[Peace-discuss] I Meant Geraniums

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

Ken Urban wrote:

>I hear the discourse changing from _having_ WMDs to _programs_ for WMDs.
> Soon it'll switch to _would like to have_ WMDs or _dreamt about_ WMDs.
>
>I thought I heard some silly gov't offical (or news lacky) say that
>Iraq hid/destroyed their WMDs right before the attack. 
>
    Actually, that might have happened, even *during* the attack, to 
whatever remnants they might still have had.  Of course, if true, it 
wouldn't support BushCo's lies, but squander-the-troopsers all across 
the country would crow like roosters that it did just that.

    This is one of the PR 'nightmare scenarios' that could result from 
acting like Iraq had absolutely no WMDs.  They had to have had something 
or other sitting around from the Reaganauts, unless they are more 
efficient than our government is, which seems unlikely.  Eventually - 
however small - it will turn up, which is why 'imminent threat' needs to 
be made the test against which finds are measured in the public eye, 
instead of 'no WMDs'.

    Cries of "Iraq had no WMDs" need to sooner or later be changed to 
"Iraq couldn't use WMDs" if this is a PR battle we want to stay won.  
Bad drives out good, especially in the realm of public opinion.

    Just my 1 cent, back to lurker mode...