Don't look now: Saddam is drowning kittens

  • From: "Muslim News" <editor_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <submit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 22:10:14 +0100

The warmongers failed to win public opinion, so they're suddenly
cobbling together 'evidence' 

So, they've got the evidence, about the weapons of mass destruction, but
we can't see it just yet. Is it still at the printers? Is it being held
up by a row about how you spell "aflatoxin"? Perhaps there's a problem
with the plot, and the scriptwriters are refusing to let it go because
the character of Tariq Aziz is left in the air and the relationship
between Saddam and the scud missiles left hopelessly unresolved. 

If they know the evidence, why can't they tell us the main points until
we have the dossier? Or at least make a trailer: "This is a story of a
man for whom mass destruction was simply a hobby ? 'Soon all my chemical
weapons will be in place' -? and two men determined to stop him ? 'My
God, there's enough uranium in there to murder every living thing in
every country affiliated to Nato. And look at this delivery notice, it
says he's getting his last crucial warhead in exactly three months' ?
Together they have 90 days to stop the axis of evil." 

Or when it comes they might announce: "We don't have any photos of his
weapons of mass destruction just yet ? but we have got drawings. In felt

And what a coincidence, that this evidence should promise to pop up now,
just as it becomes clear public opinion is against a war. It all looks
as desperate as a couple coming back from holiday and incompetently
trying to carry out an insurance fiddle. Blair and Bush are almost
kicking each other under the table as they mutter: "They've definitely
got plutonium. Uranium. No, plutonium. Hang on a minute ? I thought we
agreed uranium." 

In a couple of weeks Blair will hold another press conference and
announce he's left the evidence on the Tube. But he has finished it,
honest. Then that night he'll ring Bush and say: "Can I copy yours?" 

So for the time being we're left with statements such as the one by
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who said the war must go ahead
because "Saddam has not lived up to his promise to allow inspectors into
the country". He was then asked if the war would still go ahead if
Saddam did allow them into the country, and Fleischer answered: "The
policy of the US is regime change, with or without inspectors." So if
Saddam does admit inspectors, they'll be doing the most pointless
inspecting in the world. You couldn't blame them if they sat in the
shade for a fortnight and sent back a note saying: "He's got a machine
that can turn us all into tadpoles.". 

Which would be at the level of one paper's cut-out guide to "Iraq's evil
arsenal", pride of place going to "Scud missiles". It admits the
accuracy of these things is less than a mile, so can we really go to war
with someone for possessing a large firework? They might as well include
"The Dead Leg. Evil thigh-tingling weapon that could numb several people
in one day". The Scud, we are told, has a "range of 200 miles, making
Israel, Cyprus, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait possible targets". So either the
demand is that Saddam gets rid of his Scuds, or that he moves Iraq to
somewhere more than 200 miles from the nearest country. 

But the tabloid also mentions nuclear weapons. For, "if Saddam acquires
enriched uranium, he could be just months from building a warhead". If
the Women's Institute acquired enriched uranium, they could be just
months from building a warhead. There is, however, a fair amount of
evidence that Saddam doesn't have the military power that Blair and Bush
claim. Scott Ritter, who led the UN inspections team, has stated
repeatedly that any nuclear potential was destroyed. And the last bunch
of inspectors eventually left because they admitted they were acting as

The other argument for war, that Saddam's evil is proved by his war
against Iran and his treatment of Kurds, is poetic in its hypocrisy.
It's true he did both those things but we were backing him at the time.
The Americans shot down a civilian Iranian plane, vetoed a United
Nations resolution condemning the attacks on the Kurds and dismissed
anyone who pointed out this barbarism. It's as if Alex Ferguson decided
to bomb Roy Keane, screaming "But this is a man prepared to hack down
his own colleagues" at anyone who suggested he shouldn't. 

So it could be that because the warmongers are failing to win public
opinion, they're suddenly cobbling together "evidence". And there will
be piles of it. Just like the stories of Germans raping nuns in 1914 and
Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in 1990, admitted as lies once
those wars were over. There will be grainy film of Saddam chucking
kittens in canals and crackly tape of him threatening to ruin David
Beckham's hair. But the football manager the Americans will try to copy
once the war starts will be Arsène Wenger. Every time hundreds of
civilians are slaughtered by wayward bombs, the US spokesman will look
blank and say: "Well I didn't see that incident so I really can't
comment. But aren't we doing well?" 

Source:  Independent

You can choose whether you prefer to receive regular emails or a weekly digest 
by visiting


You can subscribe by sending an email to request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
"subscribe" (without quotes) in the subject line, or by visiting

You can unsubscribe by sending an email to request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with the 
word "unsubscribe" (without quotes) in the subject line, or by visiting

You are welcome to submit any relevant news story to submit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For regular Islamic cultural articles by email, send email to 

Other related posts:

  • » Don't look now: Saddam is drowning kittens