WMD anyone?
 

Okay, I just have to ask:

Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

I remember it seemed important a while back but it seems so long ago,;) besides it's the Vernasca hill climb this weekend;)

Post photos, Milu. :)

Toon land...the Merry Melodies got them....

Probably scattered about Nebraska and Montana, in silos patroled by the US Air Force.

Russia's are most likely mobile, and they have significant quantities of bio-crap buried in the ground and in a not-so-secure production facility that is no longer in use.

But did you mean Iraq's WMD's? Could be anywhere in the world by now, thanks to our previous administration and the blitzkrieg efforts of the UN inspection team.

So we know for a fact that Iraq "had" them, and let's say we can't find evidence that they have them there now, and we're not even hearing talk that they have found evidence of destroyed WMD's there.

So where are they? Anybody's call.
Did they have them at one time? Yes.
Where is the evidence that they detroyed the stuff like Saddam stated?
Not there (we're assuming)
Guess where that puts Iraq's WMD's? Not in Iraq...

The more appropriate question might be: who has them now?

Yes, Iraq. Those are the only WMDs anyone's talking about these days.

inspector: Did you try digging over there?
Digger: yeah, nothing but mass graves.
inspector: how about over there?
Digger: yeah, nothing but mass graves.
inspector: hmmm. . . boy, did we screw-up. . .let's get Saddam back in here, asap.

What I find rather hypocritical is that the question;
"where are the WMD? . . . we want to see proof NOW! "
is coming from the same folks that brought us;
"Give the inspectors more [whiney]time[/whiney] . . they need more [whiney]time[/whiney]."
"WMD are being found and destroyed with just inspections . . .they just need more [whiney]time[/whiney]."

it's nothing more than political flogging to be pushing the question of "why haven't the WMD been found yet?" -duh-

Rumsfeld: "What? Weapons of Mass Distruction? *snaps fingers in the other direction* look over here! Iran is being naughty!"

Dr. Island: I believe the press is more the questioning body as to where the WMDs are, not the French, et al. Most countries are simply glad the whole "war" is over, though it really is not.

The press is the thorn in The Administration's side. Since one of the conflict's main reasons was based on Iraq's possession of WMDs, and thus far none have been found, Bush has some explaning to do that I don't think he'll be able to side-step.

This could follow him all the way to his re-election. That is, if the Dems take up the challenge; and if they have the balls to do so.

Personally, I think it's going to be Hillary. Hugely popular, big-time book that's making the circuit, and a real fighter. Gutsy, smart, and power hungry, like a Republican.

She's learned a couple things from Bill.

Yeah, that's just what we need. :rolleyes: I bet she'd lose based just on the women's vote. American women seem to absolutely despise her--I'm not even sure why.

Actually, it would be very interesting to watch the real right-wingers trying to deal with President Hillary. Bill confounded them by co-opting all their best issues. I think a president as far out there as she is would actually be comforting to the GOP--they might reclaim a bit of the center that her husband stole from them.

And with Bill as "first philanderer"? :D

At least all the comedians will vote for her...

Whoa, hold on there. Gotta disagree with ya on the "smart" part. On her recent Barbara Walters interview she stated how it broke her heart that the economy that her husband (and presumably she too) had worked so hard on is now in shambles because the current admin is just not capable of dealing with it (or something to that effect).

Ahhhem. Excuse me. Look at the average person's 401k and the economy in general- you'll see it began to tank 18 months before Bill ever left office. And if Hillary is so smart, how come they never lifted a finger to course correct during that 18 months of building their brilliant economy? Funny how the day Bush took office with a sheeeety economy that is was suddenly called "the Bush economy", implying he somehow created the mess, which was a result of unrestrained growth and fiduciary control in a boom economy of the mid 90's, which by the way was cyclical at best and NOT a doing of the Clinton white house.

Hillary also tried her hand at reforming health care, which was an utter failure. Wants to model it after Britain's NHS, which is also a total mess...

I agree with you, BG. In the BW interview, she said simply what she was supposed to say - what a candidate would say, really, and for that, she's smart.

The economy was collapsing as Clinton was leaving office. Anyone with half a mind would know nothing economic is based on the administration. The two have never been related IMHO. Dot.com *******s burned up a lot of cash, and dishonest CEOs and other execs. were coming to bare their true colors.

I think Bush's economy involves oil profits from Iraq, anyway.

Hillary's reformation of health care was a joke. Everyone in DC said, "Who the hell is this chick, coming from nowhere and telling us what "she's gonna' do," and in that, she suicided herself with her own mouth and forcefulness. Healthcare reform paid the price on that one.

Since then, I think she's learned to bite her tongue, the little hellcat. ;)

Thank you. The dems always conveniently forget that the market crashed in Sept 2000, two months before the election even started. It began with OPEC and their usual jiggery-pokery, which led to gas riots (remember those?) in lovely Europe, followed by soft tech sales in Europe, which then sent the boulder tumbling.

"It began with OPEC and their usual jiggery-pokery, which led to gas riots (remember those?) in lovely Europe,"

And then, coincidentially, we began a war with Iraq.

the economy actually started downhill when the 996 came out.

Coincidence?!? I think not *poof*

I think I'm one of the whiney ones :D :D

I do think Saddam was a bad bad bad man, really I do. I think the Iraqi people are much better off with him gone (especially once the infrastucture is operating well).

But I (still) think there wouldn't have been any support for an invasion of Iraq without WMD rhetoric (either internal or external to USA). So the semi-illegitimate invasion gets less and less legitimate by the day. "The ends justify the means" is an appalling argument.

And if I was American, I would be really pissed off about being mislead. Surely a better standard is required from your leaders?

Nothing is required of our leaders. That's the point. They've increasingly been sold out to special interest.

This is why voter turnout in The States has diminished since the Reagan era; i.e. twenty years ago.

Oh, and about Bagdad: seems as if nothing's running right in the city. "The New Yorker" magazine had a small piece on Bagdad, quoting an official (I forget his name) as saying the city's in bad shape, and the hope is to get it to run as well as Chicago.

Does Chicago run well?

As long as oil companies and weapon companies will be financing political parties, those parties once in power will be serving their interrests, not those of the people. And Joe Schmoll keeps on paying taxes and sending his sons to war, convinced he does the rights thing.
He just gets screwed over and over, but he seems to like that, so scared he is by those WMD. Fear is the best way of controling people, isn`t it ?

Aurel

Yes, it is! You nailed it, my friend!