(Via @gabrielmalor) President Obama? Somebody, I assume, has the job of doing basic research for your comments. What? No, that in itself is fine. That’s why people have staffers. But the staffer who first wrote this out for you (2:38 mark)?
“Chlorine itself historically has not been listed as a chemical weapon.”
…Fire that idiot. And read a history book on the First World War, because apparently nobody else in the White House does. Dear me, but this was such an unforced error…
Moe Lane
PS: What Barack Obama probably meant to say is that chlorine gas is too useful in too many industrial processes to be successfully banned as a chemical weapon. Unfortunately, President Obama is that worst of public speakers: which is to say, a bad one who has been told once too often that he’s a good one. So it goes.
Progressives don’t read history.
They MAKE history!
*make-up
This is the same guy who didn’t think we used bayonets any more. I’m guessing he has a huge blind spot for anything related to the military
Also, he’s actually saying something interesting but his halting monotone makes it hard to listen to
Bestest orator EVARRRRRRRRR!
When I went through Army Basic Training in ’67, when training with our M17 protective masks we were exposed two agents in two chambers. Tear gas (where we had to take our masks off while inside) and Chlorine (where we left them on throughout the exercise). We still wore brass belt buckles at the time and I was surprised that the chlorine discolored/tarnished our buckles and belt tips. Good times, good times.
WWI was, like, a hundred years ago and stuff.
So, like, there were all these mortar-induced wading pools out in no-man’s land, and they needed the chlorine gas to disinfect them, because safety.
Like, it wasn’t a weapon or anything. It was for the children. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
How does one say “fustercluck of putzes” in Obama-Speak?
Le Sigh.
Now, I wonder how he would describe Napalm if he had to justify the use of that weapon by someone else? A petroleum by-product?