FOR LIBERTARIAN NATIONALISM: ANTI-CORPORATIST, ANTI-COMMUNIST, ANTI-GLOBALIST...PRO-SOVEREIGNTY, PRO-POPULIST, PRO-FREE ENTERPRISE

Thursday, September 05, 2002

Rehashing Iraqi History a Weak Substitute for Solid Evidence, Case Building

In response to critics who say that the Bush Administration needs to build a solid case
before rushing into Iraq, the spin coming out of the White House
now is that the government already has all of the evidence it needs to
justify an attack.

“The president believes that the evidence that we have already seen is sufficient to require
regime change," said spokesman Ari Fleischer recently. “Saddam Hussein has a history of
using force. He used military force when he invaded Iran, he used military force when he
invaded Kuwait, he used military force when he launched ballistic missiles against Iran,
against Saudi Arabia and against Israel."

President Bush is set to make his pitch for a war against Iraq to the U.N. on Sept. 12
(note
the shamelessly opportunistic date of the speech), but has yet to provide any solid
evidence that Iraq can be tied to the terrorist attacks. Absent such hard evidence, and in
light if Fleisher’s comments, it appears that President Bush is going to ignore the fact that
Iraq cannot be tied to the attacks and argue that it deserves to be invaded any way.

Is this is the best this administration can do to justify an invasion? A rehash of what
happened in the Gulf War 10 years ago? Or even more absurdly, a reminder that Iraq went
to war with Iran in the ‘80’s? A war in which the U.S. Government and Donald Rumsfeld
himself strategically aided one of the combatants, namely Iraq
, in it’s effort to fend off
Iranian attackers? Why, even
Tonly Blair claims to have a “secret dossier” of evidence against Iraq (I hold in my hand a dossier...)

Such an effort is hardly worthy of even a gentleman’s “C” on a mid-term college paper, let
alone as justification for risking the lives of thousands of American soldiers and
committing America to what will no doubt be a long, grueling, painful occupation of Iraq
for years to come; an occupation that will do little more than earn Americans the enmity
and scorn of Muslims throughout the world and actually increase the odds of another
terrorist attack instead of reducing them.

“No other nation has been as militaristic, as prone to use weapons, as prone to launch
missiles, as armed up with biological and chemical weapons that they have a willingness
and ability to use," Fleischer said.

But what Fleischer didn’t say is that the U.S. Government foolishly and irresponsibly aided
an abetted Hussein for years both in his pursuit of military weapons and his quest to use
them. In therapy-speak, the American Government acted as Saddam’s enabler, which is
consistent with a busy-body foreign policy that inevitably and tragically (as Sept. 11
demonstrated) engulfs all Americans in its blowback.


That the U.S. Government has a long and established record of creating Frankenstein
monsters that then turn on their makers is no secret; nor is the fact that the average
American pays the price for these silly and dangerous foreign policy lab experiments, both
financially and as the targets for payback. What is a secret, apparently, is that many of
these secretive experiments and proxy wars are forbidden by the Constitution, or rather
would be if it’s restraints were enforced.

As Bush prepares to go to the U.N. to make the “case” for yet another undeclared war
that will result in yet more Frankenstein monsters and more America-polluting blowback,
let’s keep in mind that the Founders provided us with the mechanisms to prevent such
irresponsible adventurism. If only we would use them.