As the British citizens are no doubt saying... what a bloody mess we're in. The actions of our government make no sense to anyone. That is not to say that the Bush administration has no support for it's actions; it does have support, but not because it makes sense. About half the American people, if polls are to be believed, are in support. Aside from that, support is almost impossible to find. American actions are being condemned around the world. Even the threats and bribes of the most powerful nation on earth are not whipping other governments into agreement. I don't think it is difficult to explain away the polls support... no more difficult than it is to understand how the German people could have stood by and watched Hitler's actions turn oppressive to all those who disagreed.

Many Americans suffer from senses dulled by complacency, righteousness fed by god-on-our-side "patriotic faith", and gullibility nurtured by years spent in government schools. We desperately want to believe that our leaders are honorable, and honest, and trustworthy... so that we can get back to living our own lives. We also don't want to think that we've been stupid enough to have elected leaders willing to sacrifice honor or honesty. So... many of us hang on, trusting for dear life. I've been there myself; I didn't believe that Nixon was guilty of anything too serious until he resigned. I didn't want to believe that a U.S. President could be so stupid and dishonest.

I'm not a very suspicious person. I'm personally convinced that people take actions they believe serve their own purposes. When someone takes actions that seem to make no sense, or that seem destructive, I've learned that it's prudent to look for motivation that might confirm that the actions ARE indeed in perceived self-interest.

One of the human motivations that is sometimes overlooked, especially in grandiose situations, is the very simple motivation of ass-protecting. We have all probably known of a situation is which a lie led to the need for another lie to keep the first one covered up, then a third, etc., until the subterfuge has grown to the point where confessing the first lie is no longer of significance... confessing the continued deception is now a massive problem. Lies tend to trap the liar into making a much larger mess for themselves.

Government is superb at creating such messes, because it has immense power to cover up lies and mistakes. We all make mistakes in judgment, but government officials consider admitting their mistakes unacceptable. When have you heard an elected official simply admit to having been wrong? Don't hold your breath while you're thinking.

They know that the opposition party will jump all over them, and they fear the loss of votes in the next election... so they deny the mistake, or divert attention, or make plausible excuses... or they cover it up. The top levels of our national administration have impressive capability at covering up enormous mistakes, or even deliberate misdeeds. Remember Nixon's crimes? Remember Reagan's Iran/Contra affair? If you need more, or think that it's only Republicans who do it, read Daniel Ellsberg's "Secrets" book (it's much shorter than the 7,000 page Pentagon Papers it revolves around).

Is it possible that the mysterious George W. Bush actions toward Iraq can be explained as part of a cover-up? I think it's more than possible, I think it's likely.

Consider these salient U.S. demands:

• The administration claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but offers no good explanation of how they know that, but instead phonies up "evidence" that is embarrassing... still insisting that they "know". Other nations neighboring Iraq don't seem concerned about WMD's, the U.N. inspectors can't find such weapons, and Hussein claims that none exist.
  
  
• The administration wants a "regime change" in Iraq, regardless of destruction of weapons.

Without belaboring the ridiculous demands and claims of the U.S. administration, consider this as an explanation:

The administration knows that Saddam has serious weapons, and knows how many and what kind, because the U.S. supplied him with them, and assisted him in acquiring them. That's how they "know" what they can't prove publicly.

During the George Bush administration, even just before Saddam invaded Kuwait, the U.S. was quite cozy with Hussein. Iran was our enemy in the Middle East then, and the U.S. had "placed" Saddam in power, and supplied him with who-knows-what weaponry for the purpose of containing or defeating Iran. Actually, we do know that biological/chemical weapons were supplied by U.S. companies, with the full approval of the U.S. government, and that the U.S. had no objection to similar and larger shipments from Germany and other nation-friends. Some of that was during the previous Reagan administration... but George was Vice President then.

Recall that having weapons of mass destruction was not part of the justification for Desert Storm (just the invasion of Kuwait) so WMD was not an issue then.

Is it likely that Saddam acquired them in the 12 years since then, while under constant surveillance, bombardment, and blockade by the U.S.? Did Hussein become a world threat with WMD while we were watching?

Could it be that Bush knows just what weapons Saddam has, but can't say so because it would mean admitting that we've known for over a decade and said nothing? The people (not the governments, but the people) of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and many other nations would be outraged at such complicity.

So... imagine some bright person in the Bush administration deciding that... the 9/11 attack, and the rise of "worldwide" terrorism offered an opportunity... a "justification" to correct an unrelated mess that had been nervously hidden and contained for many years. Even better, it would provide a diversion from the likely failures of not finding Osama bin Laden, the failure of replacing the Taliban with the just-as-bad Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and the failure of not only not defeating terrorism, but of causing it to grow and become more dangerous.

Iraq as a diversion... but also as a means to cover up previous disastrous "tinkering" actions.

If my suspicious supposition is correct, what will happen? I imagine it all depends on what Saddam Hussein does. If I'm correct, he cannot "blow the whistle" on the U.S., admit to having WMD, because he will also be condemned by the rest of the world, including the U.N.

If I'm correct, the U.S. may not want other nations involved against Iraq. They may want to attack unilaterally and in a manner that would allow them to prevent Saddam from blowing the whistle. That would call for a massive initial strike at communications facilities (which is, coincidentally, what they've planned). Would that account for Bush's rush to war that seems determined to leave the U.N. and most other nations outof the picture?

What options does Saddam have? His best case is for the U.S. to not attack at all, allowing him to remain in power, with secrets and weapons intact. That's unpleasant for the U.S. because he would continue as a potential whistle-blower, and Bush would have to accept an embarrassing withdrawal… maybe.

In order for the cover-up to be kept in place, Bush and Saddam have to come to some sort of compromise that will be acceptable for both of them.

Given my supposition, one possibility is that Saddam will allow some significant weaponry to be found by U.N. inspectors, and will take that opportunity to claim disclosure for the sake of peace. Bush would also then decide that, for the sake of peace in the region, U.S. forces will be withdrawn. Both can claim to have avoided war, and the rest of the world will be relieved... despite the fact that nothing will have been resolved... nothing will have changed, except that a senseless, secretly-motivated war will have been avoided. Bush will be heroic, having faced off against Saddam and "won", yet maintained peace. Saddam will be heroic, having faced off against enormous odds, and will have kept his remaining weapons, and his skin, intact.

That would be the sensible solution... from W's position, and from Saddam's. Will they pull that off? Coordinated deception? That's attributing a lot of smarts to two people I'm not sure are that smart.

The other, uglier, possibility is a unilateral attack by the U.S., fast and complete enough to keep Saddam silent until he's dead, with our military covertly recovering the weapons we know are there and removing them secretly or at least preventing anyone from being able to trace their source.

BUT... if I were Saddam, the U.S. would have long ago been assured that, in the event of my death, the awful involvement of the U.S. would be made public.

If I'm right... Saddam has Bush by the short hairs, and the only acceptable outcome is an "honorable resolution” that leaves both of them looking somewhat like heroes to their own citizens.

If I'm right... the Iraqi cover-up will just continue - covered up. Bush will return to fouling up the North Korean situation, and conducting the eternal War on Terrorism, while most Americans return to their lives, relieved to forget how much liberty and money they’ve lost in the process.

We shall see, shan't we?