In a word...Sad.
I just went to the Montgomery Advertiser's website, and they have a new online poll up.
It asks the question:
"Which is more important to the War on Terror?"
A. The capture of Saddam Hussein
or
B. Finding weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, I voted "finding weapons of mass destruction." After all, that was the main reason we went over there....or at least that's what the Bush administration would have us believe. They don't seem to like the insinuation that oil and Bush's oil buddies at Halliburton had more reasons to go to war.
Speaking of WMD's, where are they? We've found empty cannisters and cylinders and other items that possibly could be used for weapons, but still no actual proof of weapons.
As of 1:43 am CST, that poll on the Montgomery Advertiser's web site had over 60% of the votes saying that capturing Saddam Hussein was more important than finding weapons of mass destruction. Why? OK, Saddam was a horrible person. He killed so many people that we'll probably never know the exact numbers, but when it comes to the War on Terror, what exactly can he do without those WMD's that everyone was talking about.
Presidential Candidate update:
Today, Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean made a bold statement about the capture of Saddam. He said that America is no safer now than before his capture. We know that our troops are not safer. The day of his capture there were two suicide bombings in Baghdad. How many American troops are going to die before we let the free Iraqi's rule their own country?
Dean has been against the war from the beginning. He said that he is glad Saddam is out of power. The Iraqi people are safer now, but the safety of Americans remains unchanged by this situation.
More info:
Montgomery Advertiser: poll and Saddam coverage
Howard Dean for America
No comments:
Post a Comment