Does anybody know if WMD's were found or not? I caught whim of a possibility that WMD's were found, but the information won't be released because it is so close to the elections. They don't want the public thinking that the information was released to slant the election. It will be interesting if this is true and the information is released after the elections. I know what George W. has been saying about it and know that he says none were found.

Any comments?

Well, there was this:
Final report: Iraq had no WMDs
From staff and wire reports
WASHINGTON — When the United States invaded Iraq last year to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or any facilities to build them, according to a definitive report released Wednesday.

By Tim Dillon, USA TODAY

The 1,000-page report by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer, a document that President Bush said would represent the last word on the issue, confirms earlier findings and undermines much of the Bush administration's case about the Iraq weapons threat, though it does say Saddam intended to restart his weapons programs once United Nations sanctions were lifted.

Using the research of the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Group, Duelfer concluded that Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War," the report states.

The findings were similarly definitive concerning chemical and biological weapons: "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991" and the survey team found "no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production."

The report, released four weeks before the presidential election, immediately became political fodder.

Bush's spokesman said the report justified the decision to go to war. Campaigning in Pennsylvania, Bush defended the decision to invade.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," the president said in a speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

A spokesman for opponent John Kerry said the report "underscores the incompetence of George Bush's Iraq policy."

"George Bush refuses to come clean about the ways he misled our country into war," Kerry spokesman David Wade added.

"In short, we invaded a country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+Saddam+destroyed+weapons+in+1991%2C+report+says&expire=&urlID=11862184&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2 Firaq%2F2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm&partnerID=1660

Does this mean that the master list Iraq sent to the UN detailing weapons programs was somehow accurate? Or, at least, respectable?

Did anyone even translate those documents?

No weapons of mass destruction have been discovered. I can assure you that if there where, that info would be released as it would be in Bush's favour.

It was discovered however I believe, that Sadaam was intentionally perpetrating that he still had them. It's sad that the intelligence community of most of the world was fooled by his charade.

Does this mean that the master list Iraq sent to the UN detailing weapons programs was somehow accurate?

'fraid so Tiassa.

Lest we forget.

The details of Iraq's declaration could be a key determinant of U.S. policy toward Iraq. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, passed November 8, Iraq must provide "an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles.

Two things..

1. If Iraq was not in breach of 1441 then that would tend to indicate that the war was errr illegal.

2. Looks like the only pol not lying was Saddam. That tickles me pink! The only man proved trustworthy was the brutal dictator. :D

It was discovered however I believe, that Sadaam was intentionally perpetrating that he still had them.

Yup he didn't want Iran to find out he was way behind in the WMD stakes.
Looks like we did the mulla's a big favour.

It's sad that the intelligence community of most of the world was fooled by his charade.

Hmm. He did say he didn't have them Wes and he wasn't lying so I guess it's sad indeed.
We went to war because we're stupid.
How edifying is that?
Dee Cee

1. If Iraq was not in breach of 1441 then that would tend to indicate that the war was errr illegal.

But they were in breach of 1441, just not nearly to the extent that was confirmed by pretty much all available intelligence. The problem seems to me that the intelligence community was cocky, and Sadaam just played right into that arrogance as you mention. It wasn't just Iran that he intended to fool do you think?

2. Looks like the only pol not lying was Saddam. That tickles me pink!

But that's freakin wrong. He was intentionally lying to make the world think he was a bigshot. I don't blame him, but you can't say it wasn't a lie. Looks like it backfired for him personally, as he'll likely be executed now eh?

The only man proved trustworthy was the brutal dictator. :D

How incredibly distorted.

Yup he didn't want Iran to find out he was way behind in the WMD stakes.

But you're all giddy that he wasn't lying and then kind of gloss over the lie? Is that consistent?

Looks like we did the mulla's a big favour.

By replacing his threat of WMDs with the US army? I don't see how that's a favor.

Hmm. He did say he didn't have them Wes and he wasn't lying so I guess it's sad indeed.

That's simply incorrect. He was lying, just not in the way everyone thought.

We went to war because we're stupid.

Well DeeCee, I dig you in general man, but that's just as you stated: stupid. Bush did the right thing based on the information he had and the weight of his responsibility. He is mandated to protect American interests. He apparently takes the job seriously. I realize how easy it is to second guess in retrospect, don't you? Given all the evidence and the political scenario with Iraq at the same time, I believe it was a very valid decision to determine Iraq too much of a risk to allow to continue on their path. We went to war because given the scenario, it was the right thing to do. Even with retrospect, I still think it was the right thing to do. I must just be that I'm stupid too. Surely I'm not fair, or really trying for an objective analysis. Surely it's not because I realized that when I used to hate Bush, I hated him because he is who he is... surely it's not because once I pulled my head out of my hating ass I decided to give the man a fair shot.

From your perspective, I must just be stupid. How can I entertain you boss?

From my perspective, you're just part of the "I hate bush but can't admit it to myself crowd" and you are simply incapable of a fair analysis of this situation.

The bottom line is if Bush is re-elected, expect the same for Iran of North Korea! Stupid is to kind of word to use when it comes to Bush....I would the word 'Idiot", which is probably more closer to what he really is!

Atta Boy

You'd think that all of the sky would long since have fallen, thus leaving nothing left to post about around here.

Y'all been reading too much Mary Shelly.

"It's alive!"

But they were in breach of 1441

S'true in so much as the inspectors were denied the free and open access that the resolution required but as the aim of 1441 was disarmament I think it's a fair argument to suggest that Saddam complied (willingly or not) to the aims of the resolution rather than the text. One cannot help but wonder if a more limited use of force along with continued UN inspections may have produced a more satisfactory result for all. Well for all those who were not likely to derive any financial benefit from the occupation and 'westernisation' of Iraq at any rate.

It wasn't just Iran that he intended to fool do you think?

I think not. He was keen to fool both his generals and his populace too. To retain power one needs to be thought of as powerfull. A brief glance around the world shows just how universal this idea has become.
Since my last post I've stumbled across this article which nicely draws together the findings of of the ISG as well as the 'debriefings' of Saddam and senior members of his regime held in custody.
Much to my regret Iran gains no mention. :(
Shortly before the war last year, Saddam gathered his top generals together to share what came to them as astonishing news: the weapons that the US was launching a war to remove did not exist....
...according to presidential adviser and Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, it fitted in with one of Saddam's own favourite military precepts that the 'better part of war was deceiving'. To avoid appearing weak, Saddam gave out confusing messages about the fact he had disarmed.

It's well worth looking over if you have the time.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1323878,00.html

How incredibly distorted.

Hence the smiley :)
I've learnt a lot about spin and distortion over the last couple of years and my tutors were masters of the art. One should always look to our elected leaders as good examples don't you think? They made it to the very top of our respective societies after all.
Still the fact remains that Iraq made an essentially truthfull account before the UN and our leaders, for whatever reason, did not.

By replacing his threat of WMDs with the US army? I don't see how that's a favor.

Well...
I guess the chances of the US invading Iran are about zero now. If GW appears on the TV and tells America that Iran has to go and presents 'evidence' to prove his point I doubt that he will get the support he needs from either the populace the military or the very rich people who paid for his re-election.
Would you believe him?
One things for sure there's no way the political climate in the UK would allow Tony Blair to offer you any support.
Of course I may be wrong but I think the disaster of Iraq has probably saved Iran a lot of grief.

He was lying, just not in the way everyone thought.

So was that fact a known unknown or an unknown known? :)
Ah the language of war!

The problem with George...

Bush did the right thing based on the information he had

Well what information did he have?
What has become obvious is that the intellegence presented by the CIA was delivered with warnings about its reliability and veracity. The defense
Intelligence Agency concluded in pre war 2002
. . . there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has--or will--establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.
Furthe comments by Greg Thielmann, retired State Department official and director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs in the Bureau of Intelligence, said in July 03
They surveyed the data, and picked out what they liked. The whole thing was bizarre. The Secretary of Defense had this huge Defense Intelligence Agency, and he went around it.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s020304d.html

There's much more in this vein by disillusioned members of the intelligence services you only need look. Here in the UK the suicide of David Kelly is a particularly interesting example of how the intel was altered for public consumption. There are now two new phrases in the local lexicon. We talk about 'dodgey dossiers' and 'sexed up' intelligence.

IMHO (and I'm sure you'll disagree) GW was going to war with Iraq way back before he grafted himself into office. All he needed was an opportunity and a reason to present to the American people.

Sad to say y'all fell for it. Me too to a certain extent. I never believed that war was the right approach but I did believe that at least some weapons existed.
The lack of respect I now have for my leaders and my disappointment at the lack of change generated by the massive amount of public anger over here have served to undermine my belief in the power of democracy.
I guess we all victims of the war one way or another but thats war for you.

Bush did the right thing based on the information he had and the weight of his responsibility. He is mandated to protect American interests. He apparently takes the job seriously.

This is the crux of our disagreement Wes I see that statement as an act of faith. How do you know who George loves the most? Could be America could be God or it could be dollars. I don't hate George Bush (I don't hate anybody), I just don't trust him. He treats the American populace like idiots and delivers his patronising speeches in the manner of a TV evangalist.
The mans persona and history are so riddled with contradictions and secrets that I just can't take him seriously. He sounds like a used car salesman.
Besides he seems to think that god has a plan for america.
Fuck!
If you didn't know who he was and found yourself sat next to him on the bus you'd wanna change seats within five minutes.
Bottom line. George is widely discredited and enjoys (very) little support outside of the old USA. He aint your saviour anymore just a cross you have to bear and the source of a shitload of new found global anti-Americanism.

From your perspective, I must just be stupid.

We both live in democracies and I know for a fact that survey after survey shows the majority of people in my country are opposed to our involvement in the Iraq adventure, an adventure our taxes are paying for. Despite our pretentions to freedom we were still ignored by those we entrusted with high office. I don't know about the situation over there but I know you aint the only stupid one.

This 'war' has made fools of us all.
I guess in time we will reap what we sow. That, at least, appears to be a universal law.
Take care now.
Dee Cee

But they were in breach of 1441

S'true in so much as the inspectors were denied the free and open access that the resolution required but as the aim of 1441 was disarmament I think it's a fair argument to suggest that Saddam complied (willingly or not) to the aims of the resolution rather than the text.

But if they aren't giving free and open access... and all the folks involved with the UN are bought off... how the fuck can you have a clue as to disarmament... prudence dictates (especially given 9/11 and america's (as you view if I remember right) childish reaction to it) that you have to assume he's dicking you around because he's hiding the weapons. It turns out he was dicking us around so we wouldn't find out he didn't have them. Regardless, not knowing that at the time, IMO, it was simply irresponsible of the UN not to take action. Being bought why would they? FUCK AMERICA eh? Bush took the responsibility, knowing the risk that the kind of disgust for him already exists could amplify 100 fold if he was wrong or dicked it up for whatever reason. He had the stones to do the right thing in the face of a planet full of angry folks who were being lied to by Sadaam and the UN.

I don't give a shit what the rest of you say, I respect him for that. Frankly I think if any of you fuckers would get over yourselves for a second and really take a look at the scene - you might too. Note that I voted for Gore the first round and really, really couldn't stand Bush. I don't like his public persona much, as he seems like an idiot in it - but he isn't. Watching him in casual situations (like in Journeys with George), he may be kind of uh... well, a politician, but all I can say is that he seems like a decent guy trying to do the right thing by what he knows. Meh. Whatever. I'm sure that's a pointless paragraph.

One cannot help but wonder if a more limited use of force along with continued UN inspections may have produced a more satisfactory result for all.

While I haven't read the report, reports I've read about it indicate no. The UN was bought, inspections were a sham. Regime change was completely appropriate.

Well for all those who were not likely to derive any financial benefit from the occupation and 'westernisation' of Iraq at any rate.

Well, I don't blame the coalition for dissallowing the world full of people who hate them (mostly the US) to reap some of the rewards for doing it. I mean, the US paid the cost to do it right? Shouldn't we put some of those dollars back into the US economy? I don't see how that isn't perfectly rational.

Hence the smiley :)

Ah... well... okay.

I've learnt a lot about spin and distortion over the last couple of years and my tutors were masters of the art. One should always look to our elected leaders as good examples don't you think? They made it to the very top of our respective societies after all.

It's a rough game out there. That's a discussion of its own really. Sadly, once invoked, it becomes necessary in order to have a chance at winning elections as far as I can tell. It's ugly. I'm not sure how to fix it, but I'd say they all play the game to some degree, and partisans seem rampant and viscious on all sides to me.

Still the fact remains that Iraq made an essentially truthfull account before the UN and our leaders, for whatever reason, did not.

But the reason they did and the reason the US did not is because Iraq lied to and bought everyone prior to that presentation. While it's problematic, it doesn't assign fault except on the world's intelligence resources, with were prone to buy the logical premise that "he wants them, we have evidence (that he provided in a backwards way) that he has them". Very tricky of him. How... if he wasn't allowing inspectors access, was dicking them around and had the UN bought off.. how then should anyone be able to tell otherwise?

Well...
I guess the chances of the US invading Iran are about zero now. If GW appears on the TV and tells America that Iran has to go and presents 'evidence' to prove his point I doubt that he will get the support he needs from either the populace the military or the very rich people who paid for his re-election.

Perhaps you under-estimate. Perhaps not. Hard to say eh?

Would you believe him?

Actually I probably would. Mostly because I think if he said it, he would probably ensure that the foibles of the last endeavor were addressed. Perhaps I'd be wrong.

One things for sure there's no way the political climate in the UK would allow Tony Blair to offer you any support.

*shrug*

Of course I may be wrong but I think the disaster of Iraq has probably saved Iran a lot of grief.

That remains to be seen. I can't imagine having the US looming right across the border makes them more comfortable, even if they think he won't invade.. he's a cowboy right? Hehe... they can't be real comfortable about that. I'd think actually, that they are sweating the scenario pretty hard - given the whole cowboy thing.

So was that fact a known unknown or an unknown known? :)
Ah the language of war!

It was a bunch of guys who bit on a logical premise. They were wrong, but intentionally led down that path.

Well what information did he have?

A lot, you know what it is. Choose to ignore it if you want, but please... consider yourself in his position for a second. You're in charge of the safety of america (commander in chief even). You see 9/11 hit. You know Iraq rewards terrorists and lets them set up shop in his country. You know he wants WMDs and are almost sure he already has them. You know he hates the US and really, really wants to stab us where it hurts. Can you allow the risk of allowing him to just keep fuckign with the world (which it turns out, he had been buying through the UN) after 12 years of sanctions that give you every right to take him down? (please note that's why the other countries of the 'axis of evil' weren't the first and foremost, along with Iraq being in the heart of darkness so to speak, right in the middle of the main area producing terrorists). Could you go to sleep at night thinking about 9/11 and knowing that was just a taste of what's in store and really think "nah, it'll work out through the UN". I couldn't. I would have taken him down. Turns out as far as I can tell two years later or whatever, it was a fucking great move - even if it's an expensive one. Given the extent of the corruption in the UN, America might have been shit out of luck if we hadn't gone in and gotten the papers that show who's fucking who. Without that, perhaps this nation was doomed eh? I mean, I'm no conspiracy theorist until I find evidence of a conspiracy. Hmmm.. yes indeed, I smell it here. I wonder how far it would have gone and how much worse the US might suffer in the long run in we hadn't done this now. Pardon for the run-on paragraph.

There's much more in this vein by disillusioned members of the intelligence services you only need look. Here in the UK the suicide of David Kelly is a particularly interesting example of how the intel was altered for public consumption.

I hate to sound like I'm going to, but I'm somewhat sensitive to the nature of secrets and would always expect intel to be "altered for public consumption" - always to the ends of those doing the altering. Whether or not their cause it a noble one is the more important question to me. In retrospect, it was.

There are now two new phrases in the local lexicon. We talk about 'dodgey dossiers' and 'sexed up' intelligence.

Gotta love the brits. I want more American things to be "sexed up" damnit.

IMHO (and I'm sure you'll disagree) GW was going to war with Iraq way back before he grafted himself into office.

I think that's pure presumption. I have seen nothing to indicate that besides haters spewing contempt. It's wild speculation. You were in the man's head? Nah, but it fits your image of him so you indulge it. Typical. I did the same thing for a while so who am I to fault you for it? I'd just think however if you wish to be reasonable, you'd stop that stupid shit.

All he needed was an opportunity and a reason to present to the American people.

Okay, let's go with that. Why not? It was American policy right? Regime change was a doctrine adopted by Clinton right? He was part of the plot! Yeah! Fuck that shit man. This Sadaam apologist bullshit is fucked up. We were right, he was fucking us and he paid. He did a good fucking job of setting Bush up to take some flack though eh? And man, the global population is all to willing to give it out. It's so easy to hate.

Sad to say y'all fell for it. Me too to a certain extent. I never believed that war was the right approach but I did believe that at least some weapons existed.

As if you and I had a fucking clue. THe people in play, the experts... they thought he had them. It fit perfectly. He WOULD HAVE HAD THEM if we'd have just quit fucking with him long enough.. so we weren't really wrong except that our interference at the time in some ways was workign better than we thought and in others, it was fucked. Did I mention he bought the UN? Jesus fucking christ. And people sit around blaming the US? Whiners.

The lack of respect I now have for my leaders and my disappointment at the lack of change generated by the massive amount of public anger over here have served to undermine my belief in the power of democracy.

How intellectual. My heart really bleeds for ya. You don't even see your bullshit do you? Man, you fucking hate Bush but can't admit it to yourself because your self-image mandates "I'm a good guy". You ARE a good guy man, but you fucking hate Bush. Pull your head out of your ass for a second and give this shit a fair shake! Lose your presumption and start over!

I guess we all victims of the war one way or another but thats war for you.

Life is rough man. Roll with it. Be glad he was taken out now because if the US went down... ya think the UK was going for the ride? Perhaps I'm wrong, but with the behind the scene scheming via UN corruption, I'm not sure what the hell might have happened were it allowed to continue... I mean, we would have eventually dropped the sanctions, he would have started producing WMDs and then what? He probably would have just left everyone alone right? Well, I don't think that's a wise risk to take. I know he wasn't al-kaida, but I'm sure he was a big fan of their work regarding America.

This is the crux of our disagreement Wes I see that statement as an act of faith.

Then perhaps you should squint, because coming into this I had NO faith in Bush at all. What I told you was based on as nuetral analysis I can present. It simply fits the data I have.

How do you know who George loves the most?

Of course I don't. All I have is a best guess and that I decided I should try to be fair - even though I didn't like him at all.

Could be America could be God or it could be dollars.

Sure. What's the most logical sans hate though? Good economy, america, kids? That kind of thing? I mean it could be that given his upbringing, any semblance of humanity might just really move the man. Isn't that as likely as otherwise? No, you don't think so do you?

I don't hate George Bush (I don't hate anybody), I just don't trust him.

I'm sorry man, but given your argument I just don't see that as credible. If you just "didn't trust him" you'd consider the argument given the benefit of the doubt from time to time. It's much more fun just to pick on his poor public speaking eh? Shit I'm down with that I guess but it doesn't really tell you much about reality, it's just entertaining.

He treats the American populace like idiots and delivers his patronising speeches in the manner of a TV evangalist.

Really? He hasn't come to my house and treated me like an idiot. Maybe if the American people can't see through the unforunately seemingly required rhetoric, they shouldn't. That would go for anyone. What if however, that the message behind the rhetoric is really what the rhetoric says, but much more complicated? Is he a shit for speaking to a target audience? Is he a shit for listening to his advisors who have this shit down to a statistical mombo? Is he a shit for being a bad public speaker from the POV of the 'smart people' like you and I? Do any of those things disqualify him as commander in chief? Admit that you just hate him. The look on his face, the whole shebang. That dude just rubs you the wrong way. I see it too man, I saw it on his face in the first debate. I couldn't stand the stupid icky look on his face during part of it... but really... really... does that make him bad? Ever met anyone you thought was scouling that it turned out they weren't, but their face just looks weird to you like that? Know what I mean? Since you percieved it that way... is it necessarily true? You ever had a scowl on your face? You ever had to stand there in front of 100 million people while some traitorous, self involved whore tells you how bad you are at your job... and everyone believes him simply because they can't understand the big picture you've been knee deep in for four years? Fuck I don't know, I'm not really taking his side so much as trying to understand his perspective.

The mans persona and history are so riddled with contradictions and secrets that I just can't take him seriously.

Right, but you don't hate him.

He sounds like a used car salesman.

*shrug*

Besides he seems to think that god has a plan for america.
Fuck!

Well, I find that as disturbing as you do... but I know a lot of men of faith that I find to be much more respectable men than myself. I don't fault him for his belief, nor do I think it is necessarily bad for this country - even though I personally disagree vehemently on that particular tip.

If you didn't know who he was and found yourself sat next to him on the bus you'd wanna change seats within five minutes.
You simply don't fucking know that you goddamned hating hater. Hehe. What if you're wrong? What if he gave you a line of coke? What if he fired up a joint with you and stared humming bob marley? It's SO easy to hate.

Bottom line. George is widely discredited and enjoys (very) little support outside of the old USA.

Pffft. Big deal. Four years ago we were cool, we'll be cool again (probably the minute bush is out of office). The weight of public opinion is highly dynamic... didn't you notice? If people would pull their heads out of their asses, they might find that W did the world a big favor, and nonetheless he did his duty to america. Perhaps it will be a problem to stay, I doubt it.

He aint your saviour anymore just a cross you have to bear and the source of a shitload of new found global anti-Americanism.
That shit will die down in the aftermath of this thing, probably after he's out of office. Hell the minute he leaves in four years the world will throw a party. "yay, now we can go back to selling out america behind their backs". What a crock. It's funny, put Kerry in and I bet that whole oil for food thing just stops getting press again, because his arrogance stupidity will allow them to tuck us right back into bed, selling us out. Soon enough, WMDs slip into the hands of those who's opinion doesn't swing like their dick in the breeze and who really, REALLY hate america. They'll get in, take out a city or few over a number of years and America's years as the world economic leader are history, as their economy collapses to less than half because no one has confidence they won't be blown up. As that happens, the jackals swoop in, more dirty alliances are made... and well, enough conjecture. It's funny to me, the picture of an asshat like Kerry standing next to Bush saying "he took his eye off the ball" when in fact, that statement is moving everyone's eye off the ball who would believe it. What a patriot. Hell man, he's necessarily a sellout if he gets elected, because france, germany and russia are gonna laugh at his ass if he doesn't do exactly what they want. He [i]has to get their help now, or he hasn't a shot at public approval, so the fuck with his own arrogant stupidity talked himself right into their back pocket. And mutherfuckers are going to vote for this loser. I simply can't believe it. Fuck if you hate bush vote for nader, not some self-righteous who's waving his ass in the air just asking any country who's willing to fuck it. Thank you democratic party, for selling out America. At least the republicans sell us out to ourselves (corporations).

We both live in democracies and I know for a fact that survey after survey shows the majority of people in my country are opposed to our involvement in the Iraq adventure, an adventure our taxes are paying for.
Maybe they're a bunch of haters though eh? Maybe if you didn't have such a fucking decent guy working at the top, you'd all be as fucked as America? No it's probably not that they all have opinions distorted by their lacking understanding of the complexity of the scenario... couldn't be that. What if it turns out that despite their incessant whining, they're wrong and goddamn lucky to have people in charge that take their fucking jobs seriously? Meh. I'm ranting now. I don't mean to be insulting if I have been deecee, I think you're a sharp guy... I know you are. I'm just on a rant now.

I don't know about the situation over there but I know you aint the only stupid one.
Uh huh.

This 'war' has made fools of us all.
Actually to me no, it's the people who reject it so blindly who are fools as far as I can see.