I was going to post this yesterday, but I forgot. Has anyone else seen this yet?:
From the
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785137051&path=%21editorials%21letters&s=1045855935005">Times-Dispatch
War in Iraq Is No Virus
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I read a letter by a gentleman who said what we're doing over in Iraq is fighting a virus. Now, I may be confused about a thing or two, but I know that's just plumb wrong. I clearly remember that our President told us why we had to go fight over there. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and he was a dangerous threat to our national security. So we're not over there fighting any "virus" unless it's in one of those sneaky mobile labs. It may be that we haven't found those WMDs yet, but I haven't given up hope. They have to be there someplace because the President said they were. Would he have said it if he didn't know what the heck he was talking about? Would he have started a war and sent young Americans off to fight and die if he didn't know what he was talking about?
After all, this is a president who distinguished himself serving in our military in what could have been some very dangerous parts of this country. So other people can't just go around arbitrarily changing the reasons our troops are fighting and dying over there and saying it's to fight some "virus." Only the president can say that the truth isn't what it used to be. And, if the president has to change the truth, then we all should just believe what we're told and do what we're told, because that's what makes this country great and makes us all patriotic Americans. Richard Lynch. richmond.
I want to say he's being sarcastic, in which case it's pretty funny. But given the normal crop of whackos that write to the paper, I don't know...