Keep hoping JP5!

__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com

that disproves what a lot of libs were saying, that these things were just manufactured by terrorists, and were not at any time a part of Saddam's arsenal.

So I'm just glossing over the New York Times thinking to myself, "typical liberal rag" as I've come to expect. I mean, when Berg is slaughtered they were so busy with the Iraqi Prisoner Abuse story that they just couldn't be bothered.

Then I ran across this article by William Safire. I had to check my pulse and temperature. Maybe it was the editor's day off or something. I mean he actually criticised the liberal media.

Will wonders ever cease?

Is it snowing in hell yet?

This reminds me of the day last week when DBG actually (almost) complimented Bush.

Anyway, here it is:

Sarin? What Sarin?By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: May 19, 2004

You probably missed the news because it didn't get much play, but a small, crude weapon of mass destruction may have been used by Saddam's terrorists in Iraq this week.

The apparent weapon was sarin gas, a highly toxic nerve agent that causes victims to choke to death. Developed by the Nazis, it has been used in the past by terrorists in Japan to kill a dozen subway riders and panic thousands, and by Saddam Hussein, who produced tons of it to kill Iraqi Kurds.

Rigged as an "improvised explosive device," or roadside bomb, the 155-millimeter howitzer shell was accidentally detonated by a U.S. ordnance team. Two men were treated for what an Army spokesman called "minor exposure" to the nerve gas.

You never saw such a rush to dismiss this as not news. U.N. weapons inspectors whose reputations rest on denial of Saddam's W.M.D. pooh-poohed the report. "It doesn't strike me as a big deal," said David Kay.

"Sarin Bomb Is Likely a Leftover From the 80's" was USA Today's Page 10 brushoff; maybe the terrorists didn't know their shell was loaded with sarin. Besides, say our lionized apostles of defeat, a poison-gas bomb does not a "stockpile" make. Even the Defense Department, on the defensive, strained not to appear alarmist, saying confirmation was needed for the field tests.

In this rush to misjudgment, we can see an example of the "Four Noes" that have become the defeatists' platform.

The first "no" is no stockpiles of W.M.D., used to justify the war, were found. With the qualifier "so far" left out, the absence of evidence is taken to be evidence of absence. In weeks or years to come — when the pendulum has swung, and it becomes newsworthy to show how cut-and-runners in 2004 were mistaken — logic suggests we will see a rash of articles and blockbuster books to that end.

These may well reveal the successful concealment of W.M.D., as well as prewar shipments thereof to Syria and plans for production and missile delivery, by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war — the grandmother of all battles. The present story line of "Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals" would then be replaced by "Saddam was shrewder than we thought."

This will be especially true for bacteriological weapons, which are small and easier to hide. In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing — and point to caches of anthrax and other mass killers.

Defeatism's second "no" is no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago.

Most (*)(*)(*)(*)ing is the rise to terror's top rank of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. His activity in Iraq was cited by President Bush six months before our invasion. Osama's disciple Zarqawi is now thought to be the televised beheader of a captive American.

The third "no" is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder. We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards, who will be punished; he delightedly oversaw the shoveling of 300,000 innocent Iraqis into unmarked graves. Iraqis know the difference.

The fourth "no" is no Arab nation is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism.

In coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist reportage as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium.

Will today's defeatists then admit they were wrong? That's a fifth "no."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/op...lliam%20Safire

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

dose not matter how old. Old WMD kill just as well as new ones{how evr you define those terms}.

It was desghined to be shot from a artilery piece and the chemicals mix in flight to form the poinson, that did not happen the way ity wqs detinated so no real harm. Never mind its still a WMD{about a gallon of it} that was not suposed to be there, never mind the facilities to make the stuff, the precursers and all those 55 gallon drums under camoflage and in military facilities, never mind the musterd gas found....so on so forth.

This find confirms weapons inspector David Kay's case for war: "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq," Kay told Congress "And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country--and no central control."

It is now safe to conclude as well that Saddam bequeathed a frightening legacy to post-liberation Iraq: the Weapons of Mass Destruction still at large in Iraq. The alternative thesis – namely, that the only two WMDs left in the entire country were employed in the (fortunately) failed IED attacks involving sarin and mustard gas conducted in recent days – is preposterous on its face.Care to back up the idea there are none?After all, that was what saddam was asked to do.

And when he did this the US cheered him on...... but when Saddam was no longer valuable as an ally, and oil became a major temptation, they looked for any reason to get him out of power.

So now you've gotten a taste of some left over sarin from the days when you gave Saddam your full support and even provided him with weapons.... oh what a shock.

L.

__________________
"They misunderestimated me."
--George W Bush

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

Let's do it.

Hey, Grizzly....I read where your state ....like many others....has had a dramatic job increase. Good news, huh?

as did russia ,china, France ecetra ecetra.
A bit of news you might want to know. the u.s. did not arm saddam hardly at all.
Not saying none at all just not near what people are lead to think;

It is certainly true that most of Saddam’s apparatus of terror was supplied by permanent members of the UN Security Council who have abused their position to further their own interests, heedless of innocent deaths. But the guilty men are not the Americans and the British, but the French, Russians and Chinese. According to figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 1973 and 2002 Russia supplied 57 per cent of Saddam’s arms imports, France 13 per cent and China 12 per cent. The US supplied at most just 1 per cent and Britain significantly less than that. Brazil supplied more weaponry to Saddam than the US and Britain combined. No wonder France, Russia and China declined to support action to disarm one of their best customers. And no wonder they are so keen to have their pet UN run the country now. We cannot have any inconvenient invoices falling into the wrong hands now, can we?http://i.xanga.com/dissidentfrogman/saddamgraph.gif
http://broadscapeventures.com/weblog...es/000578.html

Check out the graph.
http://i.xanga.com/dissidentfrogman/saddamgraph.gif

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...638446,00.html

SedyAlpha says: Age is irrelavant to a WMD.


OBVIOUSLY you don't know a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed thing about chemical weapons dear - and you shouldn't make statements, as opposed to stating opinions, without any knowledge to back it up.

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENTS DEGRADE OVER TIME.
Educate yourself.





~~~ SENFART - -thanks for posting that SAFIRE piece!!! It was pretty funny!!
God I hope he didn't hurt his cheeck having his tongue shoved so far into it, eh?
That part about how "it didn't get much play" was HILARIOUS!!!!!

As I've stated more than a few times on this BBS SenFart - - EDUCATE YOURSELF - get some PERSPECTIVE - - get your news from MANY SOURCES!!!!! You are right - I do watch Faux News often - and I"m proud of the FACT that I read/listen/watch LOTS of news sources. You know- - kinda like you neo-cons are so proud to be ignorant bushlickers 'cuz you've been told to 'think' you're a patriot! 'DOH!




You should take a lesson, little man - you'd be able to post messages with content instead of your usual neo-con flag-waving bullsh.