The anti war movement said the reason not to be in Iraq is that there was no Chemical Weapons found by Hans Blix and others, and Collin Powell and Pres Bush and all them said yes there was. So now they found them, but no news coverage. Why?
2006-07-01 12:03:37 · 9 answers · asked by netmailcrap 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
rob, nice impression of an ostrich with your head stuck in the sand.
Not only DID we just find 500 warhead with chemical weapons, less than 1% of all weapons caches found in Iraq have been inspected. This means there is the potential to end up with 50,000 individual chemical weapons.
Or how about the papers found in Iraq documenting a program started by Saddam to fill perfume and medicine bottles with chemical weapons and try to ship them to the United States for consumption by an innocent public?
Want sources? YOU try these:
Iraq and WMDs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
17 May 2004 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
19 Feb 2005 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147047,00.html
14 Aug 2005 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
22 Jun 2006 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
22 Jun 2006 - http://rearviewmirror1.blogspot.com/2006/06/wmd-found-in-iraq-but-so-what.html
29 Jun 2006 - http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html
And a good essay documenting some of the cease fire violations Iraq and Saddam agreed to - http://rantingprofs.typepad.com/rantingprofs/2004/07/lost_and_found.html
A lot of libs on the left dismiss these findings by saying, "It was only 500 WMDs," or "The chemicals were degraded," or "They were all made before 1991."
First, degraded or not, mustard gas and sarin will still kill almost anyone exposed to it.
Second, how many WMDs must be found in order to prove to you that Saddam lied about WMDs?
Third, pre-1991 or not, Saddam lied about having WMDs and had every intention of using them if he could.
And before you get on your high horse about Fox News, note the link I put up to one of the most liberal rags in the nation, the Washington Post, and their story about the 1500 gallons of chemicals found in a chemical weapons laboratory.
Like I said, VERY nice impression of an ostrich.
2006-07-01 13:07:37 · answer #1 · answered by Outlaw 1-3 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the super-liberal press never reports early on good news that is complementary to the conservatives. I am not a conservative or liberal but I try to be fair and supportive of what I feel is right for America. The WMD found are still destructive and can kill many thousands of people. Saddam said there were no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Who was stupid enough to believe him with the exception of Hans Blix? Most of the modern WMD were shipped to Syria and the Israelis told the US government specifically where they were. In time the US troops will find additional WMD in Iraq and the liberal press will mention it briefly only on page 12.
2006-07-01 19:20:32 · answer #2 · answered by wunderkind 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The various groups against the war have many reasons for their position. ONE of them is that there were no weapons of mass destruction found, and that was supposedly the main reason we invaded.
There HAS been news coverage of the chemical weapons found. However, if you had read the coverage you would have learned that the weapons found are 15-years old, obsolete, and no longer functional. They are no more 'weapons of mass destruction' than a box of grenades.
At this time, the administration has backed off it's claim that WMD's have been found. Where were you when all of this was covered?
2006-07-01 19:12:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The media is conservative and they knew that it was pointless to report on a pile of metal that they found. That would more likely point out the fact that Sadaam did in fact destroy them years ago. They did not want that debate to start so they did not report..
And I think they did report on them at first when they actually thought they were the WMD in question.. When they got all the info they stopped.. hmmmm...
2006-07-01 19:10:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were old and useless. Nothing worth making an issue out of. What they found was from many years ago and not any sort of current stash that they were looking for.
2006-07-01 19:12:37 · answer #5 · answered by normy in garden city 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, because they haven't found any evidence yet. No smoking gun. Check the BBC.
PS The liberal news media is only as liberal as the consevative elements that own them.
2006-07-01 21:49:32 · answer #6 · answered by Travis M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, just because YOU say so, don't make it so! If it were, the fringe press and blogoshphere would be on it like flies on a turd. Don't here any buzzing yet...
2006-07-01 19:12:46 · answer #7 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Need to check your sources. Didn't happen, try CNN.
2006-07-01 19:16:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberal news media doesn't want to admit they are wrong.
2006-07-01 19:09:29 · answer #9 · answered by asafam23 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋