So Pete Rose finally admitted that he gambled on baseball. As a late-80s Mets fan who watched guys like Dwight Gooden and Darrell Strawberry practically throw away their careers for drugs, only to get a slap on the wrist, gambling never sounded all that bad as long as no games were thrown. So I've been quietly pulling for Pete all this time, and now that he's admitted he bet on baseball (with less-than-ideal timing, given the announcement of the new Hall of Fame class yesterday), I guess I'm still hoping he gets his lifetime ban from baseball lifted.
But what if Pete Rose is lying now? He doesn't seem any more or less sincere in his apology now than he was in denying he bet on baseball, so isn't there some chance that he figured his only opportunity to get back in the game was to tell people what they wanted to hear, regardless of the truth? And isn't it a productive way to cash in on a book deal? I imagine he's telling the truth now, but without any further evidence and with a bit of skepticism, we may never know. After all, people generally don't go looking for more evidence after a confession.
So what does this have to do with weapons of mass destruction? I remember being told, before we went into Iraq, that we needed to remove Saddam Hussein because he had WMD and would eventually use them on us or sell them to terrorists who would. Now that we're in Iraq and can't find the weapons, people (including all the talking heads on TV) want to question the intentions of our government. Were we lied to? Was the intelligence faulty or improperly used? Maybe. But there's another reason to explain the disappearance of those weapons, and it's the same reason our government told us before the war. What if Saddam did sell the weapons to terrorists, and that's why we can't find them? This is certainly nothing I want to believe, but why do I never hear people discuss this possibility? If there's proof this didn't happen, I'd sure take comfort in hearing it. Wouldn't you?