Here's a thought for the day: In 2002, the Administration claimed that Saddam had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (4 words) but couldn't prove it.
In 2003, the Administration claimed that Saddam had "Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs" (5 words). This was a more general term that didn't have to mean actual 'weapons' -- and thus provided some semantic 'wiggle room' for the President despite the Administration's much-ballyhooed and precise - yet quite circumstantial - show-and-tell at the United Nations last February. (For more on the Administration's semantic 'wiggle room' tactic, please research the circumstances surrounding the now-infamous "sixteen words" used in last year's State of the Union speech.) In early 2004, during last night's State of the Union Address, the Administration now claims that David Kay's inspectors discovered proof that Saddam had dozens of "Weapons of Mass Destruction-Related Program Activities" (7 words). Here, they're using an extremely vague term that could mean pretty much anything, but is the only way to describe the tawdry bit of stuff discovered thus far by our experienced and respected US weapons inspectors. Based on this recent history, I guess the old Washington adage remains true: the more words you use to make your point, the greater the chance you're lying about something. -rick Infowarrior.org/wmd -- You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit www.infowarrior.org for list information or to unsubscribe. This message may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.
