Posted on 06/21/2006 5:52:18 PM PDT by mylife
Sorry, but they weren't. If you are referring to the 500 sarin canisters then they were not lethal at all. Look, I was standing right there when they were drilled and tested and the chemist made the statement "You'd have to drink this to get sick." It was about 40 canisters and we were being directed to more on a regular basis with the same results. These reports went directly the Gen Casey. But, let me ask you this, does it make any sense that having found 500 lethal sarin canisters the White House, or the Pentagon, or the Republican leadership would have simply sat on that information. It simply doesn't follow. Do you wonder why the White House and Pentago have been so quiet on the Santorum claims?
I think you missed my point. A good reason to invade Iraq was that Saddam had the ability to make WMDs and the intent to use them; and he had already shown that when he massacred the Kurds. So, the fact we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq is irrelevant to me. We needed to take Saddam out, regardless.
"So you've seen all of the lab tests for all of the WMD that's been found?"
Sorry to referee, but RCNOVA appears to be speaking of a specific incident(s) and not all incidents where WMD may have been found.
Let's be fair.
Thank you, and that is exactly my point. The WMDs that Santorum is speaking about sound like the ones I am referring to. I am not suggesting there are no other WMDs in Iraq or that others have not been found which are still lethal. In any case, it seems to me we invaded Iraq because Saddam was not complying with the surrender agreements of 1991 in which he was supposed to allow us to inspect for WMD. Clinton and the UN allowed Saddam, and pretty much any other tyrant to do whatever they wanted because they knew force of arms was not a likely outcome for resisting the US. Bush proved to the Islamic world we were no longer going to submit to their blackmail. The fact we didn't find WMDs is less important to me than that we showed enemies of the US that we intended to defend the United States with force of arms. It would be nice to uncover WMDs in Iraq, but it doesn't change the validity of the decision to invade.
That should read "2005"
Why not tell us what you can about your service and background?
The fact that you joined just a week ago does not add to your credibility.
Well, it's fine that you referee, and I can't go into what I know. Maybe some day soon it will be released to the public. But it I will say what I know doesn't conform with the impression being given by RCNOVA, so I have to wonder how he became so certain of so much.
According to this Al-Reuters article, it was sarin AND mustard gas. The mustard gas being extremely lethal (not that I would take a sip of old sarin...)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658384/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.