You title this post "Aid and Comfort" and confuse criticizing the Republican Party with placing the troops in danger. (I think that Bush sending far too few of them into Iraq with no exit strategy is what placed them in danger. And diverting resources to Iraq during the necessary action against al Queda placed all of us in danger.)

Let me refer you to yesterday's Dividers, Not Uniters:

When the Republican Party so obviously works to divide the American people rather than bring them together - to the point of calling 60% of Americans "traitors" - is it any wonder that the public starts to decide that the war is not serious? If it REALLY was a serious situation placin the country in danger you'd be unifying the public not dividing them.

The Party's propaganda line is that the country faces the most serious threat since WWII. In a situation like that you would think the people in charge would be working to strengthen the country in every way possible.

But we can all see that they are running the country into massive debt with tax cuts for the rich, cutting education and infrastructure, and doing everything they can to split us apart, north against south, city against country, rich against poor, funamentalist Christian against everyone else, and accuse 60% of us of being "traitors."

This warranted a position on my "weapons grade crazy" list of links.

Dave, with your own words, you've made it quite obvious that you are incapable of separating the soldiers in the field and their leadership in the military leadership in the Pentagon from the elected civilian leadership in the White House.

In addition at no point in the article you link in your "Dividers, Not Uniters" post is the word "traitor" used... at least until you insert it yourself. The actual content of the post concerned itself with actual combat soldiers wondering why the media and the Democratic Party are undermining their mission.

That isn't from the White House, Dave. That is from the troops on the ground, the very same ones you falsely accuse of using chemical weapons, and then wonder why they don't like you.

I'd suggest that by consistently trying to paint our soldiers as war criminals, our leaders as anyone who agrees with them bloodthirsty, greedy and corrupt, it might be you that are subverting this country.

But you kind of already knew that, did you, Dave?

Did White Phosphorous rounds suddenly become a chemical weapon in the last 5 years? I don't remember it being referred to as such prior to 2001. What changed in January of that year that suddenly made that munition verboten? It seems to me the "loyal" opposition wasn't screaming about the weapon being in our inventory in December of '00. Something must have happened around then.

Is white phosphorus a chemical weapon?

WP is a colorless to yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military is highly energetic (active) and ignites once it is exposed to oxygen. White phosphorus is a pyrophoric material, that is, it is spontaneously flammable).

When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. Phosphorus also becomes luminous in the dark, and this property is conveyed to "tracer bullets." This chemical reaction continues until either all the material is consumed or the element is deprived of oxygen. Up to 15 percent of the WP remains within the charred wedge and can reignite if the felt is crushed and the unburned WP is exposed to the atmosphere.

White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.

Of course it has not typically been used as a weapon:

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents.

Maybe a chemical that is used as a weapon is not really a weapon if it is not categorized as a weapon. I guess it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

Does the Pentagon hate our troops? According to the WaPo story Dave linked to the Pentagon admitted using WH as a weapon against enemy combatants. They denied using it as a weapon against civilians.

Dave is only reporting conduct the Pentagon admitted our troops engaged in. How is a factual description of the conduct of our troops an "attack"?

Dave is not just "reporting," he is willfully trying to slander our troops as using "chemical weapons" as in the Think Progress article he linked to. Don't be obtuse.

Dave Johnson writes "they advocate for war again, as long as none of THEIR families, neighbors, etc. have to serve". No one HAS to serve! The last draft ended on 1/27/73. The left would love a new conscription act, so they could immediately protest, burn draft cards, etc., recapture their youth. The military of today is all volunteer, dedicated, and God bless them!

So, let me get this straight. We used WP as a munition. It melts the skin off people, including a bunch of women and children. The political message machine denied that WP is a chemical weapon, denied that we used it as a weapon, talking points ridicule those making the claim. Then evidence comes up that we did use it, and that the Pentagon did consider WP a chemical weapon, so valiant defenders of the White House (such as yourselves) just change the subject to "they're giving aid and comfort to the enemy" and "They're saying bad things about our guys".

Well, bite me. I am not here to debate you folks. This is a drive-by middle finger. There's no point in debating you, because you are defending the party of corrupt liars. You won't have an actual debate, you just shift to another set of talking points.

The Republicans seem to have three main enemies. Reality, the justice system and Democrats. Reality betrays you daily, thus explaining Chimpy's 60% disapproval rating. Prosecutors are investigating and indicting one prominent Republican official after another. And Democrats are increasingly ignoring the bleatings of the defenders of the lie.

Phosphorus is not a chemical. The sky is not blue. Dick Cheney is not a liar. Water is not wet. Rumsfeld has not condoned torture. The sun rises in the west.

Hey! I think I'm getting the hang of being a conservative!

No, Horvath, you don't apparently have any of this straight. White phosphorus does not "melt the skin off people." It is a physical impossilbilty.

Nor does the Rai documentary show evidence of a "bunch of women and children" with burns consistent with white phosphorus injuries. For that matter, they do not show any bodies that can clearly be identified as having injuries consistent with white phosphorus. What they do show are some badly decomposed bodies, mostly of military aged men, some even still wearing military load-bearing equipment.

Other bodies they include show wounds consistent with high explosives. Interesting enough, many of the injuries in the Rai film are far more likely to be consistent with the kind of injuries caused by insurgent suicide bombing attacks than they are by white phosphorus shells. As Rai has been conclusively proven to have falsely identified footage from two other battles, and clearly misindentified military tiems in at least three otehr instances, it is quite possible that these dead and injured are not from Fallujah, but are civilains injured and killed by insurgent attacks.

Also, as I have throughly and completely debunked in another post, the Pentagon never, at any point, considers white phosphorus chemical weapons.

The Think Progress "evidence" has already been conclusively debunked as nothing but the draft report of a phone call transcript between two Kurdish civilains in April of 1991.A phone call transcript between two foreign nationals is not signs of U.S. policy, shocking as that might be to you.

Horvath, we know you aren't here to debate, as there is nothing to debate. All of your evidence is either clearly fraudulent or miscontrued, and those of you on the other side of the issue have not been able to get once credible expert to support your story. Not one.

So you are correct, Horvath, your rant is nothing more than a drive by middle finger, because you have zero facts with which to debate.

Like Dave Johnson, you are under the delusion that lying about the actions of our troops in the field to protray them as war criminals is somehow an attack on Bush. It is not.

When you attack our troops--see if you can follow--you attack our troops. You aren't accusing President Bush of personally pulling the trigger and being war criminals, you are accusing our soldiers of pulling the trigger and beign war criminals.

You side, without thought, against our soldiers.

You tell me what that makes you.

A simple challenge to you, Gary, and the other liberals, one that shold be very easy to satisfy if what you are saying is true:

Provide me the names of reputable chemists and artillery experts from any acredited university or NATO military in the United States or Western Europe that will agree with you that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.

It's that simple.

If what you are saying is true, then you should be able to find dozens of professioanls that agree with you.

Funny, how not a single expert has stepped forward to support you so far...

Dave Johnson, Gary Boatright and Horvath, which one of you three is the experienced military expert? Who is the military weapons expert? Who is the tactical weapons employment expert? Who is the chemical engineer? Who would recognize a fact if you saw one? For that matter, who actually cares about the truth? Is a conservative SME (subject matter expert) really an expert (or just a party hack)? Does an action really have a consequence? Do you really have to take responsibility for the consequence associated with your own action?

Someone pull out the Constitution and read Article III, Section 3. There is a message in there somewhere.

A counter challenge: Explain why the Pentagon admitted using WH as a weapon against enemy combatants. Is the Pentagon confused about what constitutes a chemical weapon? Maybe the Pentagon doesn't have any epxerience military weapons experts? Is there a shortage of chemical engineers at the Pentagon?

The Constitution of the United States of America Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted

Fitzgerald is investigating how many members of the Bush administration are guilty of treason. Is that the message you were referring to?

I don't see the part where Old Soldiers or Confederate Yankees get to decide who is and isn't guilty of treason. I believe that type of interpretation has been called judicial activism by some folks.

A counter challenge: Explain why the Pentagon admitted using WH as a weapon against enemy combatants.

Ummm... because we did use white phosphorus against enemy troops, just as we've done in every war for the past 60+ years?

As we've trie do ttell you hyper-ventilating lefties time and time again, white phosphorus is a conventional military munition likely used in every American major artillery battle since World War 2 (and most minor ones), and is used by virtually every member of NATO and the (former) Warsaw Pact. It will likely be used another sixty years from now as well.

As real experts have proven time and time again, white phosphorus is in no way a chemical weapon, and the Pentagon never claimed it was.

Think Progress dishonestly portrays the transcript of single brief phone call between two Kurdish brothers in April of 1991 as "evidence." Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Pentagon NEVER referred to white phosphorus rounds as "chemical weapons."

And you still can't find a single credible expert to support your story.

How surprising

Gary, no one in the Bush administration has given the enemy aid and comfort unless you call eternal celestial dirt naps comfort. I never said anything about “guilt”. That’s for a court of law to decide. Is there a “guilty” conscience speaking up? Unfortunately, judicial activism is in your bailiwick now, so I’m not advocating that either. That was a nuanced question and obviously, I cannot use that technique. So, plainly, if your dissenting rhetoric gives al-Qaeda hope and comfort, IMHO you have committed treason. As to guilt - that's not mine to assign.

Yeah, the pentagon has weapons and tactics experts; they’re called Soldiers and they employed the WP per their tactical training and doctrine!!! How many times do we have to say YES, the US military employed White Phosphorus mortar rounds tactically on the assault in Fallujah? YES, YES, YES, YES! Is that enough? Tactically it was used to screen US troop movement AND to cause the terrorists (that’s insurgents to you) to exit their trenches permitting the HE rounds to blow their asses to Allah. IF WP was an effective antipersonnel weapon, why the hell would they waste perfectly good HE rounds unnecessarily?!? You are stuck on stupid, because you won’t accept the FACT that WP is NOT a chemical weapon and it WAS NOT used in an anti-personnel roll in Fallujah. Get over it, already.

The news media seldom know anything about munitions. The front page of a major daily carried an AP photo in 2003 of a self-propelled 155 mm howitzer. It was a monster, but the caption called it a "Bradley fighting vehicle." If so, the Bradley has been substantially upgraded to serve artillery and infantry simultaneously!

'patriotic liberal'. That's an oxymoron if I've never seen one. Another liberal one is 'support troops'. Now here is some words that any liberal would support 'cut and run'.

Confederate Yankee insists that I must provide "names of reputable chemists and artillery experts from any acredited university or NATO military in the United States or Western Europe that will agree with you that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon."

I'm afraid I am not familiar with periodicals or journals used by chemists to comment on political current affairs. Do artillery experts have a periodical or journal they publish peer reviewed articles? Beats the hell out of me.

It apparently doesn't count that the Pentagon itself has admitted using WP against enemy combatants or that phosphorus is a chemical. Conservatives certainly do have a long list of inconvenient facts that are not permitted to participate in this discussion.

Perhaps the fact that US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' would be allowed a special waiver so it can participate. Are facts allowed to participate if they bring a note from their mother?

I don't know what the educational background of these military analysts is or if their background includes training as "artillery experts":

Military analysts said that there remain questions about the official US position regarding its observance of the 1980 conventional weapons treaty which governs the use of WP as an incendiary weapon and sets out clear guidelines about the protection of civilians.

I also cannot vouch for the educational background of Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, but it does appear to be a reputable organization. Daryl does not make the specific statement that "White phosphorous is a chemical weapon," but his intention is clear:

Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, called for an independent investigation of the use of WP during the Fallujah siege. "If it was used as an incendiary weapon, clear restrictions apply," he said.

"Given that the US and UK went into Iraq on the ground that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people, we need to make sure that we are not violating the laws that we have subscribed to," he added.

I suppose a good conservative can quibble that an incendiary weapon that utilizes the chemical phosphorous is not necessarily a chemical weapon.

Perhaps a factual statement from the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas would be granted the right to participate:

he US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

I guess I'll leave the discussion there until you fellas decide whether my facts are allowed to participate.

Gary, such a long-winded way to dodge the question.

You cannot product any credible experts to maintain your untenable (and poltically-motivated)view that white phosphorus munitions are chemical weapons.

Of course the Pentagon admits white phosphorus was used against insurgents--they've only been using it that way since before World War Two as has all of NATO, and the former Warsaw Pact countries. that is a complete not issue, as white phosphorus is a conventional incindiary munition.

As I've repeatedly proven, neither U.S. intelligence nor the military consider WP a chemical weapon, and more than they consider trinitrotoluene (TNT) a chemical weapon.

The only illegal use of any conventioal munition is against civilians, which is clearly all Daryl Kimball is concerned with. theyere is also zero evidence to support that that was true.

I do find the reputed single line from the Battle Book quite interesting. Monibot claims a correspondent finds the single sentence, "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

Interesting. Who's law? Not the Geneva Conventions or any other treaty the U.S. is a party to, and this is in seeming conflict with other army field manuals as well.

It is a shame that Monibot's corrspondent couldn't be troubled to provide context for the only apparent line of text among millions of words that form U.S. military doctrine that might support such a contrary position.

Gary. You've had plenty of chances to provide us with smoe sort of direct evidence of your contention that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon, or that a reputable chemist r artillery expert would supprt your contention... so where is it?

Re, Confederate Yankee on the photos of the bodies:
For that matter, they do not show any bodies that can clearly be identified as having injuries consistent with white phosphorus. What they do show are some badly decomposed bodies, mostly of military aged men, some even still wearing military load-bearing equipment.

I get the feeling the photos weren't meant to be looked at closely. Or at least those displaying the photos were hoping people would be too grossed out to do so and accept the claims without question.

Gary, I'm not rehashing what I've already said; go back and R E A D it.

Apparently, to Gary since terrorists don't wear identifiable uniforms they are civilians - hence his claim the the US used (technically) chemical weapons against civilians. I guess that's perfectly logical; I mean they started out being terrorists, then became insurgents, so its natural that they now morph into opposing civilians.

Since WP produces nasty burns on the terrorists, no, insurgents, no, opposing civilians, then we should disregard it's use as an obscurant and as a psychologically offensive tool and strike it from our weapons inventory. Bullets, hand grenades and artillery rounds are next on the list of weapons that could potentially be dangerous, no, hazardous to opposing civilians; so they will be banned shortly. In basic training today, they are switching to sensitivity training and the effective use of billy clubs (but not on the head). Perhaps we could convince the terrorists,no, insurgents, no, opposing civilians to stop using IEDs since we are going to give up our "chemical weapons". Perhaps a dance off would be a nice way to end this disagreemnt we find ourselves in. Would that be okay, Gary?

I am shocked! Shocked I say! Old Soldier and Confederate Yankee refuse to accept facts that are contrary to the divinely revealed wisdom of their personal opinions.

At this site The Battle Book, produced by the Command and General Staff College is not regarded as credible evidence. It is clear that there is not any authoritative source that Confederate Yankee and Old Soldier will accept as credible, unless the source agrees with their opinion. If you continue to insist that the facts are biased, then there is no point in attempting rational discussion.

Since you have such a low tolerance for the facts, I will take them with me. Please feel free to continue your certified fact free discussion in my absence.

I never said the Battle Book wasn't credible, Gary.

In fact, what I said was:

I do find the reputed single line from the Battle Book quite interesting. Monibot claims a correspondent finds the single sentence, "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

Interesting. Who's law? Not the Geneva Conventions or any other treaty the U.S. is a party to, and this is in seeming conflict with other army field manuals as well.

It is a shame that Monibot's corrspondent couldn't be troubled to provide context for the only apparent line of text among millions of words that form U.S. military doctrine that might support such a contrary position.

I challenged you for context... and you've responded with none. Is it suddenly my responsibility to verify your sources? I do not think so.

In any event, I did.

In the Command and General Staff College, Bryan Perrett's The Battle Book is listed as a dictionary of battles presented alphabetically. It does not address nor teach doctrine nor military law at all. So no, this not credible as a source.

You are graciously invited to leave, Gary.

You refuse to recognized acknowledged authorities, and twist the words of other men (such as Daryl Kimball's) to mean things they did not say, nor intend.

You have provided zero credible evidence, and the evidence you have tried to pass off as credible you cannot support, nor prove credible.

I challenged you to provide facts to support your contentions, Gary. It is a shame you could not manage to find any facts to support your claims, nor display enough character to admit that you were wrong.

Somehow, I am not surprised.

Do you mean that my high school Chemistry teacher had all of us using a chemical weapon (white phosphorus)in class?