Friday, June 23, 2006

Old or New, WMDs Can Kill You Just the Same

There are WMDs and then there are WMDs.

Apparently even the Bush Administration is parsing the differences in the wake of revelations by Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Peter Hoekstra that American forces have found 500 such weapons containing deadly chemicals such as mustard gas and Sarin, a nerve agent.

“These are from BEFORE the War with Iraq,” the naysayers chortle. “They are degraded to the point where they would be ineffective for their designed use and not a threat to U.S. forces in the 2003 invasion.”

Notice that nobody says how lethal these chemical WMDs remain. They just say they are “degraded,” whatever that means. They say they were not suitable for their intended use, presumably in artillery shells and missiles. What they don’t say is that, degraded though they may be, the chemicals are still extremely toxic to human beings and could be used to murder thousands, only not in the form of artillery shells or missile delivery systems. Oh, thank you; that makes me feel so much better.

Coming on the heels of reports that terrorists planned to kill Americans in New York subways using chemical and nerve agents, the existence of these “lost” WMDs (that were not declared by Saddam to the inspectors) is quite sobering.

We invaded Iraq for a number of reasons, contrary to what the lying Democrats say. One of those reasons was to prevent Saddam’s WMDs from ending up in the hands of terrorists, to be used against us. We didn’t specify at the time that these WMDs had to be of a particular vintage. We didn’t say, Saddam, you can keep all your old, degraded WMDs, but give us all your new stockpiles and all will be hunky dory.

There is ample evidence—from Saddam’s own papers and recordings, as well as from observations of strange convoys headed to Syria during the lead-up to hostilities—not to mention Saddam’s use of WMDs against the Kurds and the cat and mouse game played with international inspectors, that some kind of mass killing devices existed in Iraq. Logically speaking, why in the world would Saddam risk his regime, his son’s lives and his own personal safety protecting weapons that didn’t exist?

I, for one, am grateful that these “degraded” WMDs are in the hands of American forces instead of Saddam or the Islamofascist insurgents. Moreover, I could care less if the WMDs are old or new; if they can kill us—and they can—what difference does it make?

The left is willing to let the chips fall where they may, as long as President Bush’s reputation and latitude as Commander in Chief are compromised. In other words, they are willing to put you and me at risk in order to hurt the man they call “The World’s Number One Terrorist.” The so-called mainstream media are fully complicit in this endeavor. That is why they continue to ignore any news or facts that do not fit their agenda and that is why they are actively undermining our ability to identify terrorists in this country and abroad with the various secret communications intercept and financial transaction oversight programs they have disclosed.

You may thank them when you or your loved ones are killed in a terrorist incident.


At 10:29 AM, Blogger Cadillac Bob said...

Damn straight, Shane!

The left will never acknowledge the actions that Saddam had been taking to prepare WMDs, and his other stratgegies to support terrorism, before 2003.

Fact: during Saddam's regime, on average he murdered 150 Iraqis every single day.

Fact: Saddam had actively been supporting anti-Western terrorists since he tried to hire Carlos the Jackal in the late 1970s.

To deny that Saddam was a threat is nothing more than cynical politics -- Democrats looking for any leverage they can find to unseat the Republicans. Democrats are more than willing to jeopardize the safety or our troops in Iraq to secure the White House. Their incessant bickering is doing nothing but prolonging our mission in Iraq.

That's sedition, pure and simple.

At 2:07 PM, Blogger Shane Briscoe said...

And you know what Shane wants to do to seditionists, Caddy Bob!


Post a Comment

<< Home