June 23, 2005
As you scramble to fill out your 1040 form this week, consider this:
When Congress voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, it included two requirements. The first was that the President prove that Iraq was in defiance of the United Nations by being in possession of banned weapons of mass destruction. The second was that the President have proof that Iraq was involved in 9-11. In his letter to Congress activating the authorization for the use of force, Bush claimed he had proof of both of those conditions.
And the nation invaded Iraq.
And nobody knows the number of the dead.
In hindsight, Bush lied when he claimed to have proof that Iraq had WMDs. He lied when he claimed to have proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. He could not possibly have had proof of Iraq's WMDs because the WMDs did not exist.
Bush lied.
Of course, the government and its servile media don't want you to think too much about that. They don't want you thinking about the war at all as tax-time nears. That's why the media has been reporting just about everything else BUT the war. The final report admitting that there really were no weapons of mass destruction and that the reason for the war has just evaporated was issued amidst the noise and distraction of Terri Schiavo, Michael Jackson, and the death and endless ceremony of John Paul II. No WMDs. No big deal really. All a mistake. The blame falls on the spies and some drunk guy everyone listened to. It's a pathetic excuse, because this "error" claim is essentially an admission that the entire US Government and the mainstream media are totally idiots, because not a single one of them could figure out what hundreds of bloggers in America (including the present writer) all knew right from day one; that the claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were bogus, that a rusted bearing is not a 700 acre uranium enrichment plant, that the "chemical weapons" were bug spray, the "mobile biological weapons laboratories" were balloon inflators, etc. etc. etc. etc.
The Government and the mainstream media hope you won't think too much about what it means that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Because what it really means is that the Congressional Authorization for the use of force in Iraq was not legally in effect when Bush ordered the military to invade. It could not legally be in effect absent proof of Iraq's WMDs and involvement in 9-11.
Bush has been misappropriating government property for personal use. Legally it is called usurpation, and is defined as when a person placed in authority over property uses that property for other than the owners' intentions. An example would be the Captain of a ship who uses that ship for some other purpose than that for which the ship's owners' hired him. Had Captain Ahab survived his encounter with Moby Dick, he would have been thrown in jail for the crime of usurpation.
Likewise, President Bush has committed the crime of usurpation with the nation's military. His job as National Command Authority is to direct the wars Congress authorizes. There are limits to the President's ability to launch military action on his own, limits which President Bush long ago exceeded both in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush's military adventure in Iraq is illegal by any definition of the word. If you want to believe that Bush and his entire government are simply too stupid to have figured out what the bloggers knew, that's your self-delusion, but the end result is the same. Whether he intentionally lied or was an idiot, Bush did not have the required proof of Iraq's WMDs required by the Congressional authorization for the use of military force in Iraq.
So, why should you pay for it?
Bush is holding his hand out to you April 15th (the real "April Fool's day) to send in a check to pay for a war that is illegal under both US and International law. If you agree to pay for that illegal war, then you are just as guilty as Bush is. If you agree to pay for the torturers of Abu Ghraib, who tortured innocent Iraqis to find those WMDs we now know did not exist, the blood of innocents stains your hands. If you agree to pay for the depleted uranium that poisons not only Iraq but our own sons and daughters in uniform, then you are as guilty as those who poisoned them.
I don't think you should pay for an illegal war. I don't think there is a law that compels any US citizen to pay for an illegal war or indeed to pay for any illegal act of any US Government official. I dare anyone to show me a law that explicitly says the US taxpayer is liable for the costs of illegal actions by the government.
When a US Government official is caught using government property for personal use, he is required to reimburse the treasury for that personal use. So should it be with Bush and his private little war in Iraq. He, not you, should be paying those costs. It's his war, not yours.
