Well, there's moral clarity for you. Yes-sir-ree...

WMD was important to Wolfie as long as people were demanding a justification for his pet project: "Democratizing" the Middle East. Now that he knows we're officially stuck in that mission, regardless of the WMD facts, he just doesn't have the energy to maintain the pretense.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Those words were just malreported! Room 101 for you, sir.

If I believed in God, I'd pray these bastards would burn in hell forever. Nahkurin orsilla tavataan.

Now that Georgie and the Lying Cretins got their war on, Paul Wolfowitz does not need his bureaucratic reason for the war.

The kids are still dying for Georgie's lies, even though Georgie and the Lying Cretins would rather move on from their lies now.

I am not going to cooperate with the Rethuglicans.

It still matters to me that Georgie is a liar, incompetent or both. Most likely both.

From the article:

'He also asserted that Iraqis themselves have little concern about the weapons issue.

"If you could get in a relaxed conversation with Iraqis on that subject they'd say why on earth are you Americans fussing so much about this historical issue when we have real problems here, when Baathists are killing us and Baathists are threatening us and we don't have electricity and we don't have jobs. Those are the real issues.'

Wow -- so Iraqis don't care if our President lied to us. Who would have thought? They probably don't care too much about Bush's tax cuts, the war on the Constitution or this adminstration's recent betrayal of a CIA agent's cover.

So let's get over all of it. Remember, we're just doing it for the Iraqis, right?

There's a certain freshness to dealing with a real-life James Bond-type villain, the kind who feels the need to spend ten minutes to explain his evil scheme to the hero. Somehow, it would have been just right if Wolfie had ended his speech with "we don't want you to talk, we just want you to die." (I'm probably misquoting Goldfinger but you know what I'm referring to.)

There's a certain freshness to dealing with a real-life James Bond-type villain, the kind who feels the need to spend ten minutes to explain his evil scheme to the hero. Somehow, it would have been just right if Wolfie had ended his speech with "we don't want you to talk, we just want you to die." (I'm probably misquoting Goldfinger but you know what I'm referring to.)

Unless I'm mistaken, you are misquoting Dr. No, irrelevant though that detail is.

(I'm probably misquoting Goldfinger but you know what I'm referring to.)

No, Lupin is right:

Bond: Goldfinger! Do you expect me to talk?

Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond -- I expect you to die.

And then, of course, the twit leaves the room, taking all his henchmen with him, so that Bond can escape from the laser beam that's about to fry his gonads.

Now, if he'd only had the frickin' sharks with the frickin' laser beams attached to their heads ...

Actually I channel surfed that scene on TNN or whatever recently, and the bad guy can still see Bond; Bond gets the bad guy to stop the laser because he hints that he may have knowledge of the bad guy's plans.

Billmon: Your most elegant and concise un-tangling to date. Apparently you DO have to draw a picture for some people. Well done.

Holy slanted reporting Batman!

Disarming Iraq of its chemical and biological weapons and dismantling its nuclear weapons program is a crucial part of winning the War on Terror.

Note: he doesn't say that it is HIS concern

I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction.
Paul Wolfowitz

If you read the article Paul continues by saying:

"I'm concerned about getting Iraq on its feet. I didn't come (to Iraq) on a search for weapons of mass destruction."

Obviously meaning he left it for someone else to handle.

Besides, I wouldn't be concerned about Iraq's wmd's either because:
1. We've forced Saddam from power - ie. the weapons are no longer a threat to us.
2. We're slowly finding these weapons

... check out this link to see how we're doing on this wmd hunt New Evidence Could Sway Opinion on Iraq, Analysts Say

link isn't taking:
here it is
href=http://www.cnsnews.com/Pentagon/archive/200307/PEN20030717a.html

... check out this link to see how we're doing on this wmd hunt New Evidence Could Sway Opinion on Iraq, Analysts Say

People can check it out for themselves if they want to waste some time. But "Cybercast News Service" appears to be some kind of right-wing crank outfit. The story repeatedly identifies David Kay as a "UN weapons inspector," even though he's now working for the Pentagon (no mention of that.)

In any case, we've been hearing this noise for quite some time now. "Just wait 'til you see what we've found. Boy, are YOU going to be convinced."

The time to pay attention to this kind of talk will be when they produce -- and have third-party verification of -- the evidence, and not before.

...appears to be some kind of right-wing crank outfit
... and what do we have here?

In any case, we've been hearing this noise for quite some time now. "Just wait 'til you see what we've found. Boy, are YOU going to be convinced."

... hope you're right about no wmd's in Iraq.
Otherwise all of the ranting and raving on this site will have been a waste of cyberspace.

That's a lot of ranting and raving you have there considering you don't even have the cojones to sign your posts.

Saddam would never have had an opportunity to use WMDs against the U.S., nor was that his goal in the first place. He was a big fish in a small, tumultuous pond. His goals were simple: re-take Kuwait, get rid of the Israelis, and possibly have another go at Iran.

There are two possible scenerios regarding WMDs in Iraq: A) there weren't any serious weapons or weapons programs, or B) the WMDs have been moved elsewhere, possibly into the hands of _real_ terrorists. I find B) very alarming, and since Mr. Wolfowitz is "not concerned about weapons of mass destruction", I'm inclined to think that A) is true and _he knows_ it.

One note on the "right-wing crank outfit"... It's important to recognize the bias of whatever you're reading -- even if you agree with it.