perfidy

If the evidence was so ironclad, so bulletproof, why haven't our armies found any evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction in Iraq? Wasn't that the President's stated goal for going to war-- to forestall a threat that was at any moment forty-five minutes away from dumping nerve gas on us or our allies? Again, yes, I'm glad Hussein is gone. I'm elated that his human rights abuses can now be set to rights. But those are collateral benefits of an invasion that supposedly defused a concrete and measurable threat to the US and its citizens.

So where is this ironclad proof? Most Americans don't care--- hell, most Americans think we've found WMD's already, that it was France we invaded, and that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11/01 attacks. But I care, because it's the difference between a President doing the the tough thing for right reasons and a President cynically manipulating public opinion for gain. Like Clinton did. I will allow that, now that the dust has settled, it's possible that the administration finds that some of its intelligence is less useful than they thought. Fine. The emperor is pantsless. But if that is the case, can someone please say so? There's nothing sadder than a man trying to act dignified while not wearing any pants.*

*Trust me-- I should know