Saturday, April 30, 2005
Q: "Prove that George Bush is a war criminal."
You know, in all the excitement lately, I plumb forgot to mention that, why, yes, George W. Bush is in fact a war criminal, as you can now safely conclude from the CIA's final report that, no, there don't appear to be any WMDs in Iraq.
Remember, once upon a time, when the Bush administration's rationale for invasion was that, absolutely, fer shure, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. As in, no doubt about it, positively, cross my heart and swear on a bottle of Jenna's favourite bourbon, as you can see from numerous quotes here.
But, as we've all seen lately, now that the WMDs appear to be as prevalent as ethics at a Tom DeLay fundraiser, the rationale has mysteriously shifted. "But", the wankers will say, "it was worth it to get rid of Saddam, wasn't it? Are you saying you'd rather have left him in power? Is that what you're suggesting?"
To which you can now properly respond, "Stop being such a complete asshole." Because, you see, regardless of what kind of bad man Saddam was, or how terribly he treated his own people, or how badly those people might have wanted democracy (if you can call what they have now "democracy"), none of that -- absolutely none of it -- represented what was repeatedly described as a grave, gathering, impending or imminent threat to the United States. None of it.
Which means -- therefore, thusly and QED -- that Admiral Bunnypants' "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq was illegal in every possible way. No WMDs implies no imminent threat. No imminent threat implies no rationale for pre-emptive invasion. No rationale for pre-emptive invasion implies invasion was illegal, which implies (you guessed it) war criminal.
If you missed any part of that, I'd be delighted to type it again more slowly.