Some words better left unuttered
By HELEN THOMAS
WASHINGTON -- Some of the words uttered by very important people in Washington in 2003 are best forgotten. On the other hand, as we enter an election year, maybe they should be remembered.
* * *
In an interview on Dec. 16, television anchorwoman Diane Sawyer pressed Bush on the fact that no unconventional weapons had been found in Iraq some nine months after the search had begun.
Bush kept interjecting: "Yet."
Sawyer persisted, asking about the administration's flat statements that Saddam had such weapons versus the mere possibility that he could acquire them.
An exasperated Bush replied: "So, what's the difference?"
Do we really have to explain?
* * *
On Dec. 17, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the Bush administration gave a classified intelligence briefing to members of Congress in October 2002 saying Iraq not only had the weapons "but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities." The briefing was held before the vote authorizing the use of force to attack Iraq.
So why the congressional silence -- throughout 2003 -- after being misled into voting for war?
On May 28, in a Vanity Fair interview, deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraqi war, told of the administration plotting to sell the war to the American public.
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue -- weapons of mass destruction because it was one reason everyone could agree on."
Honest but appalling.
* * *
For credibility, I'll take former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. He reminded us on Dec. 23 that there are only two justifications for pre-emptive war: the presence of a threat of armed action credibly documented, and an urgency that does not tolerate delay.
The U.S. action against Iraq met neither test.
So, how many more soldiers will die for NO REASON until we get this goofball, fratboy, puppet-king out of the highest office in the land? I say the next election is not soon enough:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org (and we'll call it even, suckas...)