Where Are All The W.M.D.s?

Thanks, Boss, for that much-more-to-the-point definition.

I edit to please, sir.

Where have all the W.M.D.'s gone?
Long time passin'.
Where have all the W.M.D.'s gone?
Long time ago.
Where have all the W.M.D.'s gone?
Gone for regime change, every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they e-ver learn?

To every regime
Turn turn turn
There is a turnover
Turn turn turn And now it's Iran's turn
Turn turn turn

Yeah, they're all turning in their graves..... we just can't hear their screams.

Bush said that in New Jersey this week as he spoke at a frozen pasta factory (frozen pasta?) to a group of small business owners.

Which echoes this quote from Condi Rice's appearance on Meet the Press last week:



Just for a laugh, wouldn't it be great if someone asked Shrub exactly what he thinks a "revisionist historian" is?

Now an administration that says things like this:



Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003


and then this:



Condoleeza Rice
Meet the Press
June 8, 2003


...isn't in much of a position to accuse others of revising anything.

But, merits aside, there's an even more intriguing question here: Of all the possible sound bites the administration could have chosen to try to cover its collective heinie, why did it pick something as esoteric as "revisionist history"?

I mean, flinging terms like that around may make you the neocon queen of the Stanford faculty lounge. And it might even score you some points on Crossfire.

But do the Bushies really think it means anything to the great mass of the American voters?

I notice it a lot in the media, PDiddie. Experts, "high administration officials," and others who don't know what they're talking about try to get as close as possible, using the closest four syllable word (but not the right one), tossing off suave-sounding phrases they've read somewhere but know not the meaning of. Those of us who actually graduated high school with bona fide diplomas find ourselves feeling like elitists when we laugh at these guys. There's a lot of truth in the notion that you are who you are when you speak -- in which case, this administration (now they tell us!) may have a collective IQ of over 100 (or maybe not).

If you guys are so smart, why are you hiding behind your computers instead of working in the industry as a talking head? I'm sure that Condi Rice would just love to debate the issues with either of you. Especially since your IQ soars over her dog-like intelligence.

Come on McGentrix, give a guy some warning!!!!!

I was drinking milk at the time and it came shooting out my nose at that last post of yours!!!


Sheeeeshhh!!!!!!!!

Now, THAT is NAILING it if ever there was NAILING it!!

Milk through the nose, heh? What would you think of next. c.i.

max:

The Pus-Bacteria Moustache



Drink it all...

Ironically, that picture of Ron Howard looks alot like my brother, maxsuncle.

Keep drinkin' the soy crap there, PDid, that's good for the farmers around here as well!!!!

I read or heard some time ago that milk really doesn't stick to your upper lip. c.i.

This argument has gotten silly. Beer through the nose would have kept my interest.

"Overstretching the facts."

Is that the same thing as lying?



Yahoo! News

Australia is to have a parliamentary inquiry into the effectiveness of its intelligence information prior to the invasion of Iraq.

The motion was narrowly passed in the Upper House of Federal Parliament.

The narrowness of its passing was due to the abstention of several Senators who were, in fact, in favour of an inquiry, but felt it ought to be public rather than closed - (the closedness being due to its being into intelligence matters.)

This could be interesting....

What may prove interesting down the road is the heat that Mr. Blair is getting in Parliament. If the furor in England grows, can the American public continue to hide it's--what is the claim now, 60%?--collective head in the sand? If Blair takes a fall (actually, something which is currently unlikely), would Americans continue to content themselves that this is a trustworthy administration? I am saddened by the lack of courage on the part of liberals in the Congress--the current Senate action is characterized as a "review" and not an investigation. Many administrations throughout our nation's history have lied, and sometimes gotten away with it. Rarely have the lies had such an impact on the world, however. And, often enough, in matters much less crucial, the political opposition has called the sitting administration's bluff. The usual outcome is the sacrifice of one or a few employees, but the effective result is also the neutralization of any claim by the administration to good performance based on the matters about which they have lied. The current administration may well get away with this one, and, if so, then liberal members of Congress will bear a good deal of the responsibility for that, as well as the shame.

Weapons of Mass Deception
What the Pentagon doesn't want us to know about depleted uranium.

Now that's a funny cartoon.