I have not posted in a while because life has been pretty hectic. My thesis at business school is due in a month and I am grinding away at it. For the next few days, though, I am tucked away somewhere in the Sierra for the holiday and will get more than a few chances to blog. I think I will even blog tomorrow on the 4th.
With all the near misses on finding WMD in Iraq, this AP article hardly constitutes much news. I am certainly not one of those growing increasingly skeptical that Saddam ever had these weapons. As Raging Dave pointed out earlier this week anyone whose head is at least 6 inches from their ass knows Saddam had WMD and had done nothing to prove he was clean. Moreover, during the 21 day advance on Baghdad, Coalition troops found stashes of Atropine (antidote for nerve agent) along with chemical weapons protection suits. The Iraqi troops had no reason to suspect that the Coalition would use nerve agents during the war, so what do you think all this protection was for? The argument that there were no WMD in Iraq is simply the avatar of blind fatuousness. Without engaging in the extensive reasoning why this argument is delusional, let me point you to one telling fact:
The only people who claim that Saddam did not have WMD are:
1. Saddam and his cronies before the war. AND
2. The far-left after the war.
I think the more salient question is why does the far-left continually parrot the arguments of America's enemies?
......But back to that AP article. What I find most interesting about the article is not the substantive content, but the subtle bias. Reporter Libby Quaid writes:
He also defended President Bush's warning on Wednesday that he would find and punish "anybody who wants to harm American troops."
Why does that contention need to be "defended?" Am I being too sensitive to bias here? It seems moronically profound that an AP reporter would assert that the notion that the Coalition will 'find and punish' anybody who wants to do harm to our troops needs any defense at all. I am sure if some demented individual wanted to do harm to Ms. Quaid she would not feel a need to defend her desire to find and punish that person if he took steps to perform on his desire.