[Marxism] Re: In Defense of George W Bush
trusscott.foundation at virgin.net
Sun Feb 1 06:20:36 MST 2004
The pro-war elements in the USA and Britain are trying to wriggle out of the
fact that Iraq didn't have 'weapons of mass destruction' by emphasising that
the Middle East and the world in general is a safer place with Saddam
Hussein out of the way. The line on weapons has gone from possession of them
to programmes of producing them, in other words from actual ownership to
intent to own. Bush was on the telly the other night saying just that. The
pro-war spokesmen are now forced into a position that has them saying that
Ba'athist Iraq was a danger not because of what it actually was, but on
account of what the Western 'experts' reckon that it might have become.
In the meantime, anyone with a working brain can see that Iraq is far less
stable now than under the Ba'ath -- I've just seen a report on the telly
that between 60 and 200 people have been killed at two Kurdish party rallies
by suicide bombers -- and attacks are taking place on a daily basis on US
troops and other targets.
How much longer can the pro-war pundits continue with their line? And how
can they wriggle out of the fact that Bush & Co's attack on Iraq and the
ensuing occupation have led to US imperialism suffering a major setback in
the Middle East -- they have been quite unable to establish what they
wanted: a government in Iraq that would act as an effective puppet of
Washington -- that is going to be very difficult to reverse?
More information about the Marxism