Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...

By Nancy Jane Moore

Bush is at it again. In the first of a series of speeches designed to terrify us all into re-electing the idiots in Congress who have let him get away with starting unnecessary wars and dismantling the Constitution, he repeated the lie that invading Iraq was a necessary part in his "war on terror."

The Los Angeles Times says he suggested "a new version of the discredited domino theory ... that if the United States left Iraq before that country was secure in its democracy, the battle against terrorism would eventually be fought on American streets."

Of course, the odds of making Iraq secure in any way -- much less making it a democracy -- lie somewhere between slim and none after the way Rumsfeld and his cronies have mangled the situation. I wonder why these people always raise the domino theory at times when things have spun so far out of control that there is no hope of a good outcome. Another parallel to Vietnam.

Bush even used an updated version of the tired old trick of tying Iraq to Sept. 11. The Washington Post quoted Bush as saying that pulling the troops out would

be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies: Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran and al-Qaeda terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Would someone please explain to the man that any influence wielded in Iraq by either Iran or al Qaeda is the direct result of our invasion? He should also know that Iran and al Qaeda are not on the same side, even if neither of them is on "our" side.

The LA Times also said Bush compared the situation to World War II and called it "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." Gosh, we're what, five years into the 21st Century? Somehow I suspect there are some other ideological struggles to come. Right now my money's on a conflict between religious fundamentalism (in all religions, but particularly Christian and Muslim), and science.

But like I said, the century's still young. Global warming could end up making even religious conflict irrelevant.

The New York Times says Bush "scoffed at his critics' charges that the American-led campaign in Iraq is a distraction from the real struggle against Al Qaeda terrorists." Let's see: we're throwing money down the drain and losing soldiers left and right in a vain effort to keep the peace in a civil war that started because of our invasion. Meanwhile Osama bin Ladin is still running around and people are apparently planning terrorist attacks. The Iraqi civil war sure looks like a distraction to me.

According to the LA Times, Bush told his friendly audience in Salt Lake City:

The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq.

If our security really depends on victory in Iraq -- a very unlikely occurrence, no matter how many more years we hang in there -- we're in very big trouble.

I say the security of the civilized world depends on getting Bush out of power as soon as possible. Ending up with enough new faces in Congress to impeach him is probably a pipe dream, but if we want this country to survive much longer we better at least end up with a majority of senators and representatives who are willing to tell him no.

We can't afford to get fooled again.