Hello. Welcome to my website. It started while I was in Europe for a semester, and I've kept it up since then. I'm now at the University of Chicago Law School, living in Hyde Park, and the story continues. If you want to say hi or visit me, email cfloyd at uchicago dot edu.
"Life is nothing if not the sum of your anecdotes." -Scotty The Body, on storytelling "But it ain't that bad, man. Just figure out the system before the system figures out you." -T. Matthew Smith, on the 1L year "The beer just doesn't taste as good when you're not drinking it with your buddies." -Anon., on being away from good friends "Somebody has to pay the rent around here. Why the hell not us?" -Cotton, on studying for exams
6/22/2003
Question:
If, as it appears at the moment (but may change soon), Iraq in fact had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, but merely tattered remains of past programs, why in Allah's name did they lead inspectors on a wild goose chase until finally expelling them in 1998, only to readmit them when in the tank-sights of the United States, and even then not allow unfettered access to weapons sites?
Answers? Anybody?
It just doesn't add up. If there were weapons, why haven't we found jack squat? I mean, political careers, including Tony Blair's, are dependent on WMDs eventually turning up. You've got to assume we're looking pretty hard. But if there weren't weapons, why did Iraq act as though they were hiding them until the bitter end?
I'm not upset about there being no weapons. We weren't duped. The war was justified with or without VX gas--see "mass graves." I just wonder what Saddam was hiding from inspectors.
If you feel the uncontrollable urge to comment, the following suggestions are not allowed: Liberal media. Conservative conspiracy. Good luck. I ain't got a clue.
6/22/2003 03:13:00 PM
