Tell Me the Story Again?

Why did we invade Iraq, again?

I mean, at the beginning, back when we were in such a rush that we couldn't give Hans Blix another month or two, when we thumbed our noses at France and Germany who tried to offer an alternative UN resolution, why did we tell the world to go to hell, we'd do it our way if we wanted?

It's too damn bad that we'll never hear Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz or Perle or Rice tell us the real reasons. Such information would not be understood by us peons, and must be kept secret and separate. Or is it that they don't have the balls to tell us?

I find it a total outrage that when the first "reason" crumbled like a dry cookie on the road there was no apology, not even the barest acknowledgement of the lie. All we heard was denial and then a new "reason." All we were told was that we heard it wrong the first time but that doesn't explain the need for a new reason, does it? That's what pisses me off the most.

Let's take a look -- no WMD. None. 212 days and counting.

Then actual WMD morphed into "programs" for making WMD. Still nothing. Less than nothing in fact! Iraqi scientists are saying they even lied to Saddam, they had nothing to make anything with in the first place, and were glad they could cover their lies by saying the inspectors, in the 90's, destroyed their work. That's actually pretty funny. I wonder if Bush, who never reads his own news or searches for his own information, realizes that his very advisors are dressing him in as much invisible finery as Saddam's scientists did him! Bottom line -- no WMD programs. None.

Next? Ah right, those terrorists who could hurt us. Iraq was helping them in some way, right? Nope, wrong again. No linkage. From time to time a rumor is spread, often enough so that the weak-brained who only read headlines but not the fine print seem to recall that Al Qaeda is connected to Iraq somehow. Again, bottom line -- no Al Qaeda links, no connection to 9-11. None. Never were any.

The last reason is failing rapidly, "liberation and democracy." Remember those? We've liberated the Iraqi people from their lives, their property, their jobs, their health and their standard of living (which in pre-war included electricity, gas, food, shelter...). And democracy! While we tell the world in the gravest voices how much Iraq should want it, that's not what we're giving them at all. We close their media channels, replacing them with our own. We pick their leaders for them, since obviously they can't possibly be trusted with decisions like that on their own. We are building their new economy for them, by selling off state owned enterprises to private interests (most of which are not even Iraqi). We are blockading their roads, razor-wiring them inside their villages, bashing open their doors without warrants, incarcerating their citizens without trial, and periodically when we get angry enough at the resistance, we go bomb the crap out of a marsh or a warehouse. Sound like democracy to you? I didn't think so.

We didn't invade Iraq because they had WMD or even WMD programs.
We didn't invade Iraq because they were involved in 9-11.
We are occupying their country instead of liberating it.
We are teaching the Iraqis the opposite of democracy.

So, why the hell DID we go there? It's a good question to ask. Don't be afraid to ask it.