Replies

I think the news is that it is:

1. Proven now.
2. A contrast to the mass graves that were supposed to be found in Bosnia/Kosovo and were not. Therefore, the Clinton reason for going was not proven, but he was given a pass. (And he didn't accidentally turn up Wmd's)
3. Ignored by the media and the democrats.

(BTW, Wmd's in Iraq are proven. They simply aren't in the form desired by the media which has proposed a extremely narrow standard.....a missile or warhead loaded with launchable wmds. Precursor chemicals are found; labs are found; processes are found; recipes are found; special weapons warheads are found that ONLY work with wmds.)

I accepted it as proven when Bush I said it. No one seemed to contradict him at the time. The press seemed to report his readings from the A.I. reports favorably, apparently hoping he'd turn into a supposed human right advocate like Carter did in office.

No one ever thought Saddam was innocent, then or now.

2. A contrast to the mass graves that were supposed to be found in Bosnia/Kosovo and were not. Therefore, the Clinton reason for going was not proven, but he was given a pass. (And he didn't accidentally turn up Wmd's)

Well, the Klinton disaster in Kosovo can mostly be explained as their usual stupidity. Clinton mustered U.S. forces to bail out the trouble France/Germany/Britain had gotten themselves into. Anything to help the Third Way guys. And aiding the Moslems in murdering Christians likely proved too tempting for Hill/Bill to resist. Probably the prospect of it finally improved their sex lives. "Oh, darlin' Hillary, I'm finally gonna kill me some Christians!". "Oh, Bill, I'm swooning over your manliness." Yeah, that would be about the level of the Klinton team. At least they had bipartisan support from McCain and from W.

Another grotesque disaster and an ongoing festering hole.

3. Ignored by the media and the democrats.

The Dims won't say anything remotely supportive of Bush, even if you transported the mass graves here and put them on display on Capitol Hill. They'd never say a word if you put the corpses in their offices. And I do think the media has offered adequate reporting on the evidence for mass graves. It's not just FR where you find this.

No one mourns Saddam's demise except his henchmen and the Palis.

(BTW, Wmd's in Iraq are proven. They simply aren't in the form desired by the media which has proposed a extremely narrow standard.....a missile or warhead loaded with launchable wmds. Precursor chemicals are found; labs are found; processes are found; recipes are found; special weapons warheads are found that ONLY work with wmds.)

No, they aren't proven. There would be nowhere in America that you could hide to escape the blaring announcements from the White House if they had credibly found WMD. Trust me on this one.

Many medical labs have adequate equipment for bioweapons. And most any fertilizer plant or pharmaceuticals plant can produce chemical agents (most nerve gases are failed insecticides). The 'recipes' aren't a problem since the formulas can be found on the Internet or from many other sources. And even the special warheads are not WMD. Only proof of a delivery capability. Chem-capable warheads aren't all that rare, even in the Third World.

Only WMD are WMD. So far, the greatest biological hazard to our troops in Iraq is the lack of proper sanitation and water treatment facilities for the general populace.

I'm personally surprised that we haven't yet turned up even a single tiny sample of WMD. I still believe we will find them or prove they were removed to the Ba'athists of Syria. After all, we haven't even accounted for the anthrax our own labs sent them in the Eighties and that is some WMD we know they had because we gave it to them in the Eighties! But pretending that our pretext for war simply doesn't matter or that we can just 'discover' a justification for war once we've invaded a resource-rich country is completely incredible.

Tell me, if Russia or Germany or France declared they were threatened by WMD and invaded Kuwait or the UAE, would you accept it was all fine if they then failed to produce any WMD but showed that the local Islamic regime was barbarically cruel? And then they proceeded to divvy up the oil?

If we wouldn't believe it when they did it, why should they believe us when we say it? I'm afraid I've got bad news for you: the entire world does not believe America always operates from altruistic motives.

With that much oil involved, it is doubly important that we get the WMD evidence. With Afghanistan, we deposed a brutal regime, never having proven Osama was actually there at any given point and no one really objected and Germany even helped with garrisoning after the invasion. But with that much oil in Iraq and our severing of Europe's business relationship with that oil and its owner (the people of Iraq as represented by Saddam), we need to find and present the evidence.

Personally, I don't care that much. But the WMD would help us to shut up some of the foreign critics of the war. If for no other reason, we need them for Blair, and Berlesconi and the guy in Spain, and our allies in eastern Europe.

Without the WMD and Osama, we fail to provide the evidence we claimed was in Iraq in abundance and we fail to punish the man who did actually attack us on 9/11. Without Osama and the WMD, what we have is a bunch of oil and a 'Who, us?' look on our faces.

Getting Osama and finding the WMD is important to the success of our future diplomacy.

Wow, I'm grouchy today.

I find it quite odd that a missile that has an extended range can be a WMD but all the buried MIG25s are simply "UN-legal" defensive aircraft.

Who is setting the parameters and definitions of WMDs?

You and I both know common chemicals and products found in the kitchen and bathroom sink cabinets, food panties, laundry room, plant potting shed, barbeque grill, basement shop, camping supplies, attic, and garage can be quickly turned into deadly weapons that can kill 1000s in mere seconds.

Unlike the lib media I will not post any recipes or devices or other pertinent info here.

The dems, radicals, media and the 9-8-7-? Dwarves seem to be appalled at the "quagmire" of the massive "body count" of 505+/- (over 150 by accients!)

DC has been 100% gun-banned for over 27 years yet has over 301 handgun murders year (knifes, poisonings, blunt instruments, rifles, and batteries not included!) in a city of only 340,000 population tops by civilian criminals.

Iraq has over 25 million population and US military deaths are in combat and terrorist action areas; less the 150 accidental deaths, that is only 350+ US military deaths since we invaded Iraq.

So basically Washington DC has nearly 70 times times the kill rate/100,000 population of Iraq.

Any corrections or additions are welcome.