7 Days: Who are we at war with?

Questions for today:

• Why did the NYTs article about the high-end explosives not contain dates? Did the author and editors of the article hope to have the reader think the materials were lost in the last few weeks?
• Did any of the other MSM see the NBC report on last evening's nightly news that contradicted most of the NYTs stories and almost all of John Kerry's stump rhetoric?
• Where are the reports about CBS News' disappointment that the NYTs 'broke' the story first? After all, they planned to 'break' this urgent story on their Sunday, 60-Minutes telecast - just two days before the election.
• How did the Iraqis move this material - between January, 2003 and April 9, 2003? Weren't the UN and IAEA weapons inspectors (who last witnessed the material in January 2003) working?
• What were Saddam's plans for this material? I thought the UN had him contained and de-militarizing?
• Besides detonating nuclear weapons, what other productive uses are there for this material?
• If it only took one pound of this material to bring down Pan Am Flight 103, what could you do with two pounds?
• Would the victims families of Flight 103 consider this material a 'weapon of mass destruction'?
• How much could a UN inspector charge for this material - if they were so inclined? Would it be similar to the rates of exchange used in the Oil For Food Program?

On the economy - domestic and global:

• Is it 'nuanced' to believe that you can win allies support by closing the world to US investment in order to stop outsourcing jobs?
• Is it 'nuanced' to believe that companies in the US will remain competitive in the global economy when they can't participate in other countries markets?
• Is it 'nuanced' to believe that foreign investors will continue to participate in the US market when we won't invest in theirs?
• Is it 'nuanced' to believe that allowing the world to get back to pre-war, pre-9/11 'business-as-usual' practices will win our 'allies' trust?
• Is it 'nuanced' to believe that these 'business-as-usual' practices that allow our 'allies' (the French, UN, et al) to profit from their established 'relationships' will only result in a little "inconvenience and nuisance" from terrorism? Kind of like, you know, prostitution and gambling?