Brodner's Cartoon du Jour: Frost Nixon Bush

As I have alleged for years, Bush's claim that Saddam was readying W.M.D.s for imminent use against us was not to cover his actions in the USA. Americans were more then ready to kick some Saddam arse, reasons or not.
This ploy was to cover the British P.M. because the British had not been attacked on 9-11, lacked the motivation to invade Iraq and most important, the British constitution requires such extraordinary cause in order to legally launch that type of invasion.
Obviously, the way the military action has been handled has been a gross mistake. It was done more for corporate profit then for justice. And there is no 're-do' on that. Saddam was not only an evil man but one of the most evil in a sea of evil. Add to that the fact that his reign of tyranny went on for seemingly endless decades and his demise was LONG overdue.

Regarding cause: Remove the British impediment for one moment and the fact is that the US commander and Chief needs no permission to push whatever military buttons he/she pleases. I will repeat, the President of the U.S. does exactly as he/she pleases with our military. According to the War Powers act, six months must elapse before the Exec. needs permission to continue. Bush did NOT need to get permission in advance. I know certain of you peaceniks hate to hear this and generally refuse to accept it. But the fact is that Bush sought advance permission from Congress for two reasons:
1- As previously noted, the British needed such cover.
2- The country was primed for this action and public attitudes were not likely to get any better six months later. So even though Bush is not that intelligent, when it comes to being clever, his team had us somewhat played on this point. He satisfied the requirements of the War Powers Act before it was required.

To recap: The USA (and England) was policing a "no fly" zone over Kurdistan. There were regular skirmishes with Iraqi jets. Saddam was in defiant breach of several covenants which ended the first Gulf War. France, Germany and other EU nations were quietly supporting Saddam because they wanted the U.S. Dollar replaced with the Euro for the standard world currency of oil. Hence, the "oil for food scandal", which severely weakened the U.N. Security Counsel boycotts--still in place from the first Gulf War. Those boycotts were supposed to force Saddam to reform. However, over the long term, the Iraqi people became the primary victims, especially when the scandal usurped the pressure intended by the U.N.S.C. resolutions. The situation could NOT continue status-quo. Critical mass had been reached.

The smarter (and more ethical) course of action would have been for us to give the Kurds an ultimatum. Either they declare their independence and susceed, in which case we would defend them, or, we would leave them high and dry for Saddam to grind into dog food. The Sunnis and Shiites would be given a choice: a) Play nice and get they fair share of oil revenue or~ b) they can have themselves a civil war and get no oil money from the Kurds. We could have staged a precision raid, captured Saddam and threw him out of a lear jet at 20,000 feet over the Iranian parliament. Instead, we had them stage this ridiculous trial, where the outcome was fixed, paid for it in blood and $billions--to preside over the terrorist murder of over 150,000 Iraqi civilians. 12-09-08, no end in sight.

PS> Saddam had months of advance warning of 9-11. How do I know? Because that's what I do.