(no subject)

Oct 27, 2004 11:17

Has anyone noticed the weird irony behind the "Missing Iraq Explosives" story?

The left and the media are proclaiming, "AHA!! See, George Bush can't keep you safe! Sadaam possessed and stored these weapons at this site, and because because no one can find them now, they were obviously looted and stolen. These conventional explosives are devastating, and could even be used to trigger a nuclear bomb."

Yet, when asked about missing WMD, their response is, "Because we can't find 'em, he never had 'em, and George Bush lied his ass off."

If Sadaam had all this explosive material, doesn't that constitute (by semantic definition) possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction? Why is 380 tons of explosives a big deal in a country in which there were over a MILLION tons of such weapons (of which we've destroyed about 500,000 tons of material so far)? Why is it hard to believe that if these weapons are missing, that Chem/Bio weapon stockpiles could have been similarly looted or moved? Aren't they making a back-door case for getting rid of Sadaam by pressing this issue? I certainly feel better knowing a brutal megalomaniac is no longer in control of all this stuff.

It's perfectly fine (although not terribly rational) to oppose the war, but don't be a goddamn hypocrite about it.
Previous post Next post
Up