Thursday, October 07, 2004

I don't have any WMDs either

My informal survey of news sites finds that, shockingly, no one can find the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. What's next? France has decided not to be in the "Coalition of the Willing"? I know this is important and "breaking news" because most major news sites lead with the news:
CNN - Report: No WMDs in Iraq
CBSNews - Iraq WMD Hunt Comes Up Empty
FoxNews (Gasp!) - Report Finds No Iraq WMD After '91
NYTimes - U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's
LATimes - Iraq's Illicit Weapons Gone Since Early '90s, CIA Says
MSN - Inspector says Iraq had no WMD
Yahoo! Report: Iraqi WMD gone since early '90s

At the time of my survey, these headlines could be found at the top of the page, 1st headline, no scrolling required. But did anyone, by this point, expect to find major stockpiles of anything? There were expectations that Saddam would use WMD's (biological weapons) during the initial invasion, but when that didn't occur, we new something was up. If we didn't find some nukes or something in the first month after the Iraqi army bolted, I don't think anyone was still holding their breath. What I'm saying here is, "This is not news." At least not to the level it has been constantly and loudly reported.

Especially....ESPECIALLY when in the same report we find evidence that Saddam Hussein was buying off various countries, including France, China and Russia....oh, and the U.N. This news is only mentioned in some degree on Google News, who at least offers differing views. Also, the Washington Post which offers the dueling headlines together: "Hussein Gave Vouchers To Help Dilute Sanctions" and "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons"; but in the end, editorializes,"Analysis: War Rationales Undermined."

My question is, why, in an election where we have one party running on a platform that no matter what weapons he currently held, Saddam still had the ability to aid and abet terrorists...and was doing so; with the other contending we should build a broader coalition of nations with the assistance of the U.N. do we not see headlines like this?
"Saddam and the French Connection" at the The Scotsman.
Or these "Saddam Bribed Politicians" and "Regime stole oil-for-food cash" at the Telegraph.
Isn't the bigger story one that shows Saddam had three members of the Security Council in his pocket? Not to mention the key officials of the U.N. Apparently not. Those media guys know better than me.

But just in case. With these findings now in evidence, what exactly is John F. Kerry's plan for Iraq? And how has that hole that once occupied his "4 point plan" not become a false-bottom? Please tell me.

Before I leave. Everyone should read this article on "Deterrence"(**Warning** It is quite long, but well worth it), and probably this one on the growing divide between the two parties. (Note - both were written by guys who would not identified as the classic conservative.)

No comments: