The Weapons of Mass Destruction are in Ira...
I think I know where President Bush should be looking for the WMDs he has had so much problem locating in Iraq. In the President's defense, they probably are not far from where he has been looking and I bet if he looks in this new place he will find all the evidence he needs of an advanced nuclear program. Heck the UN has known about it all along... of course they are using underhanded measures to blame the evidence on anyone but Saddam Heussain. Why they are even blaming the Government of Iran. Just because Uranium Enrichment is occuring in Iran that doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't behind it. Of course the UN and the European Union saw that we might see through this so they also managed to get Tehran to admit to their nuclear program. For more details on this insideous plot see the following articles in the NY Times and on CNN's website.
Mmmm.. I suppose it is a little far fetched that the Saddam could presuade his former mortal enemies to harbor his Nuclear program, but then again stranger things have happened such as Saddam working with Bin Laden.. oh wait, that didn't happen either and the President never said it did, nope I read it myself yesterday he never said it, my memory was wrong about that...
In any case, its easy to see how the President's Gang could get confused over where the WMD programs might be. After all.. Iran, Iraq.. they are spelled almost the same and the two countries are right next to each other. Why I bet governments get the two confused all the time. Shoot it happened to the Reagan Administration back in the 80s when we sold the Iranians (who just a few years earlier had held Americans Hostage for more than a year) weapons to help them fight Iraq whom we were reasonably friendly with at the time. I am sure it was all just a simple misunderstanding. Maybe Iran should change its name back to Persia and Iraq back to Babylon so it will make it easier for us to keep them straight.
Ultimately this is the thing, the USA has spent almost two years obsessed with Iraq, and I am sure the Iraqi people will ultimately be better off regardless of who ends up with power than they were under Saddam. That being said, that was not the reason we went into Iraq. Can we honestly say that the two years we have spent on Iraq has done anything to lower the risk of Terrorism? Or to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapon proliferation? During the past two years, Bin Ladden has remained at large, North Korea has almost certainly either developed or expanded its nuclear arsenal and Iran may or may not be working on nuclear weapons of its own. So I would like to borrow and update a phrase that Ronald Reagan used in his 1984 re-election campaign, "Are you safer today than you were 4 years ago?". If you say yes, I am guessing you get your news from the White House or Fox News....
Mmmm.. I suppose it is a little far fetched that the Saddam could presuade his former mortal enemies to harbor his Nuclear program, but then again stranger things have happened such as Saddam working with Bin Laden.. oh wait, that didn't happen either and the President never said it did, nope I read it myself yesterday he never said it, my memory was wrong about that...
In any case, its easy to see how the President's Gang could get confused over where the WMD programs might be. After all.. Iran, Iraq.. they are spelled almost the same and the two countries are right next to each other. Why I bet governments get the two confused all the time. Shoot it happened to the Reagan Administration back in the 80s when we sold the Iranians (who just a few years earlier had held Americans Hostage for more than a year) weapons to help them fight Iraq whom we were reasonably friendly with at the time. I am sure it was all just a simple misunderstanding. Maybe Iran should change its name back to Persia and Iraq back to Babylon so it will make it easier for us to keep them straight.
Ultimately this is the thing, the USA has spent almost two years obsessed with Iraq, and I am sure the Iraqi people will ultimately be better off regardless of who ends up with power than they were under Saddam. That being said, that was not the reason we went into Iraq. Can we honestly say that the two years we have spent on Iraq has done anything to lower the risk of Terrorism? Or to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapon proliferation? During the past two years, Bin Ladden has remained at large, North Korea has almost certainly either developed or expanded its nuclear arsenal and Iran may or may not be working on nuclear weapons of its own. So I would like to borrow and update a phrase that Ronald Reagan used in his 1984 re-election campaign, "Are you safer today than you were 4 years ago?". If you say yes, I am guessing you get your news from the White House or Fox News....
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home