This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Biography This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the aerospace biography project. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. NATO (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO

Am I being particularly dense? I went through the notes in that section looking for that quote ... there is a Congressional record for aspartame on that date, but I can't find the corresponding quotes. There actually is testimony by Dr. Goss on that point, but the precise phrases "beyond a shadow of a doubt," "the FDA has violated the Delaney Amendment," "who is left to protect the health of the public" appear nowhere in the testimony. He has certainly made remarks towards that point; however, the quotes used only appear, as far as I can see, on an advocacy website (I suspect the website of "spicing" up the relatively technical Congressional testimony). I can have Lexis email the record I pulled for that date to those who are interested.

Also, I fail to see how the quote adds meaningfully to Rumsfeld's bio; the appropriate place for its insertion is our article on the Aspartame controversy, which is linked from the paragraph. It seems a matter of deliberately inserting material to promote a particular point of view, attributed or not, and its placing here violates principles of neutrality, as it leaves us with unbalanced coverage of the aspartame controversy in the Rumsfeld article. RayAYang (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire section. Is Rumsfeld particularly notable for aspartame, and considering that the majority of peer reviewed scientific material on aspartame does not indicate either an acute or chronic health threat, aren’t we combining a good touch of WP:OR and guilt by association here with a touch of junk science to boot? CENSEI (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search turns up the quote on numerous websites attributed to the CR of the testimony of Dr. Gross for that day. If you have access to the full text of CR going back that far it would be great to see what he said; I am pretty sure it will confirm what can be found on the web, but if not it might be a good snopes submission since the quotation is quite widespread. As for whether it is notable for this page -- based on what was in there I would agree with you guys. I'm not a scientist so I don't know if it's "junk" science or not, but I don't see enough of a direct comment on Rumsfeld in what was in there, so I won't be putting it back in unless someone else wants to bring more sources into it. csloat (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, CENSEI. I won't be putting it back in, either. Csloat: I do have the text of CR via Lexis (the academic version), and that was the problem. I pulled up the testimony and searched on those phrases, and they don't exist, at least, not in the record for that day (which is what the Googled results reference). I suppose it's possible there was testimony with those quotes somewhere, but at the very least the reference was wrong. Ah well, the point is moot. RayAYang (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You actually have the full text of Goss's testimony? Could you post a copy or email it to me? I'm just curious whether there was a similar quote that was actually distorted or whether it was from something else entirely (or perhaps even made up out of whole cloth). But yes it has no impact here either way unless someone can demonstrate that it's a notable criticism of Rumsfeld. csloat (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Send me an email address? It's a fairly humongous file, b/c it includes everything Senator Metzenbaum stuck into the record. RayAYang (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "email this user" link work on my page? csloat (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. Let me know if you received it. RayAYang (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. This seems to be the section that is being misquoted all over the web: "In view of all these indications that the cancer-causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established way beyond any reasonable doubt, one can ask: -- What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act? Is it not clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame had caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals, and is this not sufficient to satisfy the provisions of that particular section of the law? Given that this is so (and I cannot see any kind of tenable argument opposing the view that aspartame causes cancer) how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame (50 mgm/kgm body-weight) as consituting an ADI (Allowable Daily Intake) or "safe" level of it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to setting a "tolerance" for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?" My guess is we have a partial quotation (the last line is verbatim) and some paraphrasing from an old book or article and someone who quoted the latter on the web or in another article messed up and included the paraphrasing as part of the quotation. csloat (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence and reference indicating that a UN representative (the special representative on torture at the UN Commission on Human Rights) has called for this man's prosecution. This just a factual statement. --Fremte (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally of the opinion that this reflects more on Mr. Nowak than on Mr. Rumsfeld, but until I have enough time to undertake the long-delayed rewrite/reorg of this article, I don't see that the extra sentence does that much damage. Ray (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I thought it reflected on the UN and Mr. Rumsfeld both. If it advances to endorsement or progress in the UN on the matter, then the sentence may stay. If this is only an opinion that is the subject of a news item and as you suggest about Mr. Nowak ( is he grandstanding and wanting press?), then it will need to be considered to be taken out as unimportant and advancing an agenda. At what time frame? I do not know, but we can see later. --Fremte (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know what happened to the original text with regards to Stephen Cambon's 9/11 notes. Before anything I would like to hear a valid explanation for the removal of the well formulated sentences which stood in "Run up to Iraq" heading for a very, very long time. We had vigorous discussion about it couple of years ago, the consensus for inclusion was reached and I hate to stumble upon same issue which already fueled a lot of debate because it shows our, somewhat ridiculous love for entropy. So before we go on another ride, I'd like to see who and why removed a whole section leaving dubious sentence while violating long time reached consensus. Thanks. DawnisuponUS (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you try using WikiGuilt if you really care. I did a brief search on the archives, and I didn't see it; if you could point us to the prior discussion, that would serve as a useful reference point.

However, I object to the inclusion of the current text inside the article. It is contextless: you don't know how and why the quote appeared. You don't know what Rumsfeld was reading or talking about at the time, what the agenda for the meeting was, if it was a response to a proposal to bomb Iraq, or Rumsfeld's own initiative, or what he even meant by "hit." Indeed, my particular problem is that the source, while reliable, also does not provide that context. Including it inside the "run-up to Iraq" is thus original research -- a presumption taken on the basis of lack of information. Leaving the reader to "draw their own conclusions" from a contextless quote with suggestive titles and poor framing is a failure of responsibility and reliability on Wikipedia's part, likely resulting in inappropriate conclusions -- this is inconsistent with our requirement to provide a neutral treatment of the subject. The policy on biographies of living persons explicitly tells us to avoid such things. I'm removing it from the article page per WP:BLP and putting it on the talk page until we can address these concerns. Ray^Talk 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To readers just dropping in: here is the text of the passage in question. Ray^Talk 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately five hours after the attack on the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld told aides he wanted the; "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden]." He instructed general Richard Myers to; "Go massive (…) Sweep it all up. Things related and not." DoD staffer Stephen Cambone who took the notes ended them with sentence "Hard to get a good case." ^[1][2]

I've made a few suggestions in my initial reply at your talkpage, apart from existing references such as reports that Rumsfeld Sought Plan For Iraq Strike Hours After 9/11 Attack. We may add his own recollections that show he acted upon instinct.

To address your concerns and avoid any possible presumption we may recall Mr. Rumsfeld's own thoughts and words. For example, on the day after 9/11, Mr. Rumsfeld "insisted" that there is a need to "bomb Iraq", he "complained in the meeting that there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."

Hope this clears things up for a bit and justifies my statement that the section needs more work and deserves to be dealt with the respect to historical and biographical significance it represents.

More context can be taken from [[1]]. If we take this omnibus together, wouldn't you agree that there is little room for any misinterpretations or presumptions? DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we with this one? Ray? DawnisuponUS (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I've been a little busy elsewhere. I think there's enough here to write something, but what are you trying to say here? That's sort of the problem with this all. We still don't know the context in which this stuff is going on -- we've got snippets out of what must have been a very intense discussion following 9/11. I would object to something as bizarre as just sticking the quote out there, but if you have some sort of proposed wording that handles this in a narrative voice, or attributes the opinion to somebody else instead of throwing it out there, we can work with that. Ray^Talk 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the section on lawsuits here. They don't seem to be going anywhere, and they don't have any lasting historical significance to Rumsfeld's life. WP:NOTNEWS and all of that. As it is, the descriptions of personal lawsuits only exist to repeat charges against Rumsfeld which no court has found even remotely worthy of consideration. The lawsuits against him in his official capacity are sufficiently irrelevant to his life that they shouldn't be included at all. If one of these actually goes somewhere with impact on his career, the information archived below may become meaningful. Ray^Talk 19:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some readers will be aware of lawsuits that have been filed, and might come hear to learn the status. One possibility would to make a brief mention that several have been filed but, so far, none has gotten anywhere. One knowledgeable observer has predicted that this will change and that, "beginning next year, Donald Rumsfeld will have difficulties traveling outside of the United States because of his connection to war crimes." [2] Because this is now only in the prediction stage, however, I think it's too tangential to merit inclusion.

The Nowak quotation goes to a different point -- not the potential legal consequences for Rumsfeld, but the assessment of his conduct. Suppose that the U.S. government and other governments that might prosecute Rumsfeld choose not to, and suppose further that any cases that are brought against him are dismissed, whether on the merits or on the basis of separation of powers or lack of jurisdiction or some such. It remains open to people knowledgeable about the subject to opine that Rumsfeld's conduct was criminal. Wikipedia reports facts about opinions. Nowak's opinion is certainly notable, given his position with the United Nations. We should not state as a fact that Rumsfeld committed war crimes, but we should report the fact about Nowak's opinion, rather than suppressing the subject entirely. A single sentence is sufficient, with a link to Guantanamo Bay detention camp for the reader who wants more detailed discussion of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, etc. JamesMLane t c 03:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowak's opinion is reported where it properly belongs -- on Nowak's page. It is significant in the context of a career human rights lawyer's highest moment of fame. It is insignificant in the context of a life as large in scope as Rumsfeld's, particularly since his call went unheeded and is going nowhere. If he should actually succeed in putting Rumsfeld in the dock, that would be another matter entirely. At most, he merits a passing mention along with all the other usual suspects of his ilk, and certainly not a whole paragraph. Nowak also called for President Bush to be put on trial, but quite properly there is no mention of that at George W. Bush. Ray^Talk 14:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the distinction I made. We report facts about notable opinions. One thing that makes an opinion notable is if the person expressing it is powerful and will have an impact on the bio subject (as opposed to "going nowhere"). I agreed with you that, so far, that criterion doesn't apply here. Another factor that can make an opinion notable, however, is the expertise of the person giving the opinion. It's worthwhile for a reader of the Rumsfeld bio to know that one expert thinks Rumsfeld committed war crimes. It's similar to our quoting Bush's fatuous praise of Rumsfeld on the occasion of his resignation. In fact, the latter quotation is much less informative, because the reader would probably assume that Bush would speak highly of his own appointee. JamesMLane t c 17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree on the importance of Nowak's opinion. I simply don't think he represents anything more than the usual suspects. The entire bio is in pretty sad shape in any case. I hope, now that there are some better biographies of Rumsfeld coming out, we may able to find the time to revise it properly. Ray^Talk 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed link "[non-]state terror"-->"State terror" because as it was, the link really went 180• off target. I changed the link to "non-state terror"-->"History of terrorism" because the History of Terrorism page describes many, many non-state terrorist organisations and gives an excellent counter-example in the French "Reign of Terror." I didn't point the link to the "Non-state terror" page because there isn't one and because creating one is currently a bit beyond my scope at the moment.

I didn't sig the original edit because I forgot to log in. oops. Fred (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the images can be used under fair use?

Here is one image:

• http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2009-05/46983181.jpg
• http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uspentagon0519,0,4529295.story

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "and also defended him in his controversial decider remark." but I can't find anything about such remark in the article. Did I miss it? or maybe info should be added? Thanks. Airproofing (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a full blown media mention, but a new book by a former Bush speechwriter apparently claims that "Donald Rumsfeld had to be talked out of editing his own entry on Wikipedia, which he referred to as "Wika-wakka."" Joshdboz (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this right here is the funniest thing I've read all week. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it shows how seriously he and others take Wikipedia. Jusdafax 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a section for one sentence, do we? InnerParty (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to expand it, I am sure that there is plenty more that is is relevant to that section. The period leading to the Iraq war is one which Mr. Rumsfeld is intimately involved. Unomi (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand it? We've just dropped the charges as irrelevant and you're suggesting we expand it? I'm for removal, that way it will be more tidy. Let's hear what other editors say. InnerParty (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position regarding the section is that the contents are well known and sourced appropriately and is placed within context which renders it meaningful to the article. I don't know what you are referring to regarding 'charges'. Unomi (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand - There is plenty of well-sourced history out there regarding this issue. Sure looks to me like an editor here is arguing to sweep it under the rug. The section's one sentence barely scratches the surface. Happy to discuss this further, but my view is that deleting this sentence is the opposite of what Wikipedia is about. Jusdafax 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an expand tag to that section. Unomi (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That again? Could someone please articulate the meaning of that quote? Why is it so darn significant, isn't it normal to seek 'best info fast', isn't it normal to seek evidence of involvement or to retaliate to attacks? What is the darn context of that quote??! InnerParty (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The context is given quite succinctly by CBS News[3] CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. Unomi (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder who wrote that sentence, not sure if its clumsy or skillfully done, you see, it actually says opposite to the context you gave, it doesn't say anything at all about the lack of evidence, it simply states Mr. Rumsfeld sought evidence. I don't think that people should have common knowledge about 'things related or not', I don't think people should click on references to get the factual info, and I don't think we should have misleading and factually inaccurate info in our articles, so hold no grudge, but I'll remove it. InnerParty (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please do not mark an edit which removes a well sourced paragraph as 'minor'. Second, it is from notes made by white house aides which documents that he saw the link to UBL as vague and sought to find evidence supporting an invasion of Iraq. As the Guardian article sums up ...these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck.. There is nothing 'controversial' about this, it is well documented and fairly universally accepted. Please reinstate the information you deleted. Unomi (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we care what other sources sum up, either we can come up with our own sum up or we cannot. Just read what I wrote above and examine what you've provided, also, your 'universally accepted' claim has no foundation whatsoever. As a person who is against your 'expansion' I've been more than helpful. InnerParty (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not how it works. Where possible, we should endeavour to relate how secondary sources such as Guardian and CBS refer to the matter. I don't really see what it is you take issue with, we have at least 2 good sources one which states emphatically that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq and the other, just as directly these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck.. If you believe there is some issue with those sources take it up at WP:RSN or contact CBS/Guardian. If there is a particular wording in the text that you removed that you take issue with please do spell it out. Unomi (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with InnerParty, and support Unomi's work, which is of value and properly sourced. Will revert it myself manually. Jusdafax 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, but I've actually pointed out that your 'endeavor to relate' failed. Well, I'm glad that this version works for you, because it certainly works for me. InnerParty (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the text of the quote confusing we could simply go with stating the conclusions of CBS and Guardian? Unomi (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be in best interest of clarity. InnerParty (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've got some activity again, I went and took a look at Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, which surprised me with the fact that WMD were found in Iraq, albeit presumably not at the scale or quantities claimed in the leadup to the invasion. Thus, I've removed that sentence - anybody who wants to take a stab at summarizing a decently complicated subject, feel free -- I just didn't feel comfortable with a factually wrong statement on the page. In general, I think we should strive for a good, narrative treatment of Rumsfeld's role in the leadup to the Iraq war, instead of regurgitating 6-year old bits of news reporting. If anybody's willing to dive through one or two of the Rumsfeld biographies that have been written of late, that would be very welcome. Ray^Talk 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I don't think finding some old shells of mustard gas qualifies as finding weapons of mass destruction. Remember, the U.S. public was threatened with "mushroom clouds" over our cities from weapons coming from Iraq, this was why we had to invade at once. I think what you removed was accurate and factual, Ray. I ask you to revert the sentence back, and failing that, to be open to further discussion on a reasonably quick revert without the time-consuming process of obtaining and digesting a Rumsfeld bio re: weapons of mass destruction. There should be plenty of WP:RS sources available online. A good place to start would be the way The New York Times was gamed via Judith Miller's reporting, (suggest you start with her Wikipedia article - if you are indeed right, then it also has to be re-written) and the way the paper had to apologize for said 'reporting' by the now-Fox News reporter. Jusdafax 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest compromise wording. "Rumsfeld made numerous statements concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which were not later substantiated." Would that work? Saying that weapons of mass destruction were never found is demonstrably false - the nomenclature on this subject is precise: nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons are all weapons of mass destruction, and mustard gas qualifies, whereas I don't think there should be any difficulty verifying that Rumsfeld made statements of fact regarding Iraqi weapons that were unsubstantiated. That said, we have a problem with the sourcing - the existing reference is not a secondary source, so much as it's a collection of Rumsfeld statements which are claimed to be false, without any further analysis link here, effectively, a collection of primary sources that do not verify the claimed statement. Ray^Talk 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not later substantiated sounds ok to me. As for specific sources, cross searching on google news archives for bits of the quotes finds loads[4][5][6][7][8][9]. We could pick a representative source, but I would prefer that we also keep the existing reference as it gives a good basis for further research by later editors. Unomi (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you Ray and glad Unomi is on board too. Good job. Will let one of you do the honors. Thanks, Jusdafax 04:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Hm. I don't think finding some old shells of mustard gas qualifies as finding weapons of mass destruction. Remember, the U.S. public was threatened with "mushroom clouds" over our cities from weapons coming from Iraq, this was why we had to invade at once. I think what you removed was accurate and factual, Ray.' POV on 'Some old shells of mustard' Links? VX precursors were found, right? Tons of mustard shells were found and detonated. cite: The continuing storm: Iraq, poisonous weapons and deterrence By Avigdor Haselkorn.// Further cite link: Link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm This is from a single Google search for 'VX Precursor' and 'Gas Artillery Shells Iraq' keyword search. Can we please try to stay non-POV?Foamking (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV? I don't care how many tons of mustard or any other gas were found, if there was no way to deliver it to the USA. The was no threat to the country. Seems like common sense to me. Jusdafax 03:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]