Posted on 06/21/2006 6:59:15 PM PDT by Wombat101
I've been watching the liberal talking heads on several shows this evening spin the discovery of 500 Chemical warheads in Iraq.
I have but one word to describe it:
INSANITY
The 'talking points' (which are transparent, and understandably so; democrats (small 'd' intentional) have only had a few hours to react to Rick Santorum's news conference) being trotted out to degrade the "Bush was right about WMD's" argument, revolve around three points;
1. These are not the WMD's we went to war for
2. These WMD's are too old to be a danger to anyone
Idiocy, plain and simple.
To take the first...ahem...argument; if these "aren't the WMD's we went to war for" then just which one's would you need to find to justify the war in the first place? A WMD is a WMD, is it not? On a certain level, this defense seems to imply two things; democrats knew these weapons would be found, in which case they would simply deny, deny, deny, and secondly, it implies there is another batch of WMD's out there; Laura Schwartz just implied it on Hannity and Colmes.
Which leads to the question; if there's another batch of WMD's (you said these aren't "the ones"), then where are the others? And aren't you the people who said that none existed in the first place? We have now gone from arguing that none exist, to finding definitive proof that they did, to using "yeah, but there are more" as a counter-argument.
On the second argument that the weapons are too old; having handled explosives and weapons a great deal in my lifetime, I have always had a great deal of respect for the destructive power of such things. You always treat any weapon as if it were live or loaded, and age doesn't mean a damned thing.
As a matter of personal experience, I remember when I was stationed at Subic Bay in the Philipines. Construction on the base was a frequent occurance, and occasionally, construction and maintenance crews came upon unexploded ordnance from past wars. I remember, vividly, one day when a construction crew came across a buried naval artillery shell, which we later learned was a leftover from the Spanish-American War. This was in 1987, so, the shell had been buried for nearly 90 years.
Guess what?
When the EOD people came to remove it (they actually blew it up in place) not only did the explosives THEY used go up, so did the shell's. A 90 year old shell was able to explode, sure with a little help, but explode it did.
In this day and age, landmines are a cause celebre. Millions of them remian hidden and buried all over the world and thousands are injured and maimed by them annually, the vast majority in Southeast Asia. If I recall, the Vietnam War ended in 1975. The war in Cambodia and Laos went on a decade more, yet almost every day, reports come in of children being injured ny landmines left over from that conflict.
So,if 90 year old naval shells can go "BOOM" and 40 year old landmines can do likewise, what makes you think a sarin-filled artillery round buried in the sand of Mesopotamia can't?
Yes, a chemical weapon works on different prinicples, and unlike some conventional explosives, are far less stable and susceptible to the ravages of time and enviornment. But, to dismiss the possibility that even "old" sarin or mustard gas shells are "harmless" is incredibly stupid. To insist upon it for political purposes is CRIMINAL STUPIDITY.
This sort of stupidity is not wholly an affectation adopted for political purposes, either. There is a strange, inverted dialectic to it, as well. So, while 500 WMD artillery shells in the hands of Saddam Hussein (and potentially, terrorists) is "no big deal", 500 S&W revolvers in the hands of private citizens, with licenses, is. One is no big deal, the other is a "crisis" and a "tragedy" and a "threat to our children's safety".
I say we ask John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy to personally go to Iraq and help destroy these shells with their bare hands, and Mrs. Clinton with her fangs.
Personal belief? We're talking about a place the size of California, which is mostly desert.
If the Federal Government can't find 4 or 5 million illegal immigrants in California, and they're in plain sight, how much harder do you think it is to find buried WMD's in the Iraqi desert?
Since democrats don't want us to find either, though....
You nailed it. As Sean Hannity said tonight, "Well, if they aren't dangerous, let [liberals] store them in their garage." (not verbatim, but close. And I think he named Kerry and someone else-Kennedy, Pelosi?)
He ran the list; from Kerry to Pelosi and every weasel inbetween.
Weasels all, and worse.
I agree with you. That's why I thought the ISG folding up their tent with "Nope. No WMD" was ludicrous. And obviously if they didn't find these 500 or so munitions, what else did they miss? It's as if they expected a giant WMD factory with a neon sign saying, "Here they are".
This is just another demonstration of how much the Democrats love the "Saddam didn't have WMDs" meme. Having spent part of their professional lives saying that Saddam had WMDs, the Democrats, for political reasons, want the public to believe that they never existed. The Democrats evidently believe that the public is stupid enough to fall for this, that the public has no memory that goes past yesterday.
"It's about time that the big news stations start to report fair and honestly."
It's time we avoid the big news stations because they're almost totally useless.
Unfortunately, most of the democratic base CAN'T recall what happened yesterday, and has an attention span measured in RPM's.
Why did Saddam think they were worth hiding, then?
I'm not wearing my contacts, and I thought I read this as "the idiot dialect". I thought it was going to be about people who spell plural's with apostrophe's and call anyone who tries to correct them a looser.
Actually, people, including EOD get hurt (bit in the case of EOD) by old Mustard rounds enough to prove your point. Our own stockpile of these items, which are much older than 1991, are still highly lethal. So it's simply not scientifically correct that these are innocuous items.
He already had the liberal talking points down
So I asked him why these weren't found by the weapons inspectors. He shut up pretty fast.
"So I asked him why these weren't found by the weapons inspectors"
Because the inspectors worked for the UN. It is axiomatic that no one at the UN could find his own posterior with both hands and a flashlight.
We want to war for brand-new, 2002-model, North Korean-made, nuclear-tipped missiles aimed directly at Paris from Saddam Hussein's game room, and until we find them, Bush is a proven liar. < /sarcasm>
I have faith in the common sense of the majority of the American people ..........people can see $90,000.00 in a fridge , and not see ,anything but coruption. ,,and normal people can see 500 rounds of sarin and chem. shells , and not see anything but a threat. ,,, screw the media spin . it is what it is ....W.M.D.'s
A-Ring-A-Ding-Ding!!! That's a fact, Jack. The Mossad told us that in Jan., 03, two months before we were able to actually launch our attacks (owing to left-wing, communist, terror-appeasing, America-hating, bribe-for-oil-for-food foot-dragging). The bastards actually brought some of the stuff from Syria, into Jordan, in order to mass-destruct as many people in the ruling party as possible.
Nah, cause they will curiously open the "inert" nerve gas, and that will end it for them!
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.