Not that it matters. But the current talking points are that we are in Iraq to build democracy and never went in for WMD.
The latest is that this dud shell is at least 13 years old if not older.
But I guess that proves this administration's case for why 10,000 Americans are mauled and injured, another near 800 dead, and some (conservative estimate- 6000 Iraqis are dead and countless more wounded)- not to mention the billions of tax dollars being wasted.
But lets wait and see. I supect this story (like most other Fox stories on WMD) will be gone within days. Memory hole.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
You have a memory problem, friend.
The reasons why we went into Iraq have not changed. We went in to depose a brutal dictator, free a people, remove a regime that has been deemed a danger through their previous use of force and WMD to the region and the United States by the collective wisdom of three administrations, and try to provide a role model for the Middle East.
The bar keeps getting raised higher and higher by the naysayers. Now the WMD have to be current. They can't be old. As though old sarin doesn't kill as easily as new sarin.
And if this story disappears, despite the evidence that the find was indeed sarin, it will be because it suits the agenda of the media.
Age of shell is irrelevant. It is not the case that Saddam was allowed to have undeclared, unaccounted-for chemical weapons as long as they are old. Also the shell being old doesn't mean the chemicals inside it were.
I supect this story (like most other Fox stories on WMD) will be gone within days.
You might be right, it might be buried like other stories about WMD finds. Being buried doesn't make a story untrue.
Why didn't one of Iraqs neighbors sign on to this latest endevour to take down the "threat" that was Sadaam?
Because they knew we would take care of it and this way they wouldn't have to put their asses on the line, they could play "good cop". Also because by this point he was a bigger threat to us than to his neighbors. Our 12-year siege of that country effectively displaced Saddam's anger and ambitions away from his neighbors, and those neighbors were perfectly happy with the protection arrangement whereby we pay the costs and receive all the fallout. What is the big mystery here?
Two Shells?
Two is greater than Zero, which is the number of WMD-containing shells the anti-war folks have been pretending exist in Iraq. The anti-war folks are thus proven incorrect.
You'd better go back to your "I don't care" talking point because this is the real thing.