"$6 billion in direct costs, five dead soldiers and 40 wounded, not to mention hundreds of dead Iraqis, for each unusable round. Heckuva job, George."
And not a single terrorist attack on US soil. Of course, that doesn't fit your agenda tho'. Carry on nothing to see here....
Refresh my memory: how many Iraqi attacks on American soil were there prior to the invasion?
I supported the attack on Afghanistan, which actually disrupted the operations of the terrorists who attacked us. Jumping on this issue to justify the invasion of Iraq is just peculiar. As I mentioned in my post, the Duelfer report went into considerable detail on the provenance and condition of the rounds that had been found to that point, and they weren't impressed. It's near impossible to extract the chemicals from the munitions, they're no longer usable as artillery rounds and when used as IEDs, the chemical components of the binary rounds don't have time to combine even in the event they haven't degraded beyond use. And of course they wouldn't be used as IEDs absent the invasion.
I wouldn't want to run across one in my neighborhood, but the cost/benefit ratio here seems a bit lopsided.