Are you telling me you think we gassed our own soldiers?!?
The insurgents had chemical munitions-- regardless of its' age, they are chemical weapons. I see how this is going to play out. First it was, "See? There are no WMD in Iraq." Now it's, "That's not enough chemicals to be called WMD." Just out of curiosity, what constitutes enough chemicals to be considered WMD for you guys? 10 shells? 100 shells? 1000 shells? How about nukes? 1 nuke? 10 nukes? 100 nukes? I ask that because it is a matter of time before terrorists get their hands on one-- from Pakistan for instance --and I'll be asking the same question when you once again tell us, "Oh, that little dirty bomb doesn't count as a WMD. It needs to go at the very least to the 20 kiloton range before I call that a WMD."
I also suppose that you undoubtedly believe that one shell just happens to be the only chemical shell in Iraq-- and they *just happened* to stumble across this one and use it out of all the hundreds of thousands of shells across the country, right? Pure luck, I'm sure.
Ridiculous.
Totem