про "WMD-related program activities" :)

[MaxSt]

Эх, хорошо написано...

--------------------------------

Weasel-wording to justify war

By Jac Wilder VerSteeg

I particularly liked the part of President Bush's State of the Union address where he said: "Looks like I was wrong when I insisted that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But Saddam is gone, and we must focus now on the opportunities his defeat creates."

Oh, wait. President Bush didn't say that. He's too busy advocating character to display any. It would be easier to believe that he just made an honest mistake if he were honest about the mistake. Instead, President Bush talked just like one of those twisty-tongued lawyers he holds in such contempt: "We are seeking all the facts," the president said. "Already, the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

Not "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction" but "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." What are "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities?" Sounds like what you'd get if Chemical Ali replaced Julie as the Love Boat's cruise director.

Dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities. That string of words, which President Bush lifted from weapons inspector David Kay's interim report, was written by a lawyer or somebody who's been drinking with lawyers. The phrase is headed straight for the Weasel-Word Hall of Fame. "Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have President Clinton's 'it depends on what is is.' Now, if you'll just follow me, right over here we have 'dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.' If you'd care to vote for which is the weaselier, we have butterfly ballots available."

Note to weasel-wording speechwriters: If something wouldn't have been scary before the war, it won't justify invasion after the war. Picture President Bush addressing the American people to make his case for invading Iraq. "We know for a fact," he says solemnly, "that Saddam has dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

Sitting in front of the TVs, would people at home scream, "Oh, no! Not the dreaded dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities. Save us, President Bush!"?

Of course they wouldn't, particularly if they knew that more than 500 soldiers would die. Viewers would have said, "Call us when the dozens of weapons of mass-destruction related program activities look like they might turn into a weapon of mass destruction."

Which in the case of Iraq's missile program -- apparently the most serious WMD effort -- might have been in approximately six years, when, if Saddam could have procured all the parts, Iraq might have been ready to test launch a missile with an illegal range. President Bush didn't mention that timeline when he followed up on his "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" claim with this warning: "Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day." And Al Sharpton's quest for the presidency continues to this day. It's a toss-up as to which goal would be achieved first and which would be the bigger threat to America.

President Bush threw another cheap-lawyer punch during his State of the Union: "Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq." He might as well have asked his critics, "Did you stop supporting the liberation of Iraq before or after you stopped beating your wife?" Nobody opposed "the liberation of Iraq" -- because the liberation of Iraq wasn't the reason for invading. Weapons of mass destruction were.

If we hadn't invaded, President Bush says correctly, "Iraq's torture chambers would still be filled with victims" and "the killing fields of Iraq -- where hundreds of thousands of men, women and children vanished into the sands -- would still be known only to the killers."

If ending human-rights horrors justifies the Iraq invasion, however, how does the United States justify allowing other horrors to continue? Why were we so stand-offish in Liberia? Are we heading back to Haiti? The 10-year civil war toll in Burundi is 300,000, and it features ethnic atrocities encountered in Rwanda. Is President Bush poised to invade if the cease-fire falls apart?

Why Iraq and why not North Korea or Syria or Iran? If you don't want to oust Fidel Castro by military force, then I guess you're opposed to the liberation of Cuba. President Bush's commitment to liberation is so retroactive and selective it almost looks like a commitment to liberation-related rhetorical activities.

--------------------------------