[RAT Patrol]

Why have libs been allowed to define WMD down to being only about nukes anyway? We found chemical suits and antidotes and other things.

[Wolfstar]

And chemical precursors, and those strange trucks that are "really" for blowing up balloons (or some such nonsense), and gas masks issued to Iraqi soldiers, and... Oh, but the Left will NEVER believe Dubya and Blair had a valid reason for going into Iraq, no matter what proof we wave in front of their noses.

On the other hand, do we really expect the likes of this fool to have the brainpower to get it?

[judgeandjury]

Why have libs been allowed to define WMD down to being only about nukes anyway.

Libs seem to think that a WMD means a missle sitting on a launch pad with a warhead atop it and already filled with a chemical, biological, or nuclear agent and ready to be lauched at a moments notice. Anything less than this "missle/warhead/chemical-biological-nuclear agent" combination in a ready to use to commit mass destruction finalized weapon format doesn't seem to qualify as a WMD as far as libs are concerned.

[autoresponder]

WMD Chemicals?

WMD Poison Gases?

Ever read the back of a Clorox container?

"DO NOT ADD AMMONIA - POISON GAS WILL RESULT"

(paraphrased)

The common, simple chemical components of many poisonous gases and explosives are found in your kitcken cabinet, under the kitchen sink, in bathroom cabinet, laundry room, near fireplace, and garage.

Clorox, bicarbonate of soda, charcoal, sugar, ammonia, common wood matches, salt, detergent, milk, fertilizer, eggs, gasoline, motor oil, automotive chassis grease, fireplace ashes and many other common products found around the world.

Many can be combined in simple mixtures in mere seconds; others take a few minutes or hours.

Instant WMDs.

Just add lots.

Repeat.

Don't bother to rinse.

[lowbridge]

Why have libs been allowed to define WMD down to being only about nukes anyway?

Indeed! Just a couple days ago, on a usenet newsgroup I watched one liberal make all sorts of arguments against the war in Iraq. Among them he accused Bush of being a liar and that no weapons of mass destruction existed. I did a google search of that guys newsgroup posts from the clinton years, and found that, (along with a bunch of hypocritical statements supporting clinton in every violent action he took), in an argument against the second amendment, he equated firearms, with "weapons of mass destruction" such as nukes! Responding to one of his posts, I copied and pasted this old argument of his, which he ignored (though he responded to the rest of my post, so I KNOW he saw it).