Chimpy’s a Big Fat Liar
…and it’s all about the oiiiiiiiiilllllllllll…
Sorry; had to get that off my chest. Anyhow, I was doing some thinking about the “Bush lied to us about WMD” issue, and I still can’t wrap my head completely around it. It doesn’t pass the laugh test, that it’s all a big lie and we all fell for it. Here’s the torturous train of thought that led me to it.
First, you must remember that this is all predicated on the fallacious notion that we went to war in Iraq only because we thought that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass murder. This is a common belief among the Bush-haters, whose voices grow louder as fewer and fewer people listen to them. So I’m not going to get into the idea that Hussein’s regime sponsored terrorism, and I’m not going to discuss the fact that we went in there to stop a monster from committing murder, torture, and rape. Yes yes, I know that there isn’t enough “proof” for a lot of us that Hussein sponsored terrorism; to some, there will never be enough proof, because in their minds, there’s never enough justification for any war (these same moral midgets would likely have chained themselves to the gates of Belsen as “human shields” to protest American hegemony had they been born a few decades earlier). And I also know that there are lots of other murderous dictators in the world that the U.S. doesn’t do anything about, so we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq (an argument that only makes sense when you put on your “Bush=Hitler” glasses). With that out of the way, we’ll focus on the argument that we went to war in Iraq because President Bush lied to the world about its WMD program.
If Bush lied, then he must have had a reason to do so (unless he was a pathological liar, in which case his name would be Clinton). What would Bush gain from a war in Iraq? Oil revenue from Iraqi oil fields? Possibly, but it’d be hard for him to personally profit from that without some very very clever financial dealings that would have to escape the microscopic scrutiny under which he lives daily (as part of his position as leader of the free world). The only other thing he might stand to gain was a higher approval rating, which translates to a greater probability of his being reelected in 2004. Which means that he went to war so that he could grab more power for himself. I mean, who wants to be President of the United States of America, unless it’s someone who has an appetite for exercising authority? That seems more likely.
Bush must’ve known that if he sent troops to Iraq to take out Hussein, people would be killed in the process: coalition soldiers, pilots, Republican Guards, Iraqi conscripts, and civilians who were caught in the crossfire. If this was simply a power/oil grab, then Bush deliberately sent thousands of people to their deaths for personal gain. That’s a textbook definition of evil, right there. It validates the darkest thoughts of the “Bush=Hitler” left, and it’s the only logical conclusion.
A lie this big would require a great deal of planning, as well as several accomplices. One accomplice would have to be Vice President Dick Cheney. How would Cheney gain? Well, he no longer has a direct connection to Halliburton, so revenue from Halliburton’s fire-extinguishing and rebuilding efforts would have to be fairly well hidden (under that microscope once again). It’s not likely that he’ll run with Bush for his reelection for health reasons. Perhaps, then, so that he could end his career on a high note in order to profit from the lecture circuit. Nah, that’s stupid; Bill Clinton left office under a cloud as dark as Richard Nixon, and Clinton’s speaking engagements still earn him big bucks. So I’m not sure what Cheney would gain, so we’ll just assume that he’s going along with it for complex personal reasons. Who else would Bush need to help with the Big Lie? Certainly Colin Powell; after all, he presented the case to the UN (though it’s likely that he’s just a dupe instead of a really great actor). Bush would also need Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Oh, and Tommy Franks. Not to mention their aides, assistants, and various agents in the field.
So once Bush gathered this cabal (something he must’ve done months, if not years in advance), he set The Plan in motion. Only the problem is that we haven’t yet found the WMD’s. So, apparently, Bush and his cronies are so fucking stupid that they’d make up a false reason to go to war and then not even fabricate some kind of dummy anthrax canister to dump in Saddam’s basement. I mean, if it was so easy for them to lie to us, why would it be any harder for them to plant fake evidence of WMD’s?
Get some perspective on it: Tony Blair, President Bush, and everyone in a position of authority who supported them are so venal, so avaricious, so power-hungry that they sent thousands of people to their deaths in order to personally profit. They lied so well that the majority of people in the U.S. believed them, but lacked the brains to plant the reason for the lie where it might be easily found (and therefore complete the con). That’s the “he lied” argument.
What’s more likely: that, or the idea that we just haven’t looked everywhere yet?