Orange (as in a jumpsuit) Won't Be Flattering to Chimpie; I Think He's a Winter, Right?

The Bush Evil Empire just slid another mile closer to the dock in the Hague this morning, thanks to the Los Angeles Times:

In March 2002, the Bush administration had just begun to publicly raise the possibility of confronting Iraq. But behind the scenes, officials already were deeply engaged in seeking ways to justify an invasion, newly revealed British memos indicate.

Now I understand the need for planning for contingincies, that is, if there is evidence of a real and imminent threat by Iraq to attack the US or its interests, there has to be planning in place. However, note that this says they need to "justify" an invasion already determined to be made, not to investigate whether or not an invasion was warranted.

The new documents indicate that top British officials believed that by March 2002, Washington was already leaning heavily toward toppling Hussein by military force. Condoleezza Rice, the current secretary of State who was then Bush's national security advisor, was described as enthusiastic about "regime change."

Although British officials said in the documents that they did not think Iraq's weapons programs posed an immediate threat and that they were dubious of any claimed links between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda, they indicated that they were willing to join in a campaign to topple Hussein as long as the plan would succeed and was handled with political and legal care.

So the British seemed to know what those of us protesting around the world already knew, namely that there was no threat of WMD and no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11. But, they figured, a successful regime change sold as such through a compliant corporate media could let them get away with it. At least they felt that they had to finesse the thing, which reveals that they knew damned well that the truth would not sell the war. And now that the war is successful--don't forget Chimpie's triumphant carrier landing!--the public is overjoyed at being conned, right?

The documents contain little discussion about whether to mount a military campaign. The focus instead is on how the campaign should be presented to win the widest support and the importance for Britain of working through the United Nations so an invasion could be seen as legal under international law.

Note the careful language here: "could be seen as legal," rather than "would actually be legal." Apparently they could feel the spectre of war crimes tribunals even if they weren't sure what was sending that chill up their spines.

Then comes the money shot.

The paper said the British view was that any invasion for the purpose of regime change "has no basis under international law."

But with no WMDs found, no Al Qaeda links (Dick Cheney's syphillis-induced hallucinations notwithstanding), and no ties to 9/11, what do the Repugs say now when all this is pointed out? "Aren't we better off without Saddam?"

Wrong question, boys and girls. If I preemptively take out my neighbor who everyone hates because he throws crap all over his lawn and beats his kids, as the police drag me away I don't think that my crying out, "Aren't we all better off with him gone?" is going to be much of a defense. The British acknowledged that international law does not permit invasion solely to change a regime, however odious. But that's what we did. And with 1700+dead American servicemen and women, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, maimed, and deprived of their families, with torture camps in hidden corners of the world, someone is going to have to pay.

They are going to pay.