The Decline and Fall of the Bush Fans
July 6, 2004
almost funny to watch how far a child will go to avoid admitting
he's made a mistake. In a steady downward spiral, he will grasp
at almost anything that convinces him that he's right, no matter
how desperate it makes him look. It's more sad than it is funny,
but we can smile because we understand the game this child is playing,
and we patiently let time lead the child to the inevitable truth.
There is an obvious parallel here to Bush fans. A year ago, they
were waving their flags and gleefully rallying around a president
who they saw as an upright war hero, a president who "stood his
ground" and "saved us" from an imminent Iraqi threat. Unfortunately,
the "imminent threat" wasn't really imminent or threatening after
all, so now it's time for the legion of Bush fans to grasp at whatever
The latest case in point: this week's desperate attempt at saving
face, which revolved around the news that the Polish military in
Iraq had found shells containing deadly chemicals. The response
from Bush fans was predictable. This proved that Saddam had stockpiles
of chemical weapons! See? A war was justified! The killing of 800+
American soldiers was worth this handful of chemical weapons! See?
But sadly, and inevitably, that damned thing called "truth" had
to come rear its ugly head and spoil the party. The deadly chemical
weapons weren't deadly after all, and what little trace of chemicals
that was left in them had outlived its shelf-life by about 15 years....
oops. The U.S. Central Command itself rebutted
these claims from the Polish military.
Apparently lost to the Bush fans is the fact that Iraq and Iran
were at war for most of the 1980's, raining down chemical weapons
on each other. Considering the proficiency of both armies, it's
fairly safe to say that many of these shells didn't hit their intended
targets and instead landed somewhere out there among the camels
and the shepherds. If we put 150,000 U.S. troops all over Iran,
as we've done in Iraq, these "deadly chemical shells" would be turning
up in equally frequent incidents there, too. Two neighboring countries
who spend nearly a decade lobbing these things at each other usually
do leave quite a pile of relics in their wake.
Chemical weapons are absolutely deadly, but when you find one
in 2004 that says "Best if used by 1986" on it, it's no longer deadly
or chemical. It's just a war relic. However, if the shell itself
has not exploded, then it is deadly in its own right, as an explosive
piece of ordnance. But unless Saddam had his military scouring the
desert for old unexploded relics from the 1980's, so he could somehow
find a way to launch them over the entire Atlantic Ocean at us,
the "imminent threat" still hasn't been found. Sorry, well-meaning
When these occasional glimmers of hope for the Bush fans are snuffed
out by the truth, which they always are, there is a standard response:
"Well, Saddam had 6 months before the war to move his stockpiles
of weapons to (insert evil Middle Eastern country of choice here)..."
The interesting thing about that response is what it says below
the surface, where Bush fans don't have time to venture anymore.
The entire world, including Saddam, knew that the U.S. was going
to war in Iraq long before the first round was fired. If Bush's
claims were true, and he knew without question that Saddam had these
massive stockpiles of weapons and 6 months to prepare to greet American
troops at his doorstep, and Bush let his intelligence people turn
their backs for those 6 months and let Saddam move these stockpiles....
well, that's another article right there. Saddam had 6 months to
move massive stockpiles of weapons? He also had every intelligence
satellite in the world counting the hairs on his head! How did we
miss the massive convoys required to move these massive stockpiles?
By resorting to desperate claims like "...he had 6 months to move
the stockpiles before the war", Bush fans would have you believe
that we turned a blind eye to the transporting of this supposed
imminent threat for 6 months. How else can they possibly explain
every intelligence agency in the world missing it? It would've been
the biggest news story of the pre-war period, easily proven with
satellite photos (which, by the way, would've led to a serious response
at that time). Bush fans, without saying it, are telling us that
Bush let Saddam move his weapons out of Iraq and did nothing to
stop it. We'll let Bush explain that one to his faithful disciples
What we'd really like an explanation for is why a dictator who
allegedly has all these mass-destruction weapons, and knows for
certain that his country is going to be attacked by a huge force,
would just pack the weapons up and send them away to another country.
Are we really supposed to believe that Saddam Hussein, the dangerous
and evil Iraqi, preferred to face this oncoming American military
monstrosity with little white pickup trucks and machine guns? Toyotas
are good, but they're not that good - and Saddam may be evil, but
he isn't stupid.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and November 2004
is a very desperate time for George W. Bush and his obedient followers.
We recommend a stockpile of salt for the desperate "news" claims
that are sure to become more frequent as November approaches. Use
your stockpile sparingly - a grain of salt at a time.