Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} First the good new about weapons, conventional and not, in Libya. According to Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan: "The Pentagon said Aug. 24 that Libya's stockpile of chemical weapons are "secure" ' but the bad news is "an arsenal of thousands of shoulder-launched missiles remained cause for concern." Regarding the chemical weapons, Lapan "declined to offer more details, only saying that "clearly those are dangerous agents and weapons ... we continue to monitor that." There were no plans to send U.S. troops in to secure the chemical weapons sites, he told reporters. Although Moammar Gadhafi's regime retained the mustard gas, it lacked the military means to launch an attack with the chemical, according to arms....
(Read Full Article)
Print
COMMENTS ON AMERICANTHINKER