hands were tied, the country was stable and the Kurds in the north were able to prosper.

It's great that Hussein will be held accountable for his atrocities, but since the war has been a disaster and the country is still very dangerous, and will likely remain so, an argument can be made that Iraq - and America - was better off with Hussein in power.

So when Republicans say the "world is better off without Saddam Hussein," that's nothing but spin because his power was limited to Baghdad, he didn't have WMDs, he was void of any military strength, and he was not a viable threat; not even to his neighbors.

Ironically, George Bush has proven to be a bigger menace to the world then Hussein was during the 12 years the no-fly zones and UN sanctions were in place.

Granted, Hussein was no pussycat. But he was a dozing tiger locked in his cage - right where we can keep an eye on him.

So this notion that the "world is better off without him" and "we gave Iraq these historic elections" - compared to what the enormous costs of this war will be in blood, money and more terrorist recruits for al-Quaeda (remember them?), for decades to come - is just White House/Republican spin trying desperately to justify a colossal disaster started by arrogant incompetence in the most volatile part of the world.