Wulfie's Wurld

Editorial: WMD

Suppose they found the WMD, even at this late date. Suppose there was a "Well whaddaya know, they were buried in Syria all this time!"? What would this mean? Here are some possibilities:

The media would be proven wrong. Duh! It's what they get for making assumptions based upon circumstantial evidence. They should never have stated "there are no WMD," only "WMD haven't been found" and "the White House reported there were no WMD." They can leap to conclusions on the editorial pages.

The White House would be proven to be flip-floppers. Duh again. "There's WMD." "There's no WMD." Is that like voting for WMD before you vote against it?

The Intelligence Community would be embarrassed. Again. Who the hell is giving them their marching orders? Some moron? Are they spending gazillions on satellites and not the few thousands on clerks and translators? Where the heck was the NSA and their phone taps during all this?

Saddam (on cell): Looks like the Infidels are about to invade. Let's move the WMD to Syria.

Flunky (on cell): Right-o. I'll get Boris, Natasha, and Abdul on it.

Abdul (on cell in Syria): You can keep them in my basement.

Or do we have that conversation still on file, still waiting to be translated. Or have they discarded it because it's now so old the value is gone. Wasn't that the problem prior to 9/11? Didn't we have all the pieces, yet not enough clerks to put the pieces together? Has that improved at all?

You know what this also means? That President Bush was not a liar. That's a good thing. It means that he went to war with either faulty or no intelligence. That's a bad thing. That's incompetence on a grand scale. I guess we have to ask ourselves which we would rather have, a competent crook, or a naïve incompetent? If we're talking Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful war machine ever assembled in the history of the planet, I'd have to go with "neither."

Boy, I'm sure glad there are no WMD around to make things all murky and confused.