Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 06/22/2006 4:50:29 AM PDT by ChrisFelice1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last
To: AliVeritas

> 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.


161 posted on 06/22/2006 7:30:46 AM PDT by treverburton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I was just transportation that hauled them around, mainly to the helipads and did some guard duty around the perimeter.
162 posted on 06/22/2006 7:30:50 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: ChrisFelice1

BUMP

GREAT THREAD


163 posted on 06/22/2006 7:30:55 AM PDT by kitkat (The first step down to hell is to deny the existence of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
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.
164 posted on 06/22/2006 7:31:42 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Vision
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."

165 posted on 06/22/2006 7:33:49 AM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
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.

166 posted on 06/22/2006 7:36:21 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
"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.
167 posted on 06/22/2006 7:37:32 AM PDT by inpajamas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
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

168 posted on 06/22/2006 7:38:08 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
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?
169 posted on 06/22/2006 7:38:24 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

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


170 posted on 06/22/2006 7:41:01 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer

Tell it to the Kurds.


171 posted on 06/22/2006 7:42:16 AM PDT by AliVeritas ("One for all , all for kicking *ss and taking names" ...Scratch taking names.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
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.
172 posted on 06/22/2006 7:42:25 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU HAVE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Actually, you lack even a legitimate excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: D1X1E
Denial: It's not just a river in Egypt anymore.

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

173 posted on 06/22/2006 7:44:30 AM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
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?
174 posted on 06/22/2006 7:45:36 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: ChrisFelice1

175 posted on 06/22/2006 7:46:21 AM PDT by The G Man (The Red States ... the world's only hope for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
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?

176 posted on 06/22/2006 7:46:35 AM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: CSM

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.


177 posted on 06/22/2006 7:49:03 AM PDT by centristo (Amat victoria curam - Victory favors those who take pains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: TennTuxedo
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.

178 posted on 06/22/2006 7:49:56 AM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: TennTuxedo
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'.

179 posted on 06/22/2006 7:50:12 AM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
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.
180 posted on 06/22/2006 7:54:05 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson