June 12, 2003

WMD are stubborn things

i agree with ann coulter, on the WMD "question." --that iraq had them, but even if they didn't, its a waste of time to question it now. she says:

Let's stipulate that we will find no weapons of mass destruction or, to be accurate, no more weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps Hussein was using the three trucks capable of assembling poison gases to sell ice cream under some heretofore undisclosed U.N. "Oil For Popsicles" program.

Should we apologize and return the country to Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons? Should we have him on "Designer's Challenge" to put his palaces back in all their '80s Vegas splendor? Or maybe Uday and Qusay could spruce up each other's rape rooms on a very special episode of "Trading Spaces"? What is liberals' point?

No one cares.

besides being wrong about there being no WMD in iraq now, liberals also forgot that they said iraq had WMD. whoops. lexis-nexis foiled them again! here was hillary's take on things just 8 months ago:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, 10 October, 2002

there are more (here).

Posted by travis at June 12, 2003 01:51 PM | TrackBack