|
|
|
For some people, the wording of the question in the poll might cause them to have to answer "yes" if they are well-informed. As the article you linked to points out, we've found several hundred degraded shells with mustard and sarin; therefore, by the strictest definition of the term, Iraq did *have* chemical weapons, even if they weren't militarily usable.
I don't think Mr. Sali falls into the "well-informed" group, though.
Bubblehead |
Homepage |
09.08.06 - 12:44 am | #
|
|
This is all "man-on-dog" Santorum's work, he brought this up about a month ago. Even tho the WMD folks in Iraq had predicted such items would be found. Utter nonsense, these were all discarded "weapons" which posed a threat to NO ONE.
And Sali is a complete neanderthal, a moron, a hypocrit, and a mean, pandering SOB.
green libertarian |
Homepage |
09.08.06 - 1:05 am | #
|
|
I'm not defending Mr. Sali -- all I'm saying is that the poll questions Sara refers to are poorly worded. I'm honestly not sure how much the results would change, though, if they would have asked something more accurate like if Iraq had "an active WMD production program or effective stockpile of chemical weapons" in 2003.
Bubblehead |
Homepage |
09.08.06 - 1:28 am | #
|
|
I don't know, Bubblehead - by this time, they're more like NWMDs - nerf weapons of mass destruction.
Sara |
Homepage |
09.08.06 - 1:37 am | #
|
|
Possibly true -- I don't think one would have wanted to stick one's nose into the payload section and breathed deeply, though. Mustard gas in particular has been known to remain viable for several decades.
Bubblehead |
Homepage |
09.08.06 - 1:45 am | #
|
|
Congrats, Sara ... this is now among the leads at this afternoon's thread at Daily Kos. Click my name.
Julie Fanselow |
Homepage |
09.08.06 - 3:13 pm | #
|
|
Yeah, Julie, I noticed when my traffic so far today has been quintuple what it normally is. All because I happen to live in a state where Republicans say the darndest things!
Also, Bubblehead, I think that it would be more appropriate to call what was found "chemical waste" than weapons of mass destruction. If it can't be used as a weapon, it can't really be called a weapon. It's like saying they have WMDs at Hanford because there's nuclear waste, or that you found a pig on your breakfast plate when it's really just bacon. (Though, there's not really such a thing as "just bacon.")
Sara |
Homepage |
09.08.06 - 5:08 pm | #
|
|
Congratulations on all the traffic, Sara... you got more hits than me today! Hopefully some of the Kos visitors will hang around and look at the rest of your site.
Bubblehead |
Homepage |
09.08.06 - 7:38 pm | #
|
|
Commenting by HaloScan
|