What is this double-talk? The U.S. is talking about having bombed a building in a ritzy part of Baghdad with bunker buster bombs in hopes of "striking a leadership target."
Why don't they just say "we hope we killed Saddam and his creepy sons, because that's who we were aiming at"?
Why don't they say what they mean and use phrases that weren't generated just for this war? I find it secretive and insulting.
Liberate? They mean conquer.
Coalition forces? They mean American and British soldiers.
Reunify? They mean occupy.
As for the alleged "smoking gun," call me a hayseed Texas girl, but a bunch of drums of stinky liquid on a huge agricultural compound says insecticide to me, especially when there were no missiles or other bomb making components near the site.
Instead of calling these barrels potential "Weapons of Mass Destruction," they'd be more accurate to call them potential "Fixin's of Mass Destruction."
Like last time when they found bottles of "suspicious powder," you didn't hear much when the powder turned out to be ordinary explosives, not chemical agents.
Even if the drums contain liquids whose only purpose is poisoning humans, without the ammunition to pour the liquids into, they are what General Benjamin Freakly called, "not weaponized."
Not weaponized is more double-talk for "not weapons."
I wish Bush would come on TV and say, "Look, we are kicking their asses. After we finish we plan to follow the code 'to the victor belong the spoils' and take whatever we want from these bastards. The United Kingdom gets sloppy seconds. Then fuck 'em, let the French and Germans have them for all we care."
A little candor and honesty would work wonders.