[pcottraux]

Nothing will convince them. And I mean nothing.

[Billthedrill]

Interesting reaction, though. They have to slap this one down fast and hard, and I don't think they're going to be able to do that.

The problem for the Dems (besides disastrous timing in view of their pomposities in the Senate) is that dismissing 500 warheads as too old or not enough leads directly to the question "how many would be enough for you to admit that Bush was right?" That's a deadly question - either they have to admit to a number higher than that or admit that no find however massive would be adequate. The latter is, of course, the truth.

[A message]

Preview of 2008 DNC convention and their top candidates.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Look, if you had a row of nuclear tipped missiles it would not be enough. No WMDs is a talking point the Dems must maintain or they are dead politically.

I'm sure a lot of the stuff is old. The best material was moved to Syria before the war.

[Augie Doggy]

It's about time that the big news stations start to report fair and honestly. With all of the political prejudices that a liberal media displays, it's sickening when they can not even attribute a success to a conservative administration.

Thanks for a great post.

[freeangel]

Finding nukes wouldn't be enough to convince moronic libs. But we could keep playing "Bush Was Right" just to tic 'em off.

[I see my hands]

Don't debate or educate. Look them in their eyes and call them liars.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

I have a suggestion to "defuse" the problem. Kennedy and Kerry will claim these WMD's are impotent because of age. So I guess they would not mind setting off just one sarin cannister say on the Lexington Green and see if its a shot heard around the world, or a huge dud?/sarcasm alert

[sgtbono2002]

Too old?? Hardly. A few years back at American University in Washington DC some construction outfit was digging around and hit a bunch of old chemical shells from WW1. These shells consisted of two parts which were supposed to mix when the shells were fired creating poison gas. It was discovered that the shells were gradually disintegrating and that this mix could take place at any time. Yes still as dangerous as the day they wee buried, in fact more so.

[Mr. Mojo]

"These are not the WMD's we went to war for"

Those WMDs are at three locations in Syria, according to General McInerney (who's been expressing this view on FNC for years now. ....and I agree with him). They were moved there in the six months leading up to the war while we we putzing around attempting to win the unwinnable (UN support). According to the General, the reasons we've made no attempt to go after them (in Syria) are many, but it's mainly because we'll inevitably find Russian, French, and German fingerprints all over the place, which would highly embarrass these nations (to put it mildly) at a time when we need their support.

[rawcatslyentist]

These aren't the WMDs you were looking for....
There's no AQ Saddam connection...
Bush is Hitler...

[Shelayne]

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?)

[popdonnelly]

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.

[HitmanLV]

2. These WMD's are too old to be a danger to anyone

Why did Saddam think they were worth hiding, then?

[hispanarepublicana]

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.

[CrazyIvan]

"2. These WMD's are too old to be a danger to anyone"

Aren't these the same people that keep telling us that such weapon in OUR hands will cause great harm for centuries if they leak just a little tiny bit?

[AnnaZ]

Your post makes far too much sense, and exposes far too much hypocrisy.

Good job.

[elhombrelibre]

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.

[Focault's Pendulum]

I was just on the phone having an argument discussion about this very issue

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.

[sierrahome]

Since the left thinks they are so harmless I suggest a story is circulated that we have decided to store these next door to the DNC headquarters. :-)