This is the liberal response to the WMD find: "Santorum recycles bogus Iraq WMD claims"

BTC News ^

[treverburton]

> Shooting our planes down... doesn't count, I guess all the resolutions wouldn't make a difference to you, Oil for Food, Planning to kill the president... move along... nothing to see here, look, glitter.

Huh? What prompted that?

> To make it very simple. IAEA didn't check places they should have, they said so in the Dueffer Report).

Is this in response to my question of where were these munitions found? I'm for answers to that, and if the answer/s are 'in the places the IAEA and ISG didn't look' then, great. But if the answers aren't going to be declassified then this story isn't going anywhere.

[tobyhill]

I was just transportation that hauled them around, mainly to the helipads and did some guard duty around the perimeter.

[kitkat]

BUMP

GREAT THREAD

[Robert A Cook PE]

Several US Chemical Weapons facilities (in the 2000-2003 timeframe) were built to specifically incinerate US chemical and binary agents stored since WWI.

But I guess all of those precautions we (my design team) designed in place against KILLING the US workers handling and disposing of these 1916-17-18 weapons weren't needed, because they were "old" chemical weapons.

Funny. We didn't think so. Because (unlike biased ignorant liberal mouthpieces) WE were the ones who WOULD BE killed if the gasses were released unburnt.

[ichabod1]

They are at war with us, of course they will discredit it.

One day Levin said "We cannot let the mainstream media define success and failure for us."

[jwalsh07]

The Pentagon even said it wasn't these canisters that got us into the war.

LOL, the "Pentagon" has issued NO official statement at all. Your back pedaling furiously. I'll let you.

[inpajamas]

"The problem with this is that the Weapons found predate 1991 and could not be used for thier intended purpose. They were so degraded that they were inert... Sure they were found, but how much of a threat were they really" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The threat is not so much the chemicals but the warheads. What are they for? The warheads would be the slower and the more difficult of the two to manufacture. Chemicals break down fairly quickly but they can be mixed in a short time and used to arm these war heads. These warheads are a violation and should not be dismissed as nothing.

[jwalsh07]

I did my share of hauling crap and guard duty in the Army as well. :-}

Until they sent me to CBR school. Then I got a cushy job. LOL

[tobyhill]

My last mission at the site, while we were standing down, was to haul some loads of chems to an airbase for shipment to Johnston Atoll and all during this transportation we had to be partially suited up but I remember our commander claiming it was 100% safe. If it was 100% safe why did we have to suit up?

[tobyhill]

I went to some basic CBR schooling, probably just enough to know how to die quicker.

[AliVeritas]

Tell it to the Kurds.

[snowrip]

So instead of having a canister of extremely potent chemical, we are now down to a can of Raid... Infact, RAID would turn our M-9 tape purple...

Huh?

If this is what passes for a rational argument in your mind, you may want to find another website. Interestingly enough, I was just wondering at what point you would be willing to actually educate yourself on the facts, and therefore amend your position. I assume I now have my answer.

When you intentionally ignore reality, you remove yourself from the table of rational discourse.

[ichabod1]

Denial: It's not just a river in Egypt anymore.

Sign I've seen in restaurants: Tipping is not a city in China.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Funny.

If the OLD (WWI-era gas) weapons you were shipping to our (my) incinerator in Johnston Atoll were as safe as the liberals are claiming for Saddamn's 15-year old weapons, WHY were hey being to the middle of the Pacific Ocean on a deserted island to be disposed of at 3000 degrees in isolated, hands-free automatic choppers and incinerators?

Why were YOU in chemical suits just to handle the enclosed shells if the WWI gas weapons were "not dangerous"for Saddamn to store in the middle of his cities and bury underground at his airports?

[The G Man]

[ichabod1]

I believe finding these weapons was the exact purpose of the UN sanctions. Old or not, the existence of these weapons is a violation of the UN mandates. They don't get a pass because these weapons were "old". I agree. Yesterday three different liberal talking heads all used the same line: "These are not the weapons the administration said we were looking for."

My question is: Then tell me what weapons we were looking for.

This was my choice for "Most Obvious Question To Ask The Lib Whiners That Was Not Asked" last night. Which ones WERE we looking for?

[centristo]

I'd like to see those documents. Curious how I've never heard Cheney, Bush or Rumsfeld EVER talk about AQ Khan. You'd think they would, you know, mention it if he was involved.

[ichabod1]

500 degraded shells filled with nerve agents are still extremely lethal from all I have read and heard.

My understanding from the weapons expert O'Reilly had on last night, was that degraded means the stuff is no longer a highly volatile liquid, but has turned into a sort of goo. It doesn't flow well, so the artillery rounds wouldn't work properly. Seems to me the terrorists haven't exactly needed artillery tubes to make artillery rounds do their bidding up to now.

[txhurl]

A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Ah. More or less meaning 'we haven't declassified our de-sanding the WMDs for which we DID go to war'.

[tobyhill]

Because the stupid liberals like to downplay the dangers if it conflicts with their rhetoric. My understanding is that as long as they were stored with temps under 90 degrees then their half-life was still 40+ years.