In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush alleged that Iraq was concealing the following Weapons of Mass Destruction:
500 tons of chemical weapons
25,000 litres of Anthrax
38,000 litres of botulim toxin
To date, we have found:
0 tons of chemical weapons
0 litres of Anthrax and
0 litres of botulim toxin
I feel so much safer now.
Still no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) found in Iraq and no trace of Saddam either. The Arab media has been speculating that the fall of Baghdad happened so quickly because a secret deal was struck between the Bush administration and the ruling Baath Party and brokered by Saudi Arabia. The collapse was so sudden and the Iraqi leaders vanished in such a coordinated fashion that it makes you wonder whether something wasn't up, whether or not it was done with U.S. involvement.
We supposedly went into Iraq to deal with the WMDs, but once the fighting got started the propaganda quickly changed to "liberating" the Iraqi people. Now that we've won, that seems to be all that matters to most people. It all bears a striking resemblance to a quote credited to Adolph Hitler in William Shirer's book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
"I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war. Nevermind whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory."
Now that the war is essentially over, many of its proponents have been scolding those of us who opposed it for not being compassionate enough to want to bring freedom and liberation to the Iraqi people. But while we like to say we promote democracy in other nations, the truth of the matter is we just want a government that takes our side and does what we tell it to do. Whether that means a democracy, a theocracy or a dictatorship does not matter.
The Dixie Chicks latest album "Home" is back at No. 1 on the Country sales charts and their upcoming U.S. tour is sold out most everywhere, all in spite of this so-called "boycott" of the band by conservatives.
This is all good. I'm sure there will still be organized protests at some of the concerts, but that will just highlight the intolerance and vindictiveness of the protesters. I understood the initial outcry over Natalie Maines' remarks about being embarrassed that Bush is from Texas, but she apologized and that should have been that. It's unfortunate that some folks can be so obstinately unforgiving.
But that aside, the boycott was bound to fall flat mostly because the Dixie Chicks are just too good to be ignored. Maines' is an incredible singer who makes most other country performers today sound bland by comparison.
Why is it that so many far-right wingnuts prefer to vent their anger and frustration at women anyway? First there was Jane Fonda, and then it was Barbara Streistand and Hillary Clinton, and now its Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks. Is it because they have a tendency to want to bully folks who are less likely to fight back? Maybe that is why the rightwing is venting so much of its wrath against France - when Germany, China, Russia, and just about every other nation on the planet was equally critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Bush recently snubbed Canada by canceling a trip there and then entertained the president of Australia at the same time. But Bush is going to have a difficult time playing those petty games for long because there just aren't that many countries he can count in his "good" list.