Last Night, Bush Made the Case For US Regime Change

If the charges the President made against Saddam Hussein in his speech to the nation last night are true, and such acts justify a forced regime change in Iraq, then George W. Bush's regime stands just as guilty on all counts, and ought to be changed as well.

Let's consider the President's charges against Hussein one by one:

"The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage."

No regime has more cynically used diplomacy as "a ploy to gain time and advantage" than the Bush regime. It is now obvious that from the beginning no diplomatic solution, no matter how many concessions Iraq might have made, could have diverted the Bush regime from war. Bush was hellbent for a war of conquest against Iraq come what may. All the diplomatic manueverings at the UN were strictly for the purpose of gaining some sort of diplomatic cover for the Bush regime's pre-planned naked aggression and the time needed to build up an army of invasion in the Gulf. While they failed utterly in gaining their hoped-for diplomatic cover, they certainly did gain the much-needed force build-up time.

"It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament."

The Bush regime itself is presently defying the will of the UN Security Council. Having failed to gain a majority of nations on the Security Council to approve of their naked aggression, they are going ahead with it anyway, brazenly spitting in the face of an outraged world.

"Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived."

In their desperate attempts to obtain a UN Security Council majority to sanction their naked aggression against Iraq, the Bush regime "electronically bugged, threatened, and systematically deceived" UN officials.

A leaked internal National Security Agency memo revealed a Bush-regime-backed plot to intensively electronically spy on UN diplomats representing countries on the Security Council. The Bush regime's intent was to discover information they could use to threaten to expose and thus compromise key UN diplomats, to "persuade" them to side with the Bush regime.

On the deception front, no one has been more brazenly (and incompetantly) deceptive than the Bush regime. Secretary of State Powell tried but failed to pass off to the UN Security Council plagarized 10 year old college dissertations and magazine articles as first rate American intelligence "proving" a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Later, documents produced by US intelligence agencies and provided to the UN purporting to "prove" that Hussein attempted to procur uranium from Niger were, upon closer inspection, discovered to be "obvious forgeries".

"Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men."

Peaceful efforts to avert the Bush regime's naked aggression against Iraq by the nations of the world have "failed again and again because -- [they] were not dealing with peaceful men."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

No regime possesses and conceals more lethal and cutting edge weapons of mass destruction than the Bush regime. Even worse, they are hellbent to test their toys out on other nations, based on the flimsiest of pretexts.

"This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."

The Bush-Clinton-Bush regime has already used weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Sudan, and Afghanistan. And Dubya now is on the cusp of using them in such unprecidented concentrations against the people of Iraq that they (if all goes according to plan) will be "shocked and awed" into submission.

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East."

No regime has a more replete history of reckless aggression in the Middle East than Bush's. What else is this coming war but "reckless aggression"? What else is the 12 year continuous bombing campaign against Iraq? What else is the quasi-permanent stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia? What else was the US's arming, advising and supply of Hussein during the Iran/Iraq War? What else was the many CIA sponsored internal subversions and coups designed to install in power lackies and thugs who'd do the US regime's bidding?

"It has a deep hatred of America and our friends."

What subject people wouldn't hate such an insufferably arrogant and brazenly hypocritical would-be conquerer and oppressor?

"And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

No regime as aided, trained, and harbored more terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda, than Bush's regime.

In fact, al Qaeda itself was a CIA-backed creation. Its original purpose was to undermine the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But, it unfortunately didn't stop there. The CIA utilized them in their covert efforts to subvert the Balkans. Bin Laden's crew provided a key arms and drugs supply line from their Taliban-backed bases in Afghanistan to the CIA-backed Kosovo Liberation Army. As recently as 1998, al Qaeda continued to be a key Spook asset of the United States government.

" The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

So, to prevent this extremely hypothetical scenario, the Bush regime "is going to kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people" -- Americans and Iraqis -- NOW!

"The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat."

Iraq has done absolutely nothing to deserve or invite conquest by the United States. On the other hand, when the Bush regime sets about to commit an unprovoked naked aggression against another sovereign nation, it deserves and invites a defensive response.

"Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety."

"Safety" = a unprovoked life-extinguishing, "shock and awe"-inducing, meat-grinding war of conquest? Calling George Orwell!

"Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed."

The greatest danger to world peace at this moment is the Bush regime itself.

"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security."

Then why doesn't Iraq have this same right?

"That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep."

The Constitution Dubya swore an oath to defend says that only Congress (not the President) has the sole power to declare war. By waging an undeclared, unconstitutional, and unprovoked war, Bush has brazenly violated his oath of office.

"Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq."

No it didn't. It authorized action against terrorists. It did not authorize war with Iraq, a nation which has no known link with al Qaeda.

"America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully."

Yet another lie. The Bush regime obviously had no intent to ever resolve its disputes with Iraq peacefully.

"We believe in the mission of the United Nations."

So long as it rubber stamps the Bush regime's planned conquests.

"One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace."

And it did "confront an aggressive dictator, before he could attack the innocent and destroy the peace." But, Bush is determined to attack another sovereign nation without just provocation anyway.

"In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."

On the contrary, the Security Council explicitly refused to authorize or endorse Bush's naked aggression against Iraq.

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you."

The Bush regime is the very model of "lawless men who rule [their] country". They have systematically violated the Constitution since 9-11, from the misnamed USA Patriot Act, to this oncoming Congressionally undeclared war.

"In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors.."

But in a so-called "free" America, there WILL be wars of aggression against any nation the Bush regime sees fit to attack, destroy, and conquer!

"...no more poison factories..."

Instead, a Bush-regime-installed puppet government will buy all they need from American defense contractors, just like Hussein did during the Iran/Iraq War.

"...no more executions of dissidents..."

The Bush regime has just announced that peaceful anti-war protesters who trespass onto Vandenburg Air Force Base will, henceforth, be shot on sight.

"...no more torture chambers and rape rooms."

The Bush regime has, contrary to American custom and law, embraced torture as a viable and even necessary law enforcement tool.

"The tyrant will soon be gone."

And a new American tyrant (namely, Bush) shall take his place.

"Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent."

No regime is more violent at this moment than Bush's own.

And there you have it.

Clearly, the Bush regime is little more than monstrous hypocrisy backed by deadly force.

If its charges against Iraq justify a regime change by conquest there, then the Bush regime stands equally guilty and worthy of regime change here. The only difference between the two is this: the Bush regime is, in fact, bristling with weapons of mass destruction, rendering its regime extremely difficult to change, while Hussein's, after twelve years of perpetual bombing and economic sanctions, is but a toothless tiger by comparison.