WMD's May Yet Be Found

I’ve actually been on as a while as “jharmon3”, I just finally picked a better username (not that I posted a LOT as jharmon3, but anyhoo). I’ll be changed from Guest as soon as I get around to registering. Hopefully the not-registered bit is why I can’t find how to fix my sig to include the bit about my former name… :slight_smile:

Anyhoo, I have no problem debating things we don’t know for sure (not much point in debating things we know for sure, actually). If someone says, “I don’t believe there are any WMDs,” that’s fine. If someone says, “There are no WMDs,” that isn’t fine, because they don’t know. It especially bugs me when they say it smugly, as if EVERYONE knows there are no WMDs.

Oh, and in case I’m totally missing your meaning… I hope it’s obvious that my black helicopters thing was sarcasm. When people say, “There are no WMDs, and there haven’t been since the end of the Gulf War,” they generally aren’t saying it in an attempt to be funny (although sometimes they are, of course).

I’m not so sure about the Bush hating thing any more. I use to say to my self that I don’t hate Bush (certainly not the way my friends in the real world and on these boards hated, and apparently still hate, Bill Clinton, his wife, his kid, his dog, cat and gerbil).

What I hated was what BW Bush was doing to my country. I hated the social Darwinism, I hated the simplistic approach to education and the insistence that with enough standardized tests all children could be made to be above average and discard those who were not, I hated the shifting of the wealth of the nation to people who already had more than they could ever use by regressive tax rates and borrowing to meet deficit budgeting, I hated the obvious contempt for the opinion of the rest of the world, I hated the smarmy smile when ever he managed to pronounce a word correctly (and sometimes when he did not), I hated the tendency to go to the simplistic solution as long as its effect was to transfer more wealth to the wealthy, I hated the insistence on war with Iraq on what seemed to me inadequate grounds, I hated the homophobia, I hated the view that the Good Lord put the earth here expressly so that it could be used up as fast as possible, I hated the influence that social reactionaries had on him and the insistence on appointing those people to the federal courts, I hated the half truths and the slight of hand on things like limiting access to the courts and limiting rights of recovery, I, in short hated lots of stuff GW Bush was doing and looked like was about to do.

In my geezerhood, however, I have concluded that you cannot separate the man and his works. I realized that I cannot hate the works but remain open minded about the man. Its not like he is just doing his job like the poor slob who makes me walk around the airport in my stocking feet. The President’s works are things he has deliberately chosen to do. He was not forced to invade Iraq instead of go after the Jahidists because he would lose his livelihood and not be able to feed and cloth and house his kids if he didn’t. He did not revise the income tax rates because otherwise he would not be able to fix his car. He did not beat the drum for oil drilling on the reserved northern slope because his wife needed new shoes. He did all those things because he wanted to–because each one of them somehow gratified him.

No, its not that I just hate the works of GW Bush–its because of those works I hate, distrust and suspect the man himself. I can’t assume that what he is doing is good for the country any more. I can’t take it as a given that what he tells me about himself, his plans, his accomplishments, his motives or his critics as honest and credible any more. He has fallen into that class of persons who, as an old friend once told me, are to be taken as lying sons of bitches until they prove otherwise.

Don’t just dismiss my opinions as those of a Bush hater. Ask yourself why it is that I might hate the President.

As I said before in one of my super cynical rants, the best bet is that the new Iraqi leadership will “find” the evidence before the election, I base that in the fact that they are not shy in “finding” documents that prove that the war hawks were right. (Never mind that the documents were found later to be as valuable as the contents of Al Capone’s secret vault)

It will be enough evidence so that the administration and Fox news (I suspect Gerardo will be involved in this one too) will scream to the four winds how right they were all along. And when the real histories of were the “found” weapons came from are known, it will be months after the election. Incidentally, this possibility does not require Bush to be involved, but I think Chalabi and henchmen are more than up to the job.

But enough cynicism, what if we find something? What I think is being missed here is that not finding them already in the field of battle, and/or ready to use, points to the Iraqis as choosing not to use them because they were very few to be of any use, and/or that they were hidden. (This is about the only possibility left), I think this point was mentioned before by Sofa King in a another thread: finding weapons now will be only good for the administration if they are found in the context of a delivery system.

Finding them deeply buried in a vault and rotting away, only points to the weapons as being only a nuisance at best, then and after the war. And not an imminent threat as many were led to believe.

Besides, it is very odd that many in the right are still missing the memo (and ignoring Kay): the official word is that we are now seeking WoMD programs, WoMD are so last century. (AFAIK all the evidence out there points that the weapons were indeed there last century, but the first gulf war and the Clinton bombing raids, soured Saddam on the idea of keeping the weapons)

What we still have here, is that the current US administration was willing to disregard intelligence concerns on the way to war, and is still willing to force it to comply with their wishes. (Plame and Clarke) I say that I do not trust a leader that still continues to bend our country’s intelligence to fit his stupid conclusions or wishful thinking. We need to show him the door in November.

How about if someone says (smugly or not) “No one knows that there are WMD’s” not only is that true, but it contrasts nicely with last years lemming catchphrase “Everyone knows that there are WMD’s.”

That’s fine. I’m not a Bush supporter (I was for the war, but not for the reasons given, and therefore against the actual execution of the war). They may have exaggerated the intelligence–if that can be shown to be the case, the “liar” label fits.

But saying they lied because they said there were WMDs and there “clearly aren’t any” is assuming that “not finding WMDs” = “WMDs never existed and intelligence said they didn’t exist, but Bushco made up intelligence that said they did exist.”

This has been gone over before here and on other boards. At some point, you have to draw the line and say that enough time has passed, nothing has been found despite very intensive searches, therefore, they don’t exist. Your statement sounds more like denial than reasoned thought.

And speaking of Bush and truthfulness, here’s a little Flash comic for your weekend enjoyment: Link