Community

That would be the proper response..Thank god there weren't weapons..and by the way..sorry we killed so many of you iraqis. That won't happen, even though it does not get any more clear than this.

Wait..I'm responding to OZ?? What I meant to say is this..You hate Americans. This is further proof. You American hater. You can't have an opinion about a WORLD event and not agree with us. If you do, like dude, you suck.

You know, that is probably the single greatest amount of effort I have seen you use to date to twist a comment to pieces, at the least to avoid other interpretations. It does say many things, possibly. I suppose if you want to run on a rail of pessimism then what you have arrived at is a relevent conclusion. However, I thought that the idea here was to be objective.

If this be so then here is just as worthwhile and what I would is a much more likely take given everything surrounding the issue.

The quote:
I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons

The take:
There are a great deal of folks that don't want to admit the realities as they fall to the issue of WMDs. Everyone is more than ready to jump on the Kerry bandwagon of no WMDs found but few have actually questioned why Kerry gave consent in the first place and what this implies. No one seems to care.

Nevermind that Kerry in fact came to the same conclusions as Bush and recommended the same course of action and in fact gave authority to attack, not on different data or limited data but on the exact same and amounts of data. He keeps making this statement about all other avenues being pursued. That's funny. Really funny. Mainly because Congress would have had to give two "authorizations". Kerry asked that certain precautions be taken. They were and apparently at the time, to his liking because he signed authorization for force. Not before all avenues were pursued but in fact, after as prescribed by law. Kerry is making it out like final authorization was given before all other avenues were taken but it is just not possible. Congress cannot give a declaration of war, "but only if". It is either consent or it is not, no extras allowed. The actual consent to war was signed within days of operations actually beginning and with no "but try this and this first's". Just as prescribed legally. All of those items were brought to attention earlier and apparently pursued to everyones approval, Kerry's anyway, he signed the final consent to war. If things hadn't been pursued to his liking then why didn't he object? Surely a Senator of 20 years would have the sense to do that?
Now that there are "no weapons" on the scale of what some desire as their definition, Kerry is leveraging that to a political end, meanwhile many people are buying in and calling him great. Kerry is treating people as the ignorant, reactionary bunch of fools that they are and leading them by their noses. Like I have said time and time again, he gets in office, they are going to get exactly what they deserve and with good grounds as well.

Now, as to the fulfillment of the original comment. I think another alternative (and it is even viable, not conjecture) is that Bush was expressing dismay at the lack because of where they may have gone and who's hands they may be in. I will remind us all again that twice actual weapons have been found and it is no secret that Saddam;
1. Had large quantities of equipment to produce
2. Was actively seeking more means
3. Engaged in this activity with nations like Germany and France as well as China and N.K.
4. Was actively seeking raw materials from any willing sources
5. Had mobile facilities, discovered early in the war but now conveniently forgotten, which were contaminated and left very little room for doubt on their use.

I think I side with Bush. I am not terribly happy that there were no weapons because I have to wonder were are they. The evidence all seems to point toward Saddam attempting to manufacture and the larger possibility of his actually doing so. If it could be cleared that there are none I think that I would share a common relief with the president on the lack thereof as well.

In other words, I think that instead of looking for the "your house isn't on fire", "darn, it's supposed to be, I already got the insurance check" approach maybe it would be prudent to allow the man a little "well were is that smoke coming from then" room.

I know it won't happen but I guess if did I'd most likely have a stroke. I have come to learn that you can't expect a lot from the current electorate.

Thanks