Thursday, October 7, 2004

the 'nawww...really?' headline of the decade

Yeah, so I got my daily morning Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster's center-rightish 'Democrat' morning paper. . . the evening way-rightish 'Republican' paper is called The New Era) and I was delighted, but not surprised, by the headline. In big black letters it says:

No banned weapons in Iraq

Some of us have been saying this since 2002. It really is the "No shit" headline of the year.

So . . . while North Korea may have an arsenal, Pakistani nuclear scientists proliferated all over the place, some of South Africa's stocks of chemical weapons are still MIA and Iran is enriching uranium for God-knows-what, we invaded a country that yes- - - had an awful human being unworthy of life as a leader (and let me just say, watching him, he really is pathetic) but no- - - did not have any banned weapons (that we sold them anyway in the 1980s. Duh.).

Something does not compute.

I expect the argument that we were exporting democracy and liberating people, but as I recall reading yesterday, there's this government-sponsored genocide type thing going on in Sudan that probably could use some of that liberation right about now. Not that I'm advocating that (although Sudan is oil-rich). Actually Sudan probably should be partitioned into two seperate countries since the Muslim north seems to want to keep the Chrisitian south dirt poor, starving, and desperate. I'm just saying is all. Or the mess that is going on in the Niger Delta. I may have been on hiatus for four months, but I sure as hell was paying attention.

So while we invaded Iraq and continue to get tore-the-f*ck-up-there, our attentions were distracted. I almost don't want to know how this ends.

No comments: