The left's position against Bush on the war in Iraq is going to start looking even more like a house of cards if this turns out to be true. The anti-war left is so committed to the theory that Bush lied about WMD's that if these shells turn out to contain chemical weapons, they may as well forfeit in 2004.

Just for grins, here's some potential responses from the left if the above story turns out to be true:

A few artillery shells with chemical agents don't count as WMD.

Sure we found WMD's, but how come Danish soldiers could find them and American soldiers couldn't? We need a full scale investigation.

Since the shells have been buried for at least 10 years, then it's possible they were buried before the first UN resolution banning them, which makes them only "sort of" illegal.

Bush Sr. had the weapons planted back in the first gulf war, knowing that his son would invade Iraq 12 years later, find the weapons, and fulfill their evil Illuminati plot.

These things have been sitting in a swamp for 10 years, how dangerous could they be, anyway?

Ok, so there's chemical weapons in Iraq, but where's the evidence of Saddam's nuclear program? Bush still lied!

Bush knew about the chemical weapons from the beginning and waited until an election year to reveal them for his own political gain. Wait, that would mean that he wasn't lying. Never mind.