Why doesn't someone ask Bush, when he mentions WMD's, where...

[harlinchi]

...Iraq got the WMD's used against Iran and against his fellow Iraqis? If he was wrong to use them wouldn't his suppliers have been wrong as well? If a junkie is caught with drugs and is willing to tell the police from where the drugs came, aren't the police obligated to pursue the supplier as well?

Certain topics mentioned by Bush should require a throat-clearing 'ahem' from whomever he is speaking to, followed by the actual truth. Whenever he mentions the budget, a statement informing readers that the costs of operating in Iraq were not included. Whenever Social Security is mentioned, that 'ahem' needs to be followed by a statement telling folks that Social Security funds are still being incorporated into the larger budget, to reduce the larger-than-reported deficit. Whenever the Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons is discussed, it needs to be said that we sold them to him and congratulated him on their initial use, so to speak.

The list of corrective 'ahems' is large.

[hvn_nbr_2]

1. Very good points.

I wonder why nobody has responded. Anyway, I'm kickin' this.

Rumbo and Cheney--WMD-pushers to the world.

[harlinchi]

2. I wonder why as well. I always assume that I just didn't...

...present the idea clearly enough. I try to think of what I could have said more effectively. That doesn't take away from the idea that each time these misrepresentations are made they need to have a grown-up explain the reality of the situation.

Thanks for the nudge.