I still feel the war is justified, in part because i think there were WMD that were moved or hidden and in part because I think there were plenty of valid reasons to do this having nothing to do with WMD. In fact, I think it would have been dereliction of duty by Bush not to do it.
However, all this pointing at these old degraded munitions as justification for the war makes Republicans look a bit silly. Though they may technically qualify as WMD, this was not the type of WMD on which the case for the war was made, and we would not have invaded if our real reason was simply these lame shells. These munitions were not a bona fide material threat to US. All this excitement over a few old shells just looks like desparation and detracts from the genuine reasons for the war.
Saddam was supposed to account for his WMD, as per the UN resolutions and he refused to do that.
He claimed he destroyed the WMD and this proves that he didn't.
If you had been following any of it, there are also tons of documents showing that he has been working on WMD AND working with Al Qaeda - a lethal combination.
We will never know what catastrophy President Bush may have saved us from, by getting rid of Saddam.
Hey "Newbie" did you sign up just to counteract info inconvenient to the dimRats?
Or do you simply still believe anything that gets printed?
Mustard gas and Sarin gas has been found to be lethal for decades - even some from WW1 - experts has so testified.
Are you an expert? Have you seen the canisters in question? Is there a reason you believe the libRats statements over others?
Inquiring minds want to know
I totally agree.
As to the rest, I disagree.
Mustard gas stays deadly for multiple decades, even over a century, as shown by the French WWI chemical shell experience;
The terms of ending the Gulf War I called for dealing with ALL Iraq's WMDs.
Even if the shells themselves were degraded, Saddam certainly did have ties to terrorists - first hand via his dealings with Palestinian bus-bombers, through his sons and their dealings with Zarquawi, and through his ministers and their dealings with Bin Ladin;
The 500, that we are being told about for now certainly is a lot, not a few shells. And what does the age of the shells have to do with their usability for a number of purposes?
This news is a big deal, and is sorely needed backing for those who staked their political careers on supporting the war. After all, would the world be a safer place with the Dems in charge? If not, then those that backed the war need all the facts we can safely provide to bolster their case to the voters, lest the voters elect those who would throw us to the wolves.
Says who? Please cite the Official List Of Types Of WMD On Which We Are Making The Case For War (Bush et al, 2002).
Oh wait, there is no such list.
These were proscribed items under the relevant UN resolutions. Bush's charge against Saddam in the UN was that he had proscribed items he had not reported or accounted for. That charge is now more than vindicated. Case closed.
More to the point, the "case for war" before Congress did not rest solely on "WMDs", of any type, in the first place. Read the War Powers Declaration.
we would not have invaded if our real reason was simply these lame shells.
Counterfactual nonsense. You have no basis whatsoever on which to sound forth on whether or not we "would have invaded" under this or that circumstance.
Bush said Saddam hadn't been forthright about his banned stock, and these shells ("lame" or not, whatever that's supposed to mean) prove that Bush was entirely correct. There is really nothing else to say.
These munitions were not a bona fide material threat to US.
Who said they were? That's beside the point. These were banned items, he had them, he didn't declare them, he didn't destroy them. Guilty as charged.
All this excitement over a few old shells just looks like desparation and detracts from the genuine reasons for the war.
You're right in a way, because it makes it look as if "WMDs" were the only reason for the war, which is false. However, by implying there's some secret magical list of WMDs that were the "type of WMDs on which the case for war was made", you place yourself among those perpetuating that misunderstanding, not I.
The invasion was not conducted in order to retrieve some WMDs, let alone some special "type" of WMDs which you think these aren't. The invasion was conducted - as invasions typically are - in order to destroy the government of the enemy (in this case, that of Saddam Hussein). Thus the case for war was of the form: the government of Saddam Hussein needs to be destroyed (because of some reasons, one of them being: "it's the type of government that makes/uses WMDs"). The case for war was not of the form: WMDs of such-and-such "type" exist and need to be retrieved, because they're a material threat to us right now. (Except in the carefully-constructed straw-man arguments of Democrats/media.)
Sadly, most Americans are so befuddled and confused by media/Democrat distortions and straw-men that they are unable to make this distinction.
I guess we can go ahead and build a soccer field next to the old VX cannisters we have stored in west-central Indiana then. They're old...harmless now....
-Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.)
"All this excitement over a few old shells"
-MOTR Newbie
They would be if they were smuggled into the US and detonated here by terrorists, Newb.
Let's see the Democrats open one of these "old, degraded" munitions on national TV and breathe the contents.
Actually it vindicates President Bush and the foreign and domestic intelligence agencies who documented these weapons that Saddam didn't account for, even though he was required to account for under 17 United Nations resolutions that he skirted around.
Though they may technically qualify as WMD, this was not the type of WMD on which the case for the war was made, and we would not have invaded if our real reason was simply these lame shells.
These weapons were part of a larger cache of weapons that, according to British and American intelligence, still exist, and have yet to be found.
These munitions were not a bona fide material threat to US. All this excitement over a few old shells just looks like desparation and detracts from the genuine reasons for the war.
That's just your opinion.
Would you like to be in the room when one of "those old rounds" cracked open?
These projectiles are still lethal and anyone that thinks "old rounds" can't mess up your day
didn't think about the WWII 16" rounds put down range by the Missouri and Wisconsin in Desert Storm.