Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Preachin'
Maybe the Iraqis had not developed a suitable method to deploy the weapons, yet.

That's likely. But the UN inspectors, as I recall, and the Iraq Survey Group found empty artillery shells designed to carry a chemical weapon. If Saddam didn't have, and never had, chemical weapons, what were the empty artillery shells for? There's a major disconnect between what was actually found in Iraq, and what was (or was NOT) reported by the MSM. But I also blame the Bush Administration for not hammering away harder on what was discovered of Saddam's WMD capabilities. What I fear is that the Bush Adm. is hesitant to admit that they know that WMDs went into Syria, because that would prove that the very thing we went into Iraq to prevent -- the proliferation of weapons to terror-friendly states and terrorists groups -- was actually facilitated by the long-delayed invasion of Iraq.

131 posted on 01/26/2006 11:54:47 AM PST by My2Cents (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: My2Cents
"If Saddam didn't have, and never had, chemical weapons, what were the empty artillery shells for?"

I don't know enough about any of that.

What I am sure of is that we don't know everything the president knows.

In the end, this will all play to the president's advantage, because the leftists have been saying for all of two years that there were no WMDs.

The left loses big here.

I think that they are using the extended debate on judge Alito to hide this news as long as possible.
144 posted on 01/27/2006 3:03:35 AM PST by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson