From the inimitable Ernie Hancock's radio show

This was forwarded to me by one of my sponsors. I read it on my
Morning Show and had a few e-mails requesting it so I thought it might
be of interest to many.



By Anonymous

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of


council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate


council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in

violation of

more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq


have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking

gun could

well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq

had no

nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for

attacking us

or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather


networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves,

didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man

that has an

undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early
eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-


lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry



WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He

is the one

that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our

ambassador to

Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of


WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could

sell its

biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself
released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us,

proving a

partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to

kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin

Laden on the

tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily

be a

partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam


secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell


a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison

factory in


PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of


controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate



WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from


PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons

inspector, Hans


WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be


because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find


You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution


threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security


will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security


WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade


PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of


of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses

its will by

electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by

the U.S.

Supreme C...-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however

they were

elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is

about being a

patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are



WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of


destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they

are still

unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would

degrade to an

unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons

exist, we

must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can

reach the

west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND

threatened to

turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot

allow the

inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying,

deceiving, and

denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of


PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical


sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the

way we

live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change

the way

we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has

called on

Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now

face the


PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such

as find a

peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the



WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us

at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe

France, with

all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott