Friday, April 29, 2005

We're Sorry, Saddam!

If the New York Times is to be believed (and who wouldn't believe the Times?) we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. Our justification for going to war - Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - never existed; therefore, we shouldn't have gone to war. The rest of the liberal mainstream media agree with this, as does most of the Democrat Party, the Hollywood left, and the Dixie Chicks. If they're right, here's what we should do:
1) Restore Saddam Hussein to his pre-war position as absolute dictator of Iraq.
2) Pay for any damages we caused, plus an extra few hundred billion dollars for any emotional stress suffered by the Iraqi people.
3) End all economic sanctions, given that Iraq has now proved it has no WMD.
4) George W. Bush should give up his two daughters, Barbara and Jenna, in exchange for Saddam's two angelic sons, Uday and Qusay, who never did anyone any harm other than raping the odd few thousand women and assorted minor atrocities. These two fine young men were foully murdered by U.S. forces at the behest of the evil Bush, who is a mere puppet of the diabolical Karl "The Ripper" Rove, who is in turn a puppet of the unspeakable Dick "Damien Omen IV" Cheney. It's only fair that the Bush twins should be sacrificed.
Strange thing is, nobody on the left, not even Michael Moore or any of his liberal buddies in Hollywood have suggested restoring Saddam to power, let alone offering up the Bush Babes. How can this be? There were no WMD! Surely, we should return to the pre-war status quo, right?
We can draw only one logical conclusion from this. The left must secretly believe that we were right to forcibly remove Saddam from power, but they can't admit it because they can't bear to give any credit to the Bush administration.
Try asking an anti-war acquaintance if Saddam Hussein should be restored to power in Iraq. If the answer is no, ask why not? Presumably, your acquaintance will give you a list of reasons: Saddam killed 300,000 of his own people, he invaded two of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened many others etc. "Wait a minute," you should respond. "I thought you said there were no other reasons for going to war with Iraq!"
In reality, there were indeed many other reasons to go to war; and contrary to what you hear from the liberal mainstream media and the Democrats (one and the same thing, really), Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney etc. have all along repeatedly specified these reasons. If you don't believe me, do a Google search on the internet.
I find it amazing that the media have barely mentioned the 300,000 bodies found in mass graves all over Iraq. That's almost the entire population of Pittsburgh, or three Beaver Stadiums filled to capacity. For me, this alone justifies going to war.
Another story the media have done their very best to ignore is the UN Oil-for-Food program. This has been the single greatest scam in the history of the world, and I'm not exaggerating.
The total value of the Oil-for-Food program is estimated at $111 billion. About 20% of this was skimmed off the top. Some of it went to Saddam himself in the form of kickbacks, the rest was used to bribe various businessmen (including the son of United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan) and government officials, mostly in France, Germany, Russia and the UN itself.
Saddam built dozens of palaces for himself. Each of these palaces was the size of a large college campus. Most of them were built after the first Gulf War of 1991. The vast amounts of money used to pay for these palaces was meant to feed the long-suffering Iraqi people. The United Nations knew all this, but did nothing. Too many people were making too much money, and it wasn't Halliburton.
It gets even worse. There is growing evidence that some of the money generated by the Oil-for Food program was funneled to terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and... wait for it... Al Q'aida. It is entirely possible that the 9/11 attacks were at leat partially funded by money syphoned from the UN Oil-for-Food program.
And what about those elusive WMD? If you get your news from ABC, CBS or NBC you will have concluded that there was no WMD. Maybe there wasn't, but the jury is still out. Satelite photos taken just prior to the coalition invasion showed a large convoy of trucks crossing into Syria from northwestern Iraq. It is still not known what those trucks contained.
Coalition forces found vast quantities of pesticide throughout Iraq, a country that is mostly urbanized or desert, with very little land suitable for agriculture. Why would the Iraqis require such extraordinary amounts of pesticide? Because it is easily weaponized. Indeed, Iraq used this "pesticide" during the eight year long war with Iran. Saddam also used this "pesticide" on his own people.
These stockpiles of pesticide were hidden under large camouflage nets in the middle of a desert. Why? Why would the Iraqis need to hide this stuff if it was only meant for agricultural use? And here's the clincher: just a few yards away from these barrels of pesticide were thousands of empty shells. Now, when the media tells us that WMD haven't been found, they are telling the literal truth. No ready made WMD have been found (yet), but the ingredients to quickly produce WMD have been found. Not for the first time, the media only tells us part of the story. They aren't actually lying, but by failing to report important facts they are distorting the truth.


Post a Comment

<< Home