Friday, January 30, 2004

 

It depends what the meaning of imminent is.....

Under questioning by Senate Democrats, David Kay acknowledged Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq had chemical or biological stockpiles - even small ones. He offered doubts about Bush administration claims that trailers and aluminum tubes were intended for weapons of mass destruction. He said U.N. inspections, belittled by the administration, "achieved quite a bit."


~* And Bush is practicing damage control. Just watch him squirm while attempting a coherent response:

Bush defends Iraq war decision

~* And the ever faithful are contibuting in one of the only ways they know how.... our semi-regular feature: Letters to the Editor

Editor -- The Chronicle editorial (Jan. 27) lambastes the Bush administration for not telling truth about WMDs in Iraq. We may not have found the WMDs, but we have found hundreds of thousands of mass graves.

How many more hundreds of thousands of murders have we prevented by destroying the slaughterhouse that was Saddam Hussein's regime? That is a truth apparent to all mothers in Iraq. But it seems one your editorial board has overlooked.


SCOTT ABRAMSON
San Mateo


~* This is just flat out bullcrap and excuses derived from simple reasoning. We may not have found the WMD, BUT....? That was the single reason most often given as the reason for the entire invasion! We've found mass graves, agreed. We also supported Saddam as he commited these attrocities. We could have PREVENTED hundreds of thousands of deaths....during the REAGAN years! THIS truth is apparent to all fair-minded Americans. But apparently one YOU'VE overlooked. Schmuck.

In the interest of fair & balanced reporting, we present the letter immediately following that one in Wednesdays Press Democrat, as a look into the future and a call to action:

Editor -- When this generation of Americans stands before the tribunal of history to answer for the crimes of the Bush regime, I can think of only three arguments we might make in our defense. The first two would excuse a child: One, that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, threw us into an unreasoning panic; two, that we were lied to so extravagantly and often that we began to believe that the lies were true. We, however, are adults.

The third possible defense is that we did not know our leaders could be so callous, cruel, unjust and corrupt, and the vehemence of their assault on our moral values and democratic institutions caught us by surprise. This defense, of course, will only hold if we rise up now and drive them out of office. Otherwise, our condemnation will be assured and richly deserved.

DANIEL GREEN
Berkeley


~* I believe this is true of a large majority of Americans. For many, it's just too hard to believe the possbility "our leaders could be so callous, cruel, unjust and corrupt," or that "the vehemence of their assault on our moral values and democratic institutions caught us by surprise."

I say to them.... start believing it folks. At LEAST leave it open to possibility. The evidence is mounting daily.

In summation: Yes, Saddam was a wicked douchbag that the world is better without. Yes, with him out of power, we MAY POSSIBLY be safer. But as true as those statements are of Saddam, they happen to be 10X truer concerning Osama bin Laden! Why was our attention diverted to Iraq? They've barely found a pre-911 Al quida connection, if at all! If it's tyranical douchbags that we're going to topple, there's a whole slew of them to choose from. Sad to say, human attrocities are in no short supply in MANY places, to numerous to mention.

~Brahma*

posted by ~Brahma 9:01 AM