Leaky Faucet at Twentybelow

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq
could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a
smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors
said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for
attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves,
didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil
man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own
people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies.
Everyone agrees that he is apower- hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-
hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did.
He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our
ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light
theinvasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could
sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama
Bin Ladenhimself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to
suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan
to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin
Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same:
there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and
Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels
Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape.
Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison
factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of
Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate
student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraquis scuttling and hiding evidence from
inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons
inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot
be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because
resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not
act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating
society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security
council?

WM: Absolutely ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade
Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them
tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against
war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses
its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected
by the U.S. Supreme C...-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders,
however they were elected, because they are acting in our best
interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we
are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have
weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such
weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago,
and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would
degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such
weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable
chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range
missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled
nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America
into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we
cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has
been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and
inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical
Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the
way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland
Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't
these change
the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world
has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to
do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such
as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to
listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an an obligation to listen to the Security
Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the
Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support
us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe
France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up!

Please get active! The war may be just hours away!

- Vic Forsythe