Flipping through the channels last night I stumbled upon the usual pundit yak-fest on one of the 24 Hour News Channels. On one side was the typically meek Democrat (do they only show the meek one's or are Democrats just meek? It's almost painful listening to Democrats these days say- "well, you know the war in Iraq was certainly justified and President Bush is the Greatest President in the History of mankind and San Dimas High Rules! but, umm, well, maybe this isn't such a good idea. I'm just, you know, kind of saying.") versus one of those blonde Republican Ice Queens the 24 Hour News Channels have on speed-dial. The debate, of course, was about those strangely missing WMD's in Iraq. The Democrat was kind of thinking that it might not be such a bad idea to hold some sort of hearing to kind of figure out why, after all the hype, the WMD don't seem to exist.

The Republican's response basically can be summed up by this- the fact that we can't find any WMD is merely proof that we SHOULD have gone into Iraq much earlier because if we would have, we would have found all the WMD's. Because the evidence clearly states that Saddam had them, the fact that we can't find them means that he destroyed them all and by dithering, he was able to destroy them all. In other words, that the fact that we can't find any WMD is actually the U.N.'s fault.

I have to give credit for this one- it's such a preposterously absurd statement that it can't possibly be argued. How can you argue it? It's fricking brilliant. It's so absurd it reminds me of this line from Stephen Colbert on the Daily Show about the buildup to the war:

"All Iraq has to do is get rid of its conventional weapons, disclose the location of its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and destroy them . . . by Monday. If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction it would have to use weapons of mass destruction to destroy them . . . by Monday. But if it does that, it would be an admission that it has weapons of mass destruction, which would be grounds for war."

And, of course, the meek little Democrat never argued the point, nevermind that apparently even Colin Powell thought the evidence was bullshit, or that even most of the evidence he presented turned out to be wrong, or even that we got wrong intelligence during the entire war. And would it be so bad to have an investigation not necessarily because there's a big, huge conspiracy in which Smirkboy and the Smirkettes set up this elaborate lie, but because if they were reacting to bad intelligence, wouldn't it be a good thing to figure it out? Wouldn't having good intelligence be an intelligent thing to have?

And one more thing- I know a thousand people have thought this, but why is lying about getting a blow job from an intern an impeachable offense while lying about some threat to the country to get us into a war isn't?

Are people right when they say that if you're going to lie, lie big- there the one's nobody's gonna disbelieve?

This whole thing pisses me off so much that it actually makes me want to quote Rage Against the Machine lyrics-

Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!
Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!