Home About Topplebush.com Contact Us Links
Topple Bush Store Articles about George Bush Bush Resume Bush Humor Contribute
Sound Off

Bush in Limericks book cover
You'll want to own our new book called Trump in Limericks featuring many of the limericks we wrote for our site currently plus lots of new ones you won't find anywhere else. There are over 300 limericks and 200 pages in the book. You will really enjoy reading it. Available in paperback and ebook. Get more ordering information here.

More Trump in Limericks book
And you'll also want to buy our most recent book More Trump in Limericks with original artwork, poems, a few interesting topics, and over 100 limericks right up to the election. Now available in paperback. Find more ordering information here.

Support our web site using PayPal!
Contact Elected Officials

- Write to Congress
- Write to Congress by State
- Write to Senate by state
- White House switchboard: 1-202-224-3121
- Capitol tollfree: 1-888-355-3588
- Complete White House telephone directory

Recommended Bush Books

View Cart/Checkout

Before things go down the memory hole
by Molly Ivins
February 12
, 2004

Just for the record, since the record is in considerable peril. These are Orwellian days, my friends, as the Bush administration attempts to either shove the history of the second gulf war down the memory hole or to rewrite it entirely.

Keeping a firm grip on actual historical fact, all of it easily within our imperfect memories, is not that easy amid the swirling storms of misinformation, misremembering and misstatement. But because the war itself stands as a monument to what happens when we let ourselves get stampeded by a chorus of disinformation, let's draw the line right now.

According to the large American team that spent hundreds of millions of dollars looking for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, there aren't any and have not been any since 1991.

Both President Bush and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, now claim that Saddam Hussein provoked this war by refusing to allow United Nations weapons inspectors into his country. That is not true.

Bush said Sunday: "I had no choice when I looked at the intelligence....The evidence we have discovered this far says we had no choice."

No, it doesn't.

Last week, CIA director George Tenet said intelligence analysts never told the White House "that Iraq posed an imminent threat."

Let's start with the absurd quibble over the word imminent.

The word was, in fact, used by three administration spokesmen to describe the Iraqi threat, while Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld variously described it as "immediate," "urgent," "serious and growing," "terrible," "real and dangerous," "significant," "grave," "serious and mounting," "the unique and urgent threat," "no question of the threat," "most dangerous threat of our time," "a threat of unique urgency," "much graver than anybody could possibly have imagined," and so forth and so on.

So could we can that issue?

A second emerging thesis of defense by the administration in light of no weapons is, as chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said, "We were all wrong."

No, in fact, we weren't all wrong.

Bush said Sunday, "The international community thought he had weapons." Actually, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency both repeatedly told the administration there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

Before the war, Rumsfeld claimed not only that Iraq had WMD but that "we know where they are." U.N. inspectors began openly complaining that U.S. tips on WMD were "garbage upon garbage."

Hans Blix, head of the U.N. inspections team, had a crew of 250 people from 60 nations -- including about 100 U.N. inspectors -- on the ground in Iraq, and the United States thwarted efforts to double the size of his team. You may recall that during this period, the administration repeatedly dismissed the United Nations as incompetent and irrelevant.

But containment had worked.

Nor does the "everybody thought they had WMD" argument wash on the domestic front. Perhaps the administration thought peaceniks could be ignored, but you will recall that this was a war opposed by an extraordinary number of generals.

Among them was retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who has extensive experience in the Middle East and who said, "We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started." After listening to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz at a conference, Zinni said, "In other words, we are going to go to war over another intelligence failure."

Give that man the Cassandra Award for being right in depressing circumstances.

Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan was equally blunt. Any serving general who got out of line, like Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, was openly dissed by the administration.

Suddenly the administration is left with the only good reason there ever was for getting rid of Saddam in the first place: He's a miserable SOB.

You will recall that this is precisely the argument that the administration rejected. Wolfowitz said that human rights violations by Saddam against his own people were not sufficient to justify our participation in his ouster.

Now, according to the president, Saddam is a "madman."

Oh, come on. An SOB, yes, but crazy like a fox -- always has been. It wasn't even crazy of him to have invaded Kuwait, given that April Glaspie, the American ambassador to Iraq at the time, told him, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

For everyone who ever cared about human rights and longed for years to get rid of Saddam, this late-breaking humanitarianism on Bush's part is actually nauseating. All the Amnesty International types who risked their lives to report just how terrible Saddam's rule was always had one question about getting rid of him: What comes next?

I don't think there is any great mystery here about how this "mistake" -- such an inadequate word -- was made.

For those seriously addicted to tragic irony, consider that the most likely Democratic nominee is now Sen. John Kerry, who first became known 33 years ago for asking, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Molly Ivins writes for Creators Syndicate. 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045

Posted: February 23, 2004


Main Sections:
/ Home / About Us / Contact Us / Links / Topple Bush Store / Bush Articles / Bush Resume / Bush Humor / Contribute /

Topple Bush Submenus:
Topplebush Store: / Trump in Limericks Book / Bush Coins / Bumper Stickers / Bush items on clearance sale /
Bush Articles: / Past Business Dealings / Military Record / Family History / Record as Governor of TX / Stealing the Florida Election / George G. W. Bush / Record as President / Dick Cheney /
Bush & Trump Humor: / Bush Jokes / Bush Cartoons / Bush Photos 1 / Bush Photos 2 / Bush Photos 3 / Bush Animation / Trump Jokes / Trump Limericks / Trump Photos / Other /
Contribute: / Candidates / Topple Bush Site /

Other Sections:
/ Books / DVDs / CDs / MP3 Music for Free Download / Free flyers to Print Out & Distribute / Election Fraud Information /

Fun Topplebush Projects:
/ Remove Condi Rice from the Football Playoff Committee /
Find New Slogan for Fox News / Send Pills to Rush / Find a New Slogan for the GOP / Create Better Language for Dems and Progressives / Blame Reagan / What military recruiters say to fill their quotas / Republican Whores - what will it take for them to stand up to Trump /