...there are a lot more dead Iraqi citizens, a fair bit of Keystone cops peace-keeping, another 'evildoer' who may or may not be dead and a lot of fat western contracts to rebuild shit we destroyed. And so, in my mind, the CIA re-review of evidence comes as no more a surprise than any of the other examples of Bush getting exactly what he wants with disregard of consequence and advice. I'm expecting merely a bit of double-talk-blame from the CIA or an "Oops, we could have done better. Maybe next time. We fired a couple of people in token response." So far my record is pretty damned good on this... We'll see.

Oh and expect Bush to 'get tough' and tell people to stop bickering and 'pointing fingers' [at him -- he may also use 'laying blame'] and get down to the 'serious business' of rebuilding Iraq now now now. Look! We're even lifting the sanctions [on a country we basically run]. He may actually have true concern about this, especially with the recent 3 Stooges-like handling of the country post-war. "Oh crap... no police, no municipal infrastructure, whadda we do now? I know! We're soldiers, not cops, we'll just start shooting." Besides, Rumsfeld bascially said 'No way! we're pulling out very soon as planned. I don't know who would say otherwise and nothing's gonna change that'. Oh, but wait... maybe not. besides, we've done such a 'stellar' job so far, right? And then there's the ticking time bomb* that is Guantanamo Bay...

Now why do you think this is? Moral obligation? Fuck no. Puh-leaze. Money and oil**. Same as it ever was. Otherwise, do you think Bush would be risking trial under international law? What, you say? PM Blair was recently advised on this by his attorney general and it got leaked. Basically the occupying nations (US & UK), under international laws, are not allowed to undertake any "wide-ranging reforms of governmental and administrative structures", any alterations in the status of public officials or judges except in exceptional cases, changes to the penal laws, and the imposition of major structural economic reforms." You do the math. They currently have authority from the UN to disarm. That's about it. Everything else is a political tightwire over a pool of war crime lawyers. But he's, as predicted, set an example for others that this sort of thing is A-OK.

And it seems the White House has silently admitted its intentions and 'slight misleadings'. The Weapons of Mass Destruction line began it ('we gotta strike not because of WMD'), but evidence suggests there was no evidence (other than a 'this might conceivably have been used for...but we don't know....'). Then it shifted to 'Iraqi freedom' from oppression. Ahhh... the moral highground. Well, had we paid attention back in July, Donald Rumsfeld had our true answer. "The policy of the United States has been regime change for Iraq.... It has not been that for some other countries. And I guess life's just untidy.", his untidy-pissiness said. The "other countries" referred to the original question of 'why Iraq?' when other countries posed a clear and visible threat. So I think we're left with two basic desires; revenge and oil. Yippy-ki-yay, motherfucker. (I bet GW loves that movie).

In other "duh" news, Tommy Franks is 'pulling back the hammer' and leaving the US Army. Expect him to do a Schwarzkopf and be all over your morning bubbly-almost-news programs with a book. Why not? It's not like he's gonna see any of that fat re-construction money. And he may need it if that war crimes suit filed in Belgium goes ahead.

And to re-cap my mention of the whole Private Lynch debacle, the BBC has aired (with evidence, interviews, etc.) their report that there's more lie than truth to the whole 'rescue' story. Ms. Lynch was injured when her vehicle over-turned. She was treated for a broken arm, thigh and dislocated ankle by Iraqi doctors (counter to the wild shooting, stabbing, 'ignored by doctors' and 'fighting her attackers' claims). The Iraqi who supposedly saw her slapped by guard(s) might be a bit busy to verify his story any firther now that he's been given instant asylum, a fat fat defense lobbying firm job and a cool half mil to do a book. I know of prison stoolies who have more credibility. And the 'daring raid'? The hospital notified US forces and arranged to deliver Lynch to allied troops. The only gunfire was when the troops opened fire on the ambulance delivering her _with Lynch inside_. But the video! OK... read this carefully... the video _was STAGED by the Pentagon_ and shot by soldiers with night-vision cameras, not daring hi-tech reporters. Some soldiers filmed a hospital storming in full-on Rambo style and the Pentagon said it was the 'rescue'. Sadly the Made-For-TV Movie will soon go on to perpetuate the lie.

Note to Charlton Heston. "Chuck, the 'free' Iraqis could use one of your patented rallies and your 'cold dead hands' speech would go gangbusters."

I'm so defeated and disillusioned (not that I was particularly 'illusioned')...

* - One of my fave quotes: "What part of 'ticking time bomb' do you not understand?" (Selena Brewington to some boneheads)

** - Oh yeah. So I was saying before how, yes, Russia and France have monetary interests that have influenced their vote. And the short of it is/was that, once the US occupied Iraq, it was under no obligation to honour the previous regimes contracts and debts. Well, it looks like this has played out. It's being reported that Russia has 'sold' its council vote (for favour of the US resolution's passing) in exchange for agreements by the occupying US to honour those contracts and debts (but not until Dec. 2007). Yes, this probably falls under that 'illegal' bit above regarding international law. That's also probably why it was done so quietly.