Posted on 05/17/2004 3:51:52 PM PDT by ambrose
Those made in the future, in the past or whatever time period will not count EVER to the left or the media. They will say they were from Iran, North Korea, first Gulf War etc..etc... No matter what. Period. And if a chemical attack happens that kills thousands of Iraqis it will be Bush's fault not the evil bastards who did it.
Is the media reporting on this at all? If so are they reporting it in a highly condescending way... "it's only a little sarin and a road-side bomb planted by Al-Qaeda not Saddam (even though Al Qaeda has NO links to Iraq at all)"
Is he wondering how many of his friends' fingerprints are on it?
Or the two guys on his staff that were on the take.
Why is this a headline? I mean, why does anyone care what Blix thinks or doesn't think?
Former U-N weapons inspector Hans Blix is taking a wait-and-see approach, after news that a roadside bomb containing sarin exploded in Iraq.
good for him
who cares
are they gonna tell us whether Jon Bon Jovi is taking a wait and see approach too?
But Blix says it's too soon to determine if the shell was from the past or part of a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
Um... weird.
First of all, of COURSE the shell was "from the past". Where's it from, the future??
Second, who cares whether or not it was part of a "stockpile". I'm really sick of this meme that the only thing that matters is a "stockpile". It makes it sound like Saddam Hussein was allowed to have all the nasty chemicals he wanted, as long as none of them were part of a "stockpile".
Blix reported before the beginning of the war in Iraq that his teams were unable to locate proof of deadly weapons.
That's swell but that didn't matter. He ALSO reported that Saddam Hussein was in violation of Resolution 1441. Which was, 'yknow, his actual job.
But his inspectors did find 16 warheads that were tagged as being used for containing sarin. They were empty.
And now we see that the sarin exists and was not imaginary. Game set and match.
And more to the point, Resolution 1441 didn't say "Saddam's allowed to have sarin just as long as he doesn't have STOCKPILES of sarin.."
Doesn't matter. If Saddam had them, he was out of compliance with UN resolutions (what else is new), and we had cause to invade, because he was supposed to destroy all previous munitions. What's important is that this proves HE STILL HAD THEM, which means he could have given them to terrorists.
As if....
"Hans - go home... if you can find it."
LOL. Still laughing.
Translation: Let`s wait until a lot of people are killed first then we can act outraged, then forget about it, even go so low as to make the memory of the victims seem offensive to the general public if it`s used in a political commercial, and then continue to bash Bush.
"Blix wants more information about sarin-filled roadside bomb"
Lighten up, Francis...
"Ignorance is Blix..."
Just damn!
blix can go straight to hell as far as I am concerned.
Tell him to turn on CNN...and hold his breath.
He's worse than a failed incompetent...He's a typical bureaucrat!
Of course he does. This makes him look bad. He must find a way to discredit it.
Hey Blix!
Long walk......short pier.
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.