NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

What was the point? That Saddam is a liar, a coward, and a bully? Fine, I don't know anyone who disputes that.

When someone lies about disposing of chemical weapons when under a cease fire that requires inspections that are not being allowed, then it would seem as if one of the original points for invasion was certainly valid. This is the point.

So as to not be misconstrued, whether WMD are there was never something I thought was a precondition for invasion of Iraq. The first violation of the cease fire was, and those violations included denial of inspections.

[Gemini Cricket]

[~MS~]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

just cuz this is so deserving of being repeated

[scaeagles]

No offense to GC's imagery intended, but when new news breaks, I don't think it is a dead horse. 500 chem weapons found with the prediction of more to come is new news.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...but when new news breaks, I don't think it is a dead horse.

This isn't new news.

FoxNews Debunks Santorum's WMD Claim

Mere hours after Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced breathlessly at a press conference that “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” a FOX news reporter found out that Santorum was hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions already acknowledged and dismissed by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group

Source & Link to FoxNews Clip

[scaeagles]

An unnamed defense department official doesn't mean much to me. Unnamed sources never do, particularly in matters of politics.

If you had heard his before, then it is certainly old news. I had not heard this before even though I try to remain somewhat informed.

Again, the first comment I made in the OP was to acknowledge that hese were degraded. The extent to which is varied.

My point is not that these were the end all of the WMD programs we expected to find. My point is that Saddam had claimed he had destroyed all his chemical weapons. He had not. You don't misplace (at least) 500 chemical weapons.

[Nephythys]

and the wheels keep spinning- but no one is getting anywhere.

[BarTopDancer]

Leo,

I can see what you are saying. But didn't they find degraded weapons last year as well?

And Nephy, you should know better than this. If they found 500 units of weapons grade,or near grade mustard, sarin or other chemicals I can guarentee the responses would be different. You should know by now that all of us "left wing-nuts" are open to calm, rational arguments and debates and have even been known to change our stance on something when presented with a convincing enough argument. If you have something other than "the wheels keep spinning" and calling us condensending then please share it, if not, don't be suprised when the s start comming.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Leo,

I can see what you are saying. But didn't they find degraded weapons last year as well?

There was a report of two found, if I recall. At that time, the response was "Big deal! Two?". The response now is "Big deal! They were highly degraded!".

I could see that perhaps two chem weapons could be mixed in with stashes of conventional weapons accidentally. However, with 500 or so, an oversight is not likely. Rather, it would seem that a specific strategy was in place that should Saddam choose to use them, there was a much larger opportunity for impact with them located in several different places and therefore available to scattered troops. Having them in one or two places would limit their effectiveness and if those one or two sites were captured, they would be unavailable for use.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Leo,

I can see what you are saying. But didn't they find degraded weapons last year as well?

And Nephy, you should know better than this. If they found 500 units of weapons grade,or near grade mustard, sarin or other chemicals I can guarentee the responses would be different. You should know by now that all of us "left wing-nuts" are open to calm, rational arguments and debates and have even been known to change our stance on something when presented with a convincing enough argument. If you have something other than "the wheels keep spinning" and calling us condensending then please share it, if not, don't be suprised when the s start comming.

Yes, I can expect rudeness. Thanks- I manage to refrain from rolling eyes myself-

I never called you a left wing nut- nor does that thought go through my mind when I read these things-

I find alot of the responses to what he posted to be rude and condescending and no- my faith that certain people are susceptible to the possibility of changing their mind is very very low.

I am expressing my frustration without making it personal- and I don't really appreciate anyone telling me what I can or can not express. Heaven forbid I express my opinion without vetting it with people here first.

Good lord.

(and trust me- I am never surprised by it when people resort to rolling their eyes- it's expected from some quarters)