06 29 05

Spent part of the day listening to radio reactions to the President’s speech. A few salient remarks:

Saddam was a secularist!

Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11

Prescott Bush’s Secret Nazi Past and the internationalist agenda “New World Order.”

Fletcher Prouty and Winston Churchill’s installation by a “cabal” as exemplified by the Military Industrial Complex

The war is wrong and illegal and it’s all about oil and we should have attacked Saudi Arabia

Saddam would not have been a threat to the US if allowed him to remain in power

We went into Iraq for no reason

We’re creating terrorists out of people who otherwise be utterly peaceful and friendly

Afghanistan is producing heroin

The entire history of the US and Iraq in the 90s, including the Clinton-era attacks, the no-fly zone violations, and the adoption of regime change as official US policy is not only irrelevant but it’s very annoying to bring up

No weapons of mass destruction, therefore it was all a lie

It’s all very interesting, how events unfold, and while we may yet face true disaster, there is hope to be taken from the election, the building of a coalition government and an independent judiciary – to say nothing of progress in Lebanon and Libya. Provided ol’ Mo isn’t still playing a triple game, which is likely. But let me make the case why a different strategy might have neutralized Saddam, without putting unnecessary stress on our military resources. Just kidding! Bush lied and besides we supported Saddam in the 80s.

And so forth. In short: nearly ever single one of the points could have been made a year ago. Two years ago. And they’re repeated with absolute certainty, cast in bronze and anchored in cement, unswayable, unarguable. It has become a matter of faith, for some. I would not be surprised if they started seeing the face of Qusay on a tortilla.

Here’s some contrary remarks on Iraq & al-Qaeda:

(If there was no connection, how does one explain) the Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

I think we all know the answer, don’t we?

Downing Street Memo! Downing Street Memo! Downing Street Memo! Downing Street Memo! Downing Street Memo! Downing Street Memo! Downing Street Memo! Downing Street Memo! Downing Street Memo!

Man, I have to start listening to talk radio that constantly reinforces my own small, iron-hulled viewpoints. I thought that was the point, after all.


(Perm link.)