Notes from the Pentagon.
Iraqi CW shells
U.S. intelligence officials tell us the evidence that Iraqi artillery units are preparing to use chemical warfare shells is based on reconnaissance photographs of the shells.
The rounds were identified as chemical weapons-capable shells with slots where a vial of nerve agent or biological-weapons dust is inserted before firing.
No evidence of the actual chemical or biological agents has been spotted so far. Officials said the weapons of mass destruction vials are kept separate from the artillery shells and then brought to the units before being fired.
The artillery units with the special shells were bombed Wednesday in southern Iraq in a pre-emptive strike. Officials believe the Iraqis, if they use weapons of mass destruction, will draw on their hidden stocks of VX nerve agent, an extremely potent poison.
But to some they Say they Don't have these???
12 Years to Damn Late!!!!!

Hog

A double edged sword - if they use the chemical weapons it proves we were right all along, which is good. But its very bad for our troops to have that used on them.

It is a Shame the World turned there heads when they Know First hand Saddam is Guilty of these and now they have to see it first hand before they will Accept it...

Sanctions Never Worked... all these Country's saying Wait for the past 12 years are Guilty of any loss of Life do to these... and I Blame Clinton Flat Out!!!!!
8 years he turned his Head.... he needs to be Exiled.... My Personal Opinion Nuf Said

Hog

I blame Dubya senior. He shoulda taken him out when he had the chance. X

X I don't know if that was his call. I heard we had troops within a mile or so of SH back in 91, and they new it, but were told to refrain. I don't know if it's true just what I heard

Wood-man

By the way I am not against the war.
I wish he would have complied but he did not, so be it

So X, if you supported his father going all the way (as the Raspberries would say), but he didn't, then you suuuuuurly FULLY support Dubbya going all the way now to fix what should have been done before, right? I'm reading between the lines here, but that's what you're saying right? you support the attack then, right?

Your argument is either specious or insincere. Bush worked with a coalition to free Kuwait, and did so, remember? They were "occupied"; once Kuwait was liberated, we were chasing their troops back up toward Baghdad and killing them en-masse. The press on that was very bad, "oh how can you kill those defenseless murderous rapists.” I’m sure you were cheering the troops onward? Chanting Baghdad, Baghdad, Baghdad (or bust?) I don’t think so… I think you were protesting then, and you’re protesting now. And looking for excuses…

Our mandate was to liberate Kuwait. You know that don't you? Do you really think we should have driven on to Baghdad regardless of our military objectives and the coalition? I would have liked to see it, but the political reality of the day said, "stop". No immanent threat as identified today and concerns over a power vacuum if they were taken out. You should understand the whole vacuum theory being liberal and familiar with Democrats “sucking”.

Well, today the same reality says "GO!" are there any lights on the way to work? Do you have a job? Or am I paying you to sit at home and watch soaps? 🙂

Robby,I was just responding to Usahog blaming Clinton for SH and ignoring GW sr's role.
I think the SOB should be taken out,Period. I'm not letting Clinton off either,he should have done it also. If either one had,maybe we would still have the WTC and OBL and his henchmen wouldn't have been in the position to do so. X

I support my Commander In Chief (The President), no matter who it is.