The Guardian‘s George Monbiot had this to say about the impending war on Iraq:
“But the US government’s declaration of impending war has, in truth, nothing to do with weapons inspections. On Saturday John Bolton, the US official charged, hilariously, with “arms control”, told the Today programme that “our policy … insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not”. The US government’s justification for whupping Saddam has now changed twice. At first, Iraq was named as a potential target because it was “assisting al-Qaida”. This turned out to be untrue. Then the US government claimed that Iraq had to be attacked because it could be developing weapons of mass destruction, and was refusing to allow the weapons inspectors to find out if this were so. Now, as the promised evidence has failed to materialise, the weapons issue has been dropped. The new reason for war is Saddam Hussein’s very existence. This, at least, has the advantage of being verifiable. It should surely be obvious by now that the decision to wage war on Iraq came first, and the justification later.”
The Logic of Empire

Monbiot might have a point. In this article, titled The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet, the Secretary of Defense is quoted as saying, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Sounds Orwellian, doesn’t it?

Share

Comments are closed.

  • Twitter

  • Category Archives

  • Monthly Archives