[Billthedrill]

Well, the "15-year" date is chosen carefully to imply that these were buried prior to the first Gulf War, which, for some reason, seems to reflect less well on Bush. But I am a little curious as to why you think these weren't buried with an eye to future use. They can't be used now, to be sure (they're pretty much empty anyhow) but it's been "at least" ten years since they were buried - if not for re-use, then why bother?

The facts of the matter are fairly plain - Saddam did have chemical weapons (ask the Iranians) and he did play games with the UN inspectors. My point is the inevitability of an endless series of "this isn't enough" responses. At some point (say, December 2004?) they'll cease because they will no longer be useful and they'll already patently untrue.

[John H K]

Well, the "15-year" date is chosen carefully to imply that these were buried prior to the first Gulf War,

Well, on every thread on this on various FR posters twisted the "at least 10 years old" into "10 years old exactly" because that would make them POST GW I.

So everyone is spinning to suit their own ends.

And as to why they were buried, how about burying them to simply dispose of them?

[Nebr FAL owner]

Were did you get the idea that the shell that were found were "pretty much empty"? I have been reading the various accounts & no mention of them being near empty is made. I also have seen photos of the shells while not in factory fresh condition simple cleaning while wearing chemical resistant gloves & a gas mask with filter would be all that it takes to make them usable .