Riddle me this, America:
First, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney said we needed to go to war against Iraq because there were ties between the regime of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden's organization, Al-Quaida.That was proved to be false. American intelligence agencies actually indicated that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies, not allies. Next, the Bush Administration and its right wing mouthpieces in the Heritage Foundation said that there was clear evidence that Iraq had massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destructions that made it a clear and immediate threat to the United States. This meant we had to invade and occupy Iraq right away even though Iraq had not even threatened to attack the United States. That so-called "evidence" proved to be fake, outdated, exaggerated or imaginary. Furthermore, the Bush Administration knew that its "evidence" was shaky, but told the American people that it was rock solid. Since the American occupation of Iraq began, Americans have not been able to find a single chemical, biological or nuclear weapon in Iraq, even though George W. Bush's aides said they knew exactly where those weapons were. Oops. Later, and especially after it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq, George W. Bush and his hordes of assistants played revisionist history and said that the invasion of Iraq had really been necessary because Iraq had been ruled by a cruel group of the people known as the Baath Party, who had controlled Iraq through the fear instilled by Saddam Hussein's notoriously ruthless Mukhabarat intelligence agents.
What George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have been reluctant to tell the American people is that now that the American government is now in charge of Iraq, George W. Bush's governor of Iraq, Paul Bremer, has started to hire those same terror-inspiring agents of the Mukhabarat that Bush said that Iraq needed to be liberated from!
Oh, how we wish we were making this up. If you don't believe us, read the story written by the The Independent's Washington correspondent, Andrew Buncombe on the subject. If that's not enough for you, read another article written for the Reuters news service.
The Reuters article explains the Bush Administration's awkward attempts to justify its hiring of Saddam Hussein's thugs in order to keep a hold on power as follows: "While U.S. officials acknowledged the sensitivity of cooperating with a force that embodied the ruthlessness of Hussein's rule, the officials said an urgent need for better intelligence had forced unusual compromises." Unusual is right. I wonder how many of the conservative ideologues at Fox News who were denouncing these thugs of Iraq a few months ago have bothered to mention that these same "animals" are now employees of George W. Bush.
As these rationales for war that George W. Bush has relied upon to persuade the American public to support his hasty invasion and occupation of Iraq are discredited, one by one, what possible explanations for this bloody and expensive adventure are the American people left with?
Well, some people were saying, even before the war, that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were interested in opening up multi-billion-dollar investments for their wealthy supporters in the oil industry.
But no, George W. Bush's spokespeople say that oil has nothing to do with it. So, it must be something else. Surely.
|Irregular Times require talking back.|
Give us your Irregular Retorts!
We are also eagerly awaiting original submissions of quality irregularity.