Michael Perelman wrote, > This stance is conclusive proof that gov't contracts are pork, not > transactions at arms length. The gov't is not usually that open about its > dealings.
Yes, indeed. It's about the loot. There's also a formidible subtext here about the weapons of mass destruction. That is to say, about the absence of weapons of mass destruction and the absence of any mention of that absence. Friendly coalition folks risked their lives... for what? Not for what the official cover story claimed. But we knew all along that the official cover story was a pretext. They said so themselves, sotto voce. So now, rather than finesse what should be an embarrassment, Bush elects to brazen it with the conqueror's swagger.
