To: Enterprise
MSNBC is tripping all over themselves, emphasizing that this is a "CHEMICAL" facility, and not necessarily a "CHEMICAL WEAPONS" facility. Chris Wallace pointedly said that "We don't have confirmation that weapons were produced here."
Hey, Chris! Why is a friggin' GENERAL in charge of the place? And why is it ON A MILITARY facility?
23 posted on
03/23/2003 5:54:01 PM PST by
sinkspur
To: sinkspur
They camoflouge KY production facilities in Iraq?
33 posted on
03/23/2003 5:56:51 PM PST by
jwalsh07
To: sinkspur
Hey, Chris! Why is a friggin' GENERAL in charge of the place? And why is it ON A MILITARY facility?Chrissy needs to listen to Fox - they're giving out all kinds of info on this place, mentioning things like the barracks, the berm and the electric fence surrounding it, as well as the efforts made to camoflage it from the air.
I had no idea that industrial espionage was such a problem - must be some really special baby milk being made there. </sarcasm>
To: sinkspur
In a time of war, when the troops are needed to be available to kill Americans, it would make no sense at all to have a General in chage of a generic chemicals producing plant. There are two things which this would indicate. If it was a generic chemicals plant, and it was camouflaged, the General and his troops were cowards and were hiding there to try to sit out the war. Otherwise, it is what we believe it is, and we will soon have the information on what the plant contains, or has produced.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson