[milwguy]

more unbiased reporting from the same AP that said we booed clinton in milwaukee. IF there were chemical weapons sealed in that site, it was the UN"S RESPONSIBILITY to have them destroyed. The UN was to ENSURE THAT IRAQ HAD NO< I REPEAT< NO CHEMICAL weapons. What use would it be for the UN to seal sites where they existed? If Iraq was in need of the weapons all they would have to do is then UNSEAL the sites and remove the weapons. KInd of like telling my kid I sealed the cookie jar and do not touch it, then leaving the house for a couple days. This story is so bogis it almost defies comment. As full of holes as swiss cheese, just another attempt by the liberal media to hurt the Pres........won't work imho

[Question Liberal Authority]

So now the terrorists who weren't in Iraq have chemical weapons which Saddam did not have?

[Question Liberal Authority]

How about an AP headline:

French, German Looters Said To Overrun Oil-For-Food Program

[6SJ7]

The weapons involved would be pre-1991 artillery rockets filled with sarin, or their damaged remnants — weapons that were openly declared by Iraq and were under U.N. control until security fell apart with the U.S. attack. They are not concealed arms of the kind President Bush claimed Iraq had, but which were never found

My, what a twisted bit of revisionist history. Of course.... everything was just fine when the Sadam bribed U.N. was running its 'inspections'. Yah, right!

[Logical me]

This is a definite reason the UN is crap. They haven't done anything right for the last 20 years or more. It is time to expose them more vigorously and we should leave the UN. Give them a year to get out of the building and turn it into office space.

[BillyCrockett]

"Thousands of tons of other munitions are also unaccounted for across Iraq. The issue has become a flashpoint in the U.S. presidential race."

Well duh... of course there are. And, there might even be a few front doorsteps that we haven't had a chance to sweep yet, too!

[conservative in nyc]

Something stinks with this spun crAP story.

Why isn't the REAL story that the UN admits Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction and was too corrupt to have them destroyed? And that Saddam had free reign over these weapons during the period when inspectors were kicked out of the country? And that Saddam would have continued to have free reign over the weapons if the oil-for-food bribery had worked, sanctions were lifted and the inspectors went home?

Why isn't the story that even the inspectors didn't know what was in the bunker because they didn't bother to peek inside in March 2004? Why doesn't this show inspections WEREN'T working?