The link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/17/acd.00.html
The other link: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2925362.php
In May of 2004 American soldiers were exposed to sarin gas used in an IED in Iraq.
An IED, an improvised explosive device, made from what insurgents may have thought was a conventional, 155 millimeter artillery shell, like the many that are all over Iraq. A few soldiers who helped transport the exploded shell got mild symptoms consistent with exposure to sarin gas. They got quick treatment. They were lucky.
This was reported by Anderson Cooper, etc. etc. I actually recall hearing about this, but it went away, and I forgot, or assumed it wasn't sarin. But it was.
In 1990, Iraq admitted to the U.N. that it had built some sarin gas artillery shells, prototypes that it insisted had all been destroyed during testing. It now appears, Anderson, that may not have been true.
Aha. So Bush's justification for invading, among others, was that Saddam had not proven that he had disarmed, and was consistently obfuscatory regarding his chemical and biological weapons. We now know he was lying about having sarin shells, had not disarmed, and was not being honest.
So, “there were no WMDs?” Really? Actually there were, there are, and they were used on our troops.
How is this possible? How has the national discourse formed around the assumption that there are no WMDs in Iraq when there clearly, clearly are? How does the MSM manage to completely ignore and gloss over this? How can any reasonable person not see that this is clear proof of the generally Democrat biased reporting of the MSM?