Friday, February 29, 2008

Mr. Fob on the Issues: The War

One of my sisters posted on our private family blog last week sharing some of her thoughts on the three presidential candidates still in the running and soliciting opinions from the rest of us. While busy working on other things over the past week, I've been thinking of what I'd say. I've mentioned here that I support Barack Obama, but haven't really gotten into why (beyond all the love he's getting from the hip-hop community), so I figured I might as well kill two birds with one stone and reply to my sister's request here where the whole world can see and mock my reasoning. This is quickly becoming a monster of a post in my head, though, so I'm going to split it into a few posts on the issues that matter most to me.

Among these is the war in Iraq. Remember the one George W. Bush triumphantly declared was over like five years ago? Yeah, that one. It boggles my mind that the only thing that so many Christians--and Mormons particularly--remember about Bill Clinton is that he had sex with Monica Lewinsky, and they accuse that one act of rending asunder the moral fabric of our nation, and yet they continue to stand behind Bush. Don't get me wrong--I believe that adultery is a pretty horrible thing, especially when it involves the abuse of power like that of the president of the United States, but I'm pretty sure most people agree that murder is worse than adultery. According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, nearly 4,000 Americans have died in Iraq since March of 2003. That's nothing compared to the more than 40,000 Iraqi soldiers and citizens who have been killed just since January of 2005. And yet George W. Bush, the man responsible for these deaths, is somehow a stalwart of moral integrity because he likes to mention God in his speeches?

What does George W. Bush have to do with the current election? Well, the only reason Bush was able to muster up the support to invade Iraq is by capitalizing on the tremendous tragedy of 9/11 to convince Americans that they should be shaking in fear of those evil terrorists in the Middle East with their weapons of mass destruction--the weapons he never found in Iraq, by the way, and the terrorists who had nothing to do with Iraq until George came in and screwed the country over.

Now, I really don't hate John McCain. He seems like a genuinely good person and I like a lot of his policies. What terrifies me about him, though, is that he seems to have every intention of continuing George W. Bush's "War on Terror" and is already using the very same scare tactics that Bush has been using for the past seven years. He reminds voters frequently of the constant threat of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the need to "secure the American homeland." Something cartoonist Aaron McGruder pointed out in an interview a few years ago (sorry, no link) is that, just like a "War on Drugs," we can never win a "War on Terror" because there will always be terrorists and the second we say we've won the war and then terrorists blow up another building, we look like idiots. And when people like Bush and McCain are using this so-called "War on Terror" to "temporarily" take away Americans' rights, that means our loss of those rights isn't so temporary after all.

Along with John McCain, Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq invasion in 2003. I would be willing to forgive her for that, as she now claims to see the error of that decision, except that now she's indulging in "War on Terror"-like scare tactics in order to convince voters that she will do a better job than Barack Obama of protecting our innocent sleeping children from those evil terrorists who go bump in the night.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, has been opposed to the war from the beginning and he recognizes scare tactics when he sees them. He did not vote for or against the invasion because he wasn't a U.S. senator at the time, but he did speak at anti-war rallies, making his position clear. Whereas McCain seems to think that sending more American troops will somehow fix Bush's little snafu, Obama recognizes that enough people have died already and sending more troops to kill and be killed won't solve anything. Certainly the U.S. owes it to Iraq to not leave them high and dry, but there are better ways to support them than bombing them.

31 comments:

bawb said...

Yeah, I think Obama's going to own once the Democratic primaries are over and he doesn't have to be use so much blue-collar rhetoric. I'm delighted to hear allegations that he's secretly economically competent.

Mr. Fob said...

Yeah, you'll notice that I won't be writing a Mr. Fob on the Issues: Economics post. Not because I don't notice or care about the fact that our economy sucks right now, but because I don't understand enough to even fake a half-intelligent opinion. I'm kind of confused by the whole NAFTA thing, though a bit concerned by the implication that Obama is saying things just to please blue-collar voters, as that sort of empty political rhetoric is anathema to the person I'd like to believe he is.

C. L. Hanson said...

I agree. I like Obama for a lot of reasons, but the war is a key part of it.

SenecaSis said...

The Iraq war--it's deceitful origins and it's overdue ending--is one of my greatest annoyances. It, too, is also one of my reasons for supporting Obama. But you say it so much more eloquently and clearly than I. So I'd just like to add an "Amen!" to your post.

Bryce's Ramblings said...

When it comes to the war, I tend to dislike opening my mouth in opinion one way or another. My problem with it is that today everyone's looking back on the decision and second guessing. At the time, the majority of the country was convinced Hussein had WMDs (85% according to some polls), and there was little doubt he was harboring terrorists. So we went in with the expectations that we'd have a little scuffle, oust Hussein, be embraced with open arms by all Iraqis, and then go home. Overly simplistic? Certainly. Were there errors made in how surveillance was analyzed? Without a doubt. The fact is we should have known what we were getting ourselves into, and we didn't. Right now, America is judging Bush harshly for that. However, I can't help but think that if there's ever another terrorist attack on US soil during the next presidency, it'll take all of three seconds for people to start saying "This would never have happened under the Bush administration." I find the criticisms of Bush so curious. On the one hand, people accuse him of being an inept, bumbling idiot of a president. Yet on the other, they accuse him of being this scheming, malevolent puppet master. He can't be both, people.

Sigh. This is why I don't open my mouth about this.

But as long as I've opened it, I'd like to say I bristled a bit at your "so many Christians--and Mormons particularly" line. It came across as rather stereotypical, and since I don't consider myself part of that stereotype, I resented it. I remember Clinton for many things more than just Lewinsky. You're forgetting Gennifer Flowers and Whitewater. :-)

However, seriously, comparing Bush's war with Clinton's infidelity doesn't work all that well with me. Unless you argue that Bush knew 100% that what he was doing was wrong, and that he willfully lied about it--neither of which I believe--then the argument falls apart. It's not like Clinton was unsure whether or not he had had sex with Lewinsky, and . . .

Meh. I've lost desire to type about this. I hope you take my comment the right way. I'm not a huge fan of McCain (though please, anyone but Huckleberry). I dislike Hilary with a vengeance, and I like Obama quite a bit (though I'd like him more if he got around to specifics a bit more often). In my opinion, the Iraq War is being used as a rhetorical tool on both sides of the aisle. It's being oversimplified and . . .

That's all I'll say about that for now.

Mr. Fob said...

Chanson: Yeah, I have a lot of other reasons too but I put this one first intentionally.

SenecaSis: Thanks!

Bryce: Thanks for voicing your dissent--I don't deserve to write a post like this and only get people telling me how much they agree with me. I remember the day U.S. forces invaded Iraq, I felt sick--as did, I imagine, the rest of that 15% who saw Bush's facade for what it was. Not that I blame that 85% who believed his lies, necessarily. Yes, I do believe that he knew very well there were no WMDs in Iraq and that he presented the country with faulty intelligence to serve his own purposes. Yes, he is a bumbling idiot, but he's amoral enough to do what his scheming, malevolent advisors tell him to. Honestly, if the goal of the invasion were simply to take out one man, we have the technology and the resources to do that without starting a war. When you want to kill one man, you send in spy planes and snipers; when you want to start a war that you expect to boost your publicity and feed your oil companies, you send in thousands upon thousands of barely-trained eighteen-year-old boys.

I make the connection between Bush and Clinton only because I've heard so many Christians--and yes, particularly Mormons because those are the majority of Christians I know--make that same connection. I should have clarified, though, that I personally hang out with a disproportionate number of middle-to-left-leaning Mormons, who don't reduce Clinton's eight-year presidency to his sex life. I apologize for bristling you with my stereotyping.

And yes, I agree--anyone but Huckabee.

Bryce's Ramblings said...

I forgot about the Bush as puppet argument, one which I can't argue with, because it might be true. Curses! You win this time, Mr. Fob. But I shall plot my revenge. And when the time is right, and the country is fooled into believing me, then I shall send my army of poorly trained 18 year old iguanas to do my bidding. Before you can say spider hole, I'll have you! Mwa ha ha ha!

Mr. Fob said...

Thanks for the warning. I'll keep my iguana repellent handy.

cool_guy said...

Ben - check out these various views of what war is, compared to what we think it is-you may agree or disagree but the perspectives are valid and real. I especially enjoyed the interview with Susan Sontag re Bosnia - I spent time there myself during that war.

http://www.studio360.org/episodes/2008/02/29

Mr. Fob said...

Thanks for the link, Cool Guy. Foxy and I recently saw a film called I Know I'm Not Alone about Michael Franti's tour of Iraq, Israel, and Palestine in 2005. (If you haven't already seen it, I think you'd enjoy it.) What struck me most about the film is that most Americans--myself included--really have no idea of what it's like to live in a war zone. I talked abou the number of deaths in this post, but really that's just the tip of the iceberg; what about all the people who have to live through all this? It's easy for us to have our debates about the war and to talk about it in terms of protecting ourselves from these foreign enemies, because the people who have to live with the consequences of our decisions are on the other side of the world. Like Sontag says in her interview about images of war, actually seeing what war is from such an intimate perspective can have a powerful impact--as I imagine you know much better than I do.

green mormon architect said...

If the election were held today, I would probably vote for Obama. I like that he would immediately begin bringing troops home, but I do have a reservation. Even though he opposed the war initially, while a Senator he voted a bunch of times for war appropriations totalling over $300 billion, according to a Boston Globe article exactly a year ago (Mar 2007). If elected, I hope he wouldn't do a similar backstep and stop the troop withdrawal, especially if/when problems arise, as they are bound to.

Mr. Fob said...

Yeah, as enthusiastic as I am about Obama, I do have that little nagging fear that we'll find out come next January that he was all talk--because, you know, sometimes if something seems too good to be true it is too good to be true. When it comes down to it, though, I trust him to keep his word more than I do Clinton or McCain.

Angie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Angie said...

Ben, I really appreciate you opening this discussion. I value your opinions and have been very interested to hear others opinions on the topics. Here are some of my thoughts in response to yours...

Re: Mormons/Christians/Clinton- you are probably right. Too many U.S citizens (not only Mormons/Christians) do not know enough about what happens in politics. But every one does know about President Clintons affair because it was so highly publicized- so of course that would be the biggest connection made. I don't feel this is a reflection of the ignorance or Mormons/Christians, but a reflection of the ignorance of U.S. citizens in general. I will be first to admit that I need to get more involved and know what is going on, but from what I have seen/heard of President Clinton he does not have integrity. I feel strongly that the character of a nation does reflect the character of the leaders in that nation.

Re: Bush and War- I totally agree with "Bryce's Ramblings". I also found your comparison between the war on terrorism and the war on drugs very valid. I think with both terrorists and drugs there is a fine line between turning our head the other way (ignoring our responsibility to make the world a safe place) and getting your self in to a no win situation. I would hate to be the one in the position to have to make that decision- especially on a national level. Although we did not find proof of weapons in Iraq, it is definitely clear that the leadership was evil and corrupt and in support of terroristic acts.

That is a really serious allegation to say that President Bush's intentions to go to war were purely out of greed. If this really is true then President Bush would truly be a very evil man and I would agree with you that he is worse than Clinton. If he truly went to war for any reasons other than to protect our freedom, then I would also consider him a murderer. I suppose then the question is - judging President Bush's character- is he truly that evil of a man? Personally I don't think so.

I know there have been people through out history that disguise their evil intentions under a pretend devotion to God, but I just really don't think Bush is one of them.

So what does this have to do with this election? Well I suppose that if you feel that it was totally selfish reasons for going into Iraq then it would seem the best thing to do now is to immediately pull out. And for those who felt it was vital to our nations freedom that we entered Iraq then those people would be more inclined to feel we should stay until we are finished.

I think more importantly the question is- right now, how beneficial is our presence there? I am not quite sure I am decided on this issue.

I am curious to hear your ideas of alternative things we can do to help Iraq if we pull all of our military out.

Mr. Fob said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Angie. I think you make a very valid point about Americans' political ignorance, and you're right--it has nothing to do with religion. I'm guilty myself of not being aware enough of what's going on in the world around me. I'm trying to do better, following the news more than I used to (which was not at all), but there's so much I don't follow and/or don't understand.

There's no question that Saddam Hussein was evil and corrupt, but so are the leaders of so many other countries in the world that we turn a blind eye to so long as they give us what we want. The royal family of Saudi Arabia, for example, is far worse than Hussein ever was, but because the Bush family does oil business with them, the U.S. has left them alone. I have a hard time seeing how the choice to invade Iraq (long-time enemies of Saudi Arabia, coincidentally) was not motivated by Bush's greed.

I believe the American military presence in Iraq right now is hurting them more than helping. I think if there's anything we can do to help them, it's more along the lines of what organizations like the Peace Corps do, providing education and health care, than anything the military can do. That won't solve all their problems, but we're at a point now where there's nothing we can do to solve their problems. If we're worried about terrorist groups from the Middle East attacking us, then we should do what we can to improve our own nation's security--without violating our citizens' rights--and then try to improve our image in the rest of the world by not throwing our weight around and randomly invading countries we don't like.

Another reason I support Obama is because I believe he can make create a positive image of the U.S. around the world, whereas Bush has succeeded only in making more enemies.

Th. said...

.

The war is the one issue I took so long coming around to the proObama camp. Regardless of how we got there or why we got there, we are there. And my understanding of Obama's rhetoric on the war was let's-leave-and-damn-the-consequences. It's nice that we can blame the war on one person, but America is not one country and it someone want to take retaliation for Iraq, they probably won't stick with a ranch somewhere in Texas. American made the mess. And responsible people (and nations) clean up there messes.

So. Speaking of NPR (and sorry--don't remember which show so I can't link) I heard an interview with a journalist / former ambassador who has spent a lot of time in Iraq and Afghanistan and is insistent that, although the war was ill-conceived, it must be followed through on. He stated his concerns pretty much exactly as I felt them--only with much more information and some actual personal experience to make them valid.

He also felt me concern re:Obama and asked Obama about what Bush might call his Cut&Run philosophy. Obama told him (molaq) "We need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we weren't careful getting in."

The man interviewed shared a few more Obamaslroan details and said he liked what he heard, and so did I. I haven't worried about Obama & The War since.

I voted for him in the primaries (but it was either vote Democrat or vote American Independent or not vote) and, barring any change in opinion (or available candidates), expect to vote for him again in November.

We shall see.

Mr. Fob said...

I agree that America has a certain responsibility in Iraq regardless of which American got us in there, but I think (and I think Obama thinks and probably you do too), that said responsibility doesn't necessarily involve sending more soldiers and in fact necessarily involves other things that soldiers can't do.

cool_guy said...

All -

This is a very interesting and thought provoking discussion - I'd like to chime in with some observations:

There is a lot of discussion re Bush's motives to go to war and whether he is evil or not. This is wasted words and wasted mental energy - you are attempting to answer an question which can never be answered in this life. It is presumptuous to think that you (collective you) can look at the available data and determine what is in George Bush's heart. George Bush will have to answer for his actions re good or evil. Nothing we say on this Blog will change that. Only Bush and God know what his motivations were/are. We don't need to concern ourselves with that process - he cannot escape his karma.

That said I believe that the real question is: How do we judge George Bush? In my opinion he is a failure as a president. When our country was attacked on 9/11 we needed the "A" team in charge! Instead we got Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and all their Neo-Con toadies. Bush implemented a series of actions to respond to the attack. We have the luxury of looking back at over six years of history and analysis of that history tells us that these men were not competent and did not respond effectively to 9/11. The president is also the commander-in-chief of the military and as such is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the mission. We should be discussing and analyzing the success or failure of the mission to get a handle on George Bush and his cronies; not trying to judge whether he is "good" or "evil". He will have to answer for every death and all the human suffering resulting from his decisions. It is important to remember that he gets no slack for failing in the mission just because his motivations were good and pure (if they were)- it doesn't matter. A basic tenet of military leadership is that a leader is accountable up to the level of his authority. The president has absolute authority over the military and cannot escape accountability for the results of his decisions. This is an important thing to keep in mind when you think about the up-coming election. The president's motives are not important - his/her ability to make the correct decision and use appropriate means (military power, diplomacy, foriegn aid, or whatever tool(s)is/are needed)to implement that decision are extremely important. There is no slack for good motives if the mission is a failure - that is the key to judging George Bush and anyone who aspires to take his place...

Also - there is much discussion re staying in Iraq until the mission is finished or pulling out quickly. This is another meaningless discussion until we define our terms. Bush has never explained what success in Iraq will look like (i.e. when is the mission finished?). How do we know when we are done? In my occupation we call it "exit criteria". When I propose an expensive, risky action I must be able to define the measure of success or failure. I would be fired if I proposed an action with no way to determine success or failure - that is basic management and no mystery. Who on this blog can articulate what you mean by "success in Iraq"?

My 2 cents....

Mr. Fob said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Cool Guy. With your background working with the government and the military, I think you're more qualified than most to be making educated judgments here. I agree that it doesn't matter so much what Bush's motivations were (as much as I am convinced that he's motivated by greed), but that he does need to be held accountable for his decisions and their consequences. I don't have much faith that he'll pay for it in karma or in some next life, though, so I'd like to see him held accountable for those 50,000+ deaths now, by our legal system. Unfortunately, our legal system doesn't seem to cover mass murder caused by stupid war decisions, and even if it did a presidential self-pardon would no doubt take care of that.

What matters to me most right now is that (a) our next president does not make matters worse by continuing in Bush's poor decision-making, and that (b) as a nation we do whatever is best for the people of Iraq. I would like to to think that Barack Obama would make better decisions than Bush has, but honestly I don't know that I'm not just fooled by nice-sounding rhetoric. Similarly, I can say in my uneducated opinion that it seems like the best thing for Iraq would be that the people be allowed to set up whatever form of government works best for them with as little interference from us as possible, but I don't know how realistic that is. At this point I'm not sure any vision of "success in Iraq" is feasible, so I feel like we have to make some compromise.

I would really like to hear what your idea of success in Iraq is, Cool Guy, and also your thoughts on which candidate is best suited to make that happen.

cool_guy said...

Well, I disagree that Bush will not be accountable. He will not escape the consequences of his actions - no one does. I do believe very strongly in karma and I know Bush will answer for his arrogance, selfishness, and stubbornness. To a man like Bush the fact we all know that his legacy is defined by a totally screwed up attempt at nation building; driven by fools and toadies that he was not man enough to stand up to, will be a punishment he cannot escape. It doesn't matter what the spin is - we have been able to watch this unfold like a slow motion train wreck and we know the facts. Bush will be judged harshly by history and to him and his kind that is a tough thing. We all know that he is a man with no honor, a man that is willing to do anything to accomplish what he considers to be the goal, a man who will have to live with himself and his judgments of himself until he dies. I agree that he stands little chance of any meaningful penalty from the Govt - Scooter Libby comes to mind - but he cannot claim to be a moral man when there are so many facts that say he has no honor. He will see the faces of dead Iraqi children in his dreams for a long time. He knows what is in his heart and I believe that it has to be truly ugly.

I'm not optimistic about success in Iraq. I believe that the moment our troops entered Bagdad and destroyed the government of Iraq we set in motion a process that we cannot control. We will continue with various types of intervention - military force, diplomacy, foreign aid, etc in an attempt to impose our opinion of how Iraq should be but when all is said and done we will leave. Once Iraq is left without US money and weapons the tribal structure will be re-established. This has to occur, it does not matter how much we want to impose "democracy" or how well intentioned we are, history says that Iraq will re-align itself along tribal lines if left alone. If we want to impose our will we will need to stay and dominate the Iraqi people with force. In my opinion this fact represents the most egregious example of Bush's lack of honesty and honor – because of him we are in a situation that we cannot resolve. You cannot "leave Iraq with honor" when the mission was dishonorable to begin with. It was wrong from the start and we cannot spin it into a positive result. To try is dishonest and an insult to those who have suffered and died due to Bush's arrogance and foolishness.

I believe that the best we can do in Iraq is move out of the way and allow the Iraqi people to live as they want to live. If democracy is their choice they need to make that happen and we need to get out of the way. If different tribal territories governed by Islamic law are their choice they need to make that happen and we need to get out of the way. If another Sadam is their choice they need to make that happen and we need to get out of the way. Whatever their choice is we need to get out of the way – that will be as good as we can do in Iraq. We don’t deserve to be able to claim “success” in Iraq – it was wrong from the beginning and we cannot make it right no matter how much we talk; it is what it is. As long as we are there the Iraqi people will not be able to define their society for themselves.

This process will bring much more pain, suffering, and death to the people of Iraq. We cannot get around that fact; but we pushed the button that started that process when we invaded and destroyed the sovereign government of Iraq. It is on us. We have to get out of the way now and show the Iraqi people enough respect to allow them self-determination.

As to which candidate is best suited – I don’t know.

I caucused for Obama here in Nevada but I'm unsure about him. He has said a lot of words but he is hard to know…

Hillary is a known quantity and I don’t like her ability to twist in the prevailing political wind.

McCain offers more of the same tired old sh**.

My 2 cents....

Mr. Fob said...

I agree that Iraq is pretty much a no-win situation right now. If we're going to continue to be involved in any capacity, it has to be on their terms, not ours.

I also agree with your assessments of the candidates. I was pretty enthusiastic about Obama until a couple weeks ago, and now I'm not quite so sure he'll end up being everything he says he is. That said, I still support him because (a) for all his unknowns Clinton and especially McCain have a lot of known factors going against them and (b) what I do know about him is that he has an ability to unite people behind him and lead, and I think this is a really important quality that the other two candidates lack, as does our current "leader." Pretty rhetoric or not, it would be nice to have a president who can actually form a complete sentence.

SenecaSis said...

Cool Guy, I really like your 2-cents; and agree with all you've said. Personally, I've never understood the United States's (speaking politically) seeming need to bully themselves into the business of other nations--especially when uninvited. I find that part of being an American shameful and embarrassing.

Mr. Fob said...

But Sis, it's our duty to bully ourselves into other nations' business, because God made us better than them. It's the only way they'll learn.

Rebecca said...

Did I miss something? Maybe I didn't read all the comments as carefully as I thought I did, but I didn't see anyone get called on equating Clinton's affair with Bush's war policies. Those things ARE NOT PARALLEL. Sure, it was illegal for Clinton to lie under oath about his affair, but the affair itself? NONE OF OUR G**D*** BUSINESS. Doing something stupid in your personal life doesn't make you bad at your job. Bush's policies ARE his job. And I, for one, think he's totally doing Cheney in that man-sized safe. I'm just saying.

Mr. Fob said...

Technically, no one needed to get called on it here because no one made the comparison here--I just set up the straw man argument, then refuted it. But yes, I agree that there's a HUGE difference between the two circumstances.

Rebecca said...

I'm not so sure about that. Nobody made the explicit comparison, however...

Bryce's ramblings' comment:

"However, seriously, comparing Bush's war with Clinton's infidelity doesn't work all that well with me. Unless you argue that Bush knew 100% that what he was doing was wrong, and that he willfully lied about it--neither of which I believe--then the argument falls apart. It's not like Clinton was unsure whether or not he had had sex with Lewinsky, and..." He IS saying they aren't parallel, but the reason he comes up with for WHY they aren't parallel is that Bush didn't know what he was doing was wrong, whereas Clinton did. If he'd used that argument for the PERJURY, then it might be valid - but he uses it for the sex, which is not valid.

Angie's comment (which, upon a second look, does not necessarily have anything to do with Clinton's sex life - and actually probably doesn't - but I'm including it anyway, because it isn't clear): "...from what I have seen/heard of President Clinton he does not have integrity."

Angie's comment (the same one):

"If this really is true then President Bush would truly be a very evil man and I would agree with you that he is worse than Clinton." Also doesn't NECESSARILY have to do with Clinton's sex life, but it does seem to be using the comparison you set up as the basis, and the comparison you set up is between Bush's policies and Clinton's sex life.

I thought there was something else, but skimming through I didn't see anything, so it's possibly I'm just way oversensitive to this comparison because I'm SO SICK of seeing it.

Mr. Fob said...

Fair enough. I agree that the more valid comparison is to Clinton's perjury--and I won't speak for them, but I do believe it's possible, given what they said, that both Bryce and Angie were talking more about the perjury than the sex. Given that more valid comparison of what the two men did on the job, I'd say that mass murder is far worse than perjury, at least in my book.

And as far as lying goes, I don't think it'll ever be proven, nor does it really need to be, but I'm convinced Bush was lying through his teeth when he told the American people he had convincing evidence that Iraq had WMDs. He knew very well, as everyone knows now, the "evidence" he had was crap.

Rebecca said...

I will take your word for it that they mean perjury. And yeah, I'd say mass murder is probably worse that perjury. Probably. I mean, it's a close one...

I would like to take this opportunity to be the kind of person I DETEST - the kind who corrects people about stupid, insignificant things. But before I do I would like to say that a) I was making the same mistake until I saw Valerie Plame Wilson on The Daily Show (or was it Real Time? Something), and b) I am only correcting it because y'all might someday be spared looking dumb in front of someone who knows better and whom you wish to impress. I am completely altruistic (except when I'm arrogantly correcting people).

The correction: WMD, not WMDs. WeaponS of Mass Destruction. It is already plural.

Mr. Fob said...

But what if you have only one?

Rebecca said...

Then you are probably just holding it for a friend and shouldn't brag about it in case it gets stolen and your friend kills you.

Mr. Fob said...

Then we'll just pretend I didn't say anything.