Since according to the MSM & the Left, the WMD are "old and non-lethal", the naysayers like Alan Colmes wouldn't mind if we stored the 500 cannisters of WDM in their garage.
1 posted on
07/01/2006 7:32:12 AM PDT by
kellynla
To: kellynla
2 posted on
07/01/2006 7:33:04 AM PDT by
nutmeg
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
To: kellynla
3 posted on
07/01/2006 7:37:33 AM PDT by
groanup
(Shred For Ian)
To: kellynla
But the reception of this declassified memo shows we do not have an honest, nonpartisan news media, and political calculation is everything. Nothing new there
They don't want to talk about it .. because then they would have to admit Bush was right
4 posted on
07/01/2006 7:43:20 AM PDT by
Mo1
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE&search=Democrats)
To: kellynla
stored the 500 cannisters of WDM in their garage
Better yet, I think they should stick their noses in it to confirm it is not.
5 posted on
07/01/2006 7:46:11 AM PDT by
PeterPrinciple
(Seeking the truth here folks.)
To: kellynla
Accd. to the drivebys, it's old stuff(the wmd's) and mostly harmless, but they don't want to get anywhere near it.
One of the drive-bys from the NYT was just on with Mark Simone on WABC and Simone asked him "if he would like some of those old wmd's in his back yard" and he(the guys from NYT) laughed it off.
They(the drive-bys) know they have been had but as usual are recreating the news --nothing new here.
6 posted on
07/01/2006 7:47:50 AM PDT by
rodguy911
(Support new Media, ticket drive-bys--America--Land of the Free because of the Brave)
To: kellynla
We've got some old VX gas stored here in Indiana. Guess it'd be ok to just turn the place into a paintball range for the kiddies
7 posted on
07/01/2006 7:49:19 AM PDT by
digger48
To: kellynla; nutmeg; groanup; Mo1; PeterPrinciple; rodguy911; digger48
To: kellynla
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf
Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta.On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was probably a direct result of the IraqAl Qida agreement. Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the exact formula used by Iraq.110This language about al Qaedas understanding with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.
9 posted on
07/01/2006 8:02:46 AM PDT by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: kellynla
Colmes is as smart as he is good looking.
10 posted on
07/01/2006 8:08:05 AM PDT by
MarkeyD
(The patriotism of the New York Times = The humanity of an Islamic terrorist.)
To: kellynla; All
I think you should send Alan an email and suggest that - just to see what his reaction is .. LOL!! It should make for a good laugh.
But .. as far as the polls go .. please remember - the drive-by media has been using 11-14% MORE DEMOCRAT ADULTS in their polling. This means these people are not necessarily voters or even registered to vote. And it means - they can get whatever poll number they want to suit their agenda. Why are we not surprised?
14 posted on
07/01/2006 8:28:14 AM PDT by
CyberAnt
(Drive-By Media: Fake news, fake documents, fake polls)
To: kellynla
I will get flamed for this but... no one in 2002 and 2003 argued that we should go to war because Iraq had 500, a 1000, chemical artillery shells. The argument was that Iraq was producing and creating delivery systems for a variety of lethal chemical and biological agents.Where are these now? Probably somewhere in Syria or the Bekaa, but not in Iraq.So the President has to bite the bullet and blame the intel, and he takes a huge hugh hit. He moves on with the mission, create an independent Iraq that is an obstacle to terror in the region, not an enabler.To start yelling about 500 155mm chem shells does not justify the war, it makes the President look desperate. That's why the info on these has been hard to come by. There's no PR value in them, and they are easily dismissed when compared to the descriptions by Rice and Rumsfeld and Powell of what we believed to be in Iraq. Bush is right to emphasize the mission we're involved with now.
15 posted on
07/01/2006 8:38:40 AM PDT by
xkaydet65
(Peace, Love, Brotherhood, and Firepower. And the greatest of these is Firepower!)
To: kellynla
Alan Colmes wouldn't mind if we stored the 500 cannisters of WDM in their garage.I think we should take him up on that...... :)
17 posted on
07/01/2006 8:44:29 AM PDT by
LaineyDee
(Don't mess with Texas wimmen!)
To: kellynla
The largest remaining mystery is why Team Bush seems allergic to releasing more information on the missing weapons in Iraq, and more facts out of the archives of Saddam's heinous regime IMO they stay silent because a detailed inspection of these weapons would reveal that some of our allies (Germany, France & Russia) were instrumental in the development and manufacture of Iraqs WMD.
You may remember that this was true of Saddams artillery (ex. Super gun)
Bush and company do not want to rock the boat of our rickety coalition.
21 posted on
07/01/2006 9:09:40 AM PDT by
Pontiac
To: kellynla
The Bush administration was keeping this information top secret hoping that someone would leak it to the New York Times...maybe then the story would be front page news.
To: kellynla
Arguing {discussion} with the Left is not even close to meaningful or useful. They are so full of lies that debate serves no purpose.
Except for the fact that they are usually not violent, they are as dangerous to society as any islamofacist terrorists. The non-violent part is important. Otherwise it would be just as appropriate to War against them as against bin Ladin.
As it is, cooperation is wrong, and the only realistic strategy is total defeat. Terms and working together can come only after surrender.
To: kellynla
27 posted on
07/01/2006 10:02:15 AM PDT by
Gritty
(The safest place for Osama isn't Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in the NY Times building-Ann Coulter)
To: kellynla
"old and non-lethal", the naysayers like Alan Colmes wouldn't mind if we stored the 500 cannisters of WDM in their garage. I think they should be delivered to the desks of our congress-critters and senators for them to ponder and decide whether they are lethal or not - a little hands-on exercise
28 posted on
07/01/2006 10:16:21 AM PDT by
maine-iac7
(LINCOLN: "...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time>")
To: kellynla
Recall how unmoved the media was when President Nixon found peace with honor?
Thank God President Bush knows enough to not use his presidency to please the media. But then again, thank God that the media is deflated of its former power and influence!
30 posted on
07/01/2006 11:26:48 AM PDT by
SaltyJoe
(A mother's sorrowful heart and personal sacrifice redeems her lost child's soul.)
To: kellynla
I don't think any politician is honest, so I guess I am on the side of the lefties.
To: kellynla
"Colmes...in his garage"
Ha, ha, you got that one right. Apparently the libs are declaring that chem wmds have use-by dates on them. We'd like to test that assertion on them with the libs as willing accomplices. I'm sure that will happen (smirk). With this recent wmd announcement and the Hussein documents disclosures, two main pillars of the leftist assault on the validity of the war have been destroyed: to wit, there were no wmds, and Hussein had no connection to Al-Qaeda.
Now what is the left to do? Dodge, evade, equivocate, ignore, and as always move the goalposts.
33 posted on
07/01/2006 2:19:43 PM PDT by
driftless
( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson