Posted 3:12 PM by Paul
The Grammar of Mass Destruction

The Iraq Survey Group finally released its findings. Tony Blair was out of the UK... saving Africa. Bush was in purdah preparing for the second debate. He didn't do very well in the first. The Iraq report confirmed that no weapons of mass destruction existed at the time of the invasion or directly before it. Neither did any weapons programmes exist. Saddam was not therefore in breach of UN sanctions. However, it was suggested that Saddam may have re-started his weapons programme if the UN had suspended sanctions.

This was siezed on my apologists for the war as justification enough.

So we went to war on the basis of a double conditional clause . Times have changed. You used to have to have proof before invading another country.

Other language has been steadily migrating.

After the end of major hostilities Blair and Bush claimed that Iraq was now a better place. Confronted by reality the language then changed. Iraq would be a better "eventually". Now all we are left with is a co-ordinated line to take orchestrated by the Communications departments of the White House and Downing which claims that "the future of Iraq will be better" An unprovable propsotion. Nobdy and can predict the future. Of course Iraq may be a much better place come 2132.

Amongst all of this poor Ken Bigley has been beheaded. It's a sad time and difficult to see anything positive in all of this.