David McDonald dbmcdonald at
Mon Jul 14 09:24:48 MDT 2003

Bush and his spin doctors are ignoring the main truth about WMDs,
necessarily, which is that they do not matter, and pretending that one or
another statement about who let the WMDs into the speech is the final
statement on this controversy, now let's move on.

This is happening because political truth in the US emerges in an Alice in
Wonderland manner: first the verdict, then the evidence. The truth is,
Iraqis are killing Americans more successfully than ever in history, with
far far fewer casualties than during the war, and it looks like it is only
going to get worse. Hence the verdict: bad war. The evidence is the WMDs,
that original, little white lie, that minute stepping over the line. You
would think thousands of people vetted Bush's State of the Union speech,
that finding the author of the phrase was like finding the person who spent
a specific dollar on Sunday at Yankee Stadium. Of course, all official
Washington and all official media types do not give a single damn about the
WMDs, if they did, they would have found out for themselves long before the

In fact, they did know before the war, and in enormous detail. Glen
Rangwala's organization (or at least an organization
that publishes his work) has deconstructed Democratic presidential hopeful
John Kerry's "I was misled" statement to show it is an utter lie, a damned
lie, that they had personally put in his hands all the information he would
have needed to know the WMD charge was a fake. And they did the same with
hundreds of Congresspeople.

So whatever happens with the WMDs is totally subordinate to the unfolding
resistance in Iraq. That is what will drive the next war. That is what is
driving the anguish beginning to show up in the media about where the troops
for the next war will come from. That is the source of all last week's
official bad news: unending occupation, beginning of troop replacements (as
opposed to withdrawal), doubling of admitted costs, increased pace of
attacks on US soldiers, and we shall see how long the new appointed
government lasts before its members begin to be stoned (if they ever show up
in public within stoneshot).

David McDonald

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-marxism at
[mailto:owner-marxism at]On Behalf Of Tom O'Lincoln
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 6:43 PM
To: marxism at
Subject: re: Iraq

>>What is particularly encouraging is that not only is their growing
resistance in Iraq ... but the whole WMD propaganda is also coming unstuck.

>>I saw on TV here this morning that the retiring leader of the Uniting
Church in Australia ... has come out and attack Howard for being a liar
over the WMDs.<<

This is all true, but I'd identify two differences in the Australian case
versus the US:

1. On the positive side, I think the opposition parties who control the
Senate will be fairly keen to dig out real dirt, whereas the American
Democrats have seemed fairly cowed at least till now.

2. But on the negative, Howard has two advantages over Bush. Firstly, the
local economy is not in recession. Second, he has got most of the
Australian troops out. I did see on TV there are a few patrolling in
Baghdad, but in a very affluent part of town so I'd say they're being kept
well out of harm's way. So while liberal critics and the media might make a
fuss, I don't think Howard has anything to worry about at this stage.
Anti-war sentiment is quite strong, but there's nothing concrete for people
to focus on. Howard is being proved a liar, but that's not exactly news and
most people are used to it.

More information about the Marxism mailing list