One shell with three litres of sarin is not exactly what I would call a smoking gun.
Corrction, there were two shells, the second had mustard gas.
If one exist, two exist. If two exist ther are many more. Who would just make one or two, or destroy all but one or two. It is a smoking gun, but liberals cannot accept the fact that even one or two, that were used against our troops, existed.
Hans Blitz and the Inspectors (sounds like a bad garage band) didn't even realize that Saddam had binary chemical munitions, and weren't looking for them. The shell was unmarked - which means there could have been several pallets of them in one of Saddam's many munitions dumps, and the inspectors wouldn't have even known they were there. We simply don't know - but that's the entire point - we're literally back at square one with weapons inspections in Iraq.
I agree this doesn't prove all of the pre-war claims about Saddam and WMDS. But couple this with the WMDs seized in Jordan that were planned to be part of a terrorist attack, and the opponents to Bush's invasion of Iraq can't any longer honestly state that Bush lied about WMDs. However, the libs are doing the next best thing - they simply pretend this news doesn't exist, or, if that fails because someone is rude enough to bring up the subject, they'll downplay the find, just as Blix did and you did here.
No, it's not a smoking gun.
It is however, a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
One shell with three litres of sarin is not exactly what I would call a smoking gun
It is if YOU are the gun's target.
With all due respect, maybe you need to quit thinking as an action newsman.
Your objective appears only to disprove the Bush Administration instead of proving how correct they were/are.
First of all, there have been two shells found with chemicals. Then there was botulinum toxin, the most lethal substance known found in a scientist's refrigerator, incidently about the same time the centrifuge was dug up from under a rose garden. Finally, are you willing to risk our soldier lives by living in denial?
Two shells were found one with sarin and the other with mustard gas. But as I recall you people were insisting that there were absolutely no wmds left in Iraq. Didn't you consider the possibiity that if the terrorists EXPLODED!!! one bomb intending to kill our troops, they just might have access to others. You've tried all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid concluding that maybe there are substantial amounts of wmds left in Iraq. Why can't you consider that maybe there are. Or is this some sort of ideological/anti-Bush block that you and others like you have that prevents you from concluding as much?