On msnbc.com, this bewildering sentence appears:
The inspector's report could boost Kerry's contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.
It could boost Kerry's contention? It goes way beyond that...it proves Kerry's point. Listen, Georgie, that sound of locked-up, grinding gears is the sound of your outmoded F-102 of a chance of a second term flaming to earth where it will be grounded forever...
Mutually Assured Destruction
I mean, c'mon. If this latest report from the top weapons inspector doesn't change things in Kerry's favor, what the hell will? It's also somewhat suspicious that this report was released after the presidential debate on foreign policy instead of right before or the day of. You mean to tell me that they didn't already have this information last Thursday? Please...
So tonight Joe Lockhart will be laughing in Ben Ginsberg's face on Hardball, but Ginsberg will point out that the report says Saddam was still a threat because he had the intention of getting WMD. However, civilized and rational people understand full well that all national leaders want to have the best available weapons to achieve their ends, nefarious or otherwise. If they don't, they're not very good leaders. And since this is true, this means that Saddam was no special threat, especially not to the U.S. But Bush and his minions will scream mindlessly "Saddam was a threat! That's why we had to invade!"
But what of North Korea, who instead of denying that they have nuclear weapons or want to acquire more nuclear weapons, come right out and say they have them. Why haven't we invaded them, Republican talking-point parrots? Not that I'm in favor of invading more countries.
This Week's Letter To The Editor
I sent this one to several Mississippi papers rather than just my hometown paper:
Come now, Mr. Cheney. Do you really expect us to believe that John Edwards, the man who will replace you, has such a poor Senate attendance record that you have never met him until the night of the vice-presidential debate? Or do you
just suffer from the same affliction as "Mr. Short-Term Memory," the character
portrayed by Tom Hanks on "Saturday Night Live"? Do you honestly not remember
addressing Sen. Edwards by name at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2001? Or do
you take the American public for fools?
It must be the latter, because you also denied having said in the past that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda. Did you really expect the public to believe that whopper when in fact, you said that very thing on June 14 of this year in Florida at a reception for the James Madison Institute (to cite but just one occasion)? Are you not aware that your public statements are recorded in full at the website whitehouse.gov and
countless other places online?
Did you bother to read or even be briefed on the 9/11 Commission report, which stated flatly that there was no "collaborative operational relationship" between Saddam and al Qaeda? Even if you somehow were oblivious to the 9/11 Commission report, your administration's own Secretary of Defense recently said: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
Come now, Mr. Cheney. The American people are not fools, don't take kindly to being misled, and will have the good sense to retire you and your running mate this November 2.