The New York Times of all places is confirming that Bush was right,
there were chemical weapons in Iraq.. Seems my "tin hat" wasn't so wrong
after all.... lol.

On 10/15/14 9:45 AM, KC wrote:
The New York Times of all places is confirming that Bush was right,
there were chemical weapons in Iraq.. Seems my "tin hat" wasn't so wrong
after all.... lol.


You really, truly, are a moron.

No one ever denied Saddam Hussein had some stockpiles of aging chemical
weaponry stashed. But those old chems were not the justification for the
Bush-Cheney invasion, and their existence and discovery was never a secret.

The secret was the harm these old weapons were causing U.S. troops and
the subsequent failure of the Bush-Cheney administration to provide
medical treatment and rehab to the victims among the U.S. troops.




--
The new GOP credo:

Hate the people who are being oppressed,
love the people who are doing the oppressing.

On 10/15/14 12:48 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:17:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/15/14 9:45 AM, KC wrote:
The New York Times of all places is confirming that Bush was right,
there were chemical weapons in Iraq.. Seems my "tin hat" wasn't so wrong
after all.... lol.


You really, truly, are a moron.

No one ever denied Saddam Hussein had some stockpiles of aging chemical
weaponry stashed. But those old chems were not the justification for the
Bush-Cheney invasion, and their existence and discovery was never a secret.

The secret was the harm these old weapons were causing U.S. troops and
the subsequent failure of the Bush-Cheney administration to provide
medical treatment and rehab to the victims among the U.S. troops.

Did you read that CIA report I linked the other day?

It turns out they had cracked into a weapons facility that the UN was
supposed to have sealed for all time. They removed chemical weapons
and precursor chemicals that were so numerous that destruction was not
deemed to be practical..
It is clear that he had these weapons or that they were spirited off
to Syria.
Most chemical weapons are trivial for a state actor to make anyway.
All they need is an insecticide factory. There is not much difference
between what we use to kill bugs and WMD.



Naw. Didn't read it.

I have a friend, a smart guy who should have known better, who mixed up
a home brew of herbicides and insecticides to take care of a "pest
problem" in part of his front yard. The spray got on his leg and started
eating through his skin. He ended up spending 27 days at Johns Hopkins,
the big time hospital up in Baltimore for treatment, and is still
dealing with the aftereffects. Six figure hospital bill. Yikes!

We don't use any insecticides around here and if herbicides are used,
they're applied by the lawn service guys and we stay off the grass for a
couple of days. If my wife spies an ant or beetle in the house, she
picks it up on a piece of paper and escorts it outside. I'm not sure
what she'd do if she found a roach, but so far that hasn't happened.
Twice in the decade+ we've been here, a mouse found its way in, and both
times our cats dispatched the rodents. I think the word is out to
mouseville.



--
The new GOP credo:

Hate the people who are being oppressed,
love the people who are doing the oppressing.

On 10/15/2014 12:45 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 12:17:44 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/15/14 9:45 AM, KC wrote:

The New York Times of all places is confirming that Bush was right,

there were chemical weapons in Iraq.. Seems my "tin hat" wasn't so
wrong

after all.... lol.





You really, truly, are a moron.



No one ever denied Saddam Hussein had some stockpiles of aging chemical

weaponry stashed.


Bull****, you all ran elections on it... "Bush lied", sound familiar?

But those old chems were not the justification for the

Bush-Cheney invasion, and their existence and discovery was never a
secret.

Bull ****...




Scott, you are wrong on this one. It was an old chemical weapons
production facility that Saddam used back in the 1980's to control the
Kurds. I was declared by Iraqi after the Gulf War, inspected by weapons
inspectors and determined to obsolete, not in use and not a threat to
anyone. We knew it existed.

Only thing they were apparently wrong on was the remaining threat.

On 10/15/2014 12:17 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/15/14 9:45 AM, KC wrote:
The New York Times of all places is confirming that Bush was right,
there were chemical weapons in Iraq.. Seems my "tin hat" wasn't so wrong
after all.... lol.


You really, truly, are a moron.

No one ever denied Saddam Hussein had some stockpiles of aging chemical
weaponry stashed. But those old chems were not the justification for the
Bush-Cheney invasion, and their existence and discovery was never a secret.

The secret was the harm these old weapons were causing U.S. troops and
the subsequent failure of the Bush-Cheney administration to provide
medical treatment and rehab to the victims among the U.S. troops.




Keep your dirty little secrets to yourself.

On 10/15/2014 1:53 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:45 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 12:17:44 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/15/14 9:45 AM, KC wrote:

The New York Times of all places is confirming that Bush was right,

there were chemical weapons in Iraq.. Seems my "tin hat" wasn't so
wrong

after all.... lol.





You really, truly, are a moron.



No one ever denied Saddam Hussein had some stockpiles of aging chemical

weaponry stashed.


Bull****, you all ran elections on it... "Bush lied", sound familiar?

But those old chems were not the justification for the

Bush-Cheney invasion, and their existence and discovery was never a
secret.

Bull ****...




Scott, you are wrong on this one. It was an old chemical weapons
production facility that Saddam used back in the 1980's to control the
Kurds. I was declared by Iraqi after the Gulf War, inspected by weapons
inspectors and determined to obsolete, not in use and not a threat to
anyone. We knew it existed.

Only thing they were apparently wrong on was the remaining threat.




Dick, I remember clearly democrats saying "where are the chemical
weapons, Bush lied". The ran elections on it...

On 10/15/2014 2:13 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/15/2014 1:53 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:45 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 12:17:44 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/15/14 9:45 AM, KC wrote:

The New York Times of all places is confirming that Bush was right,

there were chemical weapons in Iraq.. Seems my "tin hat" wasn't so
wrong

after all.... lol.





You really, truly, are a moron.



No one ever denied Saddam Hussein had some stockpiles of aging
chemical

weaponry stashed.


Bull****, you all ran elections on it... "Bush lied", sound familiar?

But those old chems were not the justification for the

Bush-Cheney invasion, and their existence and discovery was never a
secret.

Bull ****...




Scott, you are wrong on this one. It was an old chemical weapons
production facility that Saddam used back in the 1980's to control the
Kurds. I was declared by Iraqi after the Gulf War, inspected by weapons
inspectors and determined to obsolete, not in use and not a threat to
anyone. We knew it existed.

Only thing they were apparently wrong on was the remaining threat.




Dick, I remember clearly democrats saying "where are the chemical
weapons, Bush lied". The ran elections on it...


Following the Gulf War Iraq was required to disclose all WMD's and
production facilities. The one in question was declared. It was
inspected, determined to be out of commission, sealed up and determined
to not be a threat to anyone.

The claims of new WMD's and production capabilities came 10 years later.