One day the story of WMD in Iraq will be known, at least partially. For now, the information is coming out in bits and pieces. Bottom line — those who said there was no WMD in Iraq were wrong. (Using the definition and standard they set for President Bush, I guess that means they were lying, right?)
Jay at Stop the ACLU has a great roundup of blogosphere reaction to the latest from Pete Hoekstra and Rick Santorum:
U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, joined Congressman Peter Hoekstra, (R-MI-2), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, today to make a major announcement regarding the release of newly declassified information that proves the existence of chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003. The information was released by the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, and contained an unclassified summary of analysis conducted by the National Ground Intelligence Center. In March, Senator Santorum began advocating for the release of these documents to the American public.
“The information released today proves that weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq,” said Senator Santorum. “It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq. I will continue to advocate for the complete declassification of this report so we can more fully understand the complete WMD picture inside Iraq.”
The following are the six key points contained in the unclassified overview:
• Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
• Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.
• Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.
• The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.
• The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.
• It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons. I have not checked in at the major liberal blogs to get reaction. My guess is that the conventional wisdom is still that Bush lied about WMD and that there was none in Iraq. (I will update later if I find this not to be the case.) What I find absolutely amazing is that many of those who believe Bush had something to do with the Twin Towers collapsing and who believe that John Kerry really won in Ohio find it impossible to believe that Saddam had WMD — even though Bill Clinton, the UN, France and dozens of Democrat politicians said he did over and over again.
Over two years ago, I found Ken Timmerman’s report of WMD found in Iraq quite compelling, but no one ever seemed to pay much attention to it. (Be sure to read it if you aren’t already familiar with it .) Maybe eventually all the information found will be compiled and we will have a comprehensive picture of everything that has been found. Maybe the media will even decide to report it.
UPDATE: From A Real Ugly American (via Flopping Aces’ excellent, must read post):
General Tom Mcinerney is reporting on Fox Hannity and Colmes right now that that the administration has been keeping this low profile to avoid exposing 3 of the 5 members of the UN Security council; Russia, China, and France. McInerney says these weapons will be traced to these countries, and asserts it is well known that Russia helped Saddam move most of his WMD stockpiles out of Iraq before the war.
I have on several occasions speculated about why the President would not be touting the information we have about WMD found in Iraq and had come to a similar conclusion. My theory was that if the public knew that certain other countries had been involved with moving WMD, they would demand action that we did not want to, or were not able to, take.
Check out Pajamas Media’s WMD Files for previous blogging on the subject. Just for the record, I never doubted.
Just doing some Duelfer reading, and found this assessment of the usefulness of these chemicals to the insurgents (Annex F):
16 May 2004: 152mm Binary Chemical
Improvised Explosive Device
A military unit near Baghdad Airport reported a suspect IED along the main road between the airport and the Green Zone (see figure 2). The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG fi eld labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product.
The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. The munitions bear no markings, much like the sulfur mustard round reported on 2 May (see Figure 3). Insurgents may have looted or purchased the rounds believing they were conventional high explosive 155mm rounds. The use of this type of round as an IED does not allow sufficient time for mixing of the binary compounds and release in an effective manner, thus limiting the dispersal area of the chemicals.
Ed –
So you’re saying this is news, because even though we knew all along about multiple legacy WMD storage or dumping sites, we discovered a few unknown ones as well. Really? That’s the basis for all this nonsense?
Ultra2K:
Your claims are ridiculous and speculatory.
Prove them.
moonbat:
“and that the reason the wingers were so sure they were there was because GHWB’s administration gave them to Saddam“
As I said above, prove it. The onus is on you who is making the claim.
Eric:
If these munitions are indeed from pre-1991, than pure science will disprove the claim that they are dangerous still. As I said above, the shelf-life for sarin is extremely short, and it seems for mustard gas, about 10 years. Sure, it can be argued the sludge that’s left over from degraded mustard and sarin can be harmful, but unless the insurgency starts spiking our soldier’s drinks with it, we shouldn’t have to worry about this particular set of munitions. There may, of course be other unfound munitions that are still dangerous.
Ah, yes. One half of the liberal template is that Bush is incredibly dumb and incompetant, yet he can steal two elections and con the entie world into believing that Saddam had WMD, thus leading the USA into a war for oil and Hailburton.
Pathetic attempt at building a straw man. Yeah, that’s what “we” think: Bush himself, orchestrated a huge voter disenfranchisement campaign in FL, OH, etc. Is that really your argument? Idiot.
And contrary to your pathetic kool-aid drinking beliefs, the “entire world” did not think that Saddam had an active WMD program, and knew that it was likely there were OLD WMDs which were left over from previous years. Guess whose hands we need to keep them out of now. Yep, the “insurgents” that the power vacuum we created allowed to come into existence.
Peter Fosse:
What were you expecting – crates full of kittens? Boxes of Jolly Ranchers?
I don’t know, if you crate up a bunch of kittens in the desert heat for a decade, you’re going to have some ornery felines on your hands when you open that box. I wouldn’t want to be there.
And Jolly Ranchers can safely be considered WTD (Weapons of Tooth Destruction) so don’t be so quick to call them harmless.
On another note, thanks for your service. You as well Josh.
Indrid_Cold:
that the power vacuum we created allowed to come into existence.
I think it’s safe to say we’ve gone far to fill that vacuum.
Isn’t Indrid Cold from the Mothman Prophecies?
I would suggest to everyone that the terrorist jihadists are indeed on a practicing learning curve for WMDs use&production and given enough time in Saddams playfields i.e. Salmon Pak they would and will soon aquire the proper technical know how to inflict major damage with WMDs.
I don’t want to turn into the hall monitor, but a couple facts on “my” side need corrected.
We did not give any meaningful WMD to Saddam. Public record. That claim is false as Heralder said.
Also, most of the world DID believe Saddam was attempting to reconstitute his WMD programs. Again, facts are facts and this is public record. We were not alone in believing he problem had them.
We WERE alone in spending half a trillion dollars and 2500 American lives going to war over it, when the evidence was contradictory and unclear. Further, the evidence for truly scary bio and nuke programs was very week (for chemical, the case was a little stronger, but chemical weapons aren’t remotely as dangerous as nuke or bio weapons).
I very clearly remember Cheney and others saying, “There’s additional classified information we have that proves beyond a doubt that Saddam is working on a nuclear program. We can’t share it, but trust us.” And I did, and they were dead wrong, and now we’re paying for that.
Guys, I’m not a winger. What I’ve describes is, I believe, an honest encapsulation of the history of the lead-up to this war. The resulting low approval ratings for Bush were inevitable.
We did not give any meaningful WMD to Saddam. Public record. That claim is false as Heralder said.
From CJR
The gulf war began shortly after, on January 16, 1991, and the media went wild. But when it ended six weeks later, most Americans knew little more about the war’s root causes then they did before.
There would, however, be more to the story. Within hours after hostilities ceased on February 27 — and nine-teen months after the FBI had raided BNL — the government indicted Drogoul, painting him as a lone-wolf financier of the Iraqi war machine. He was charged with defrauding his Rome employers of billions of dollars.
Nightline, which had been looking at Iraqgate for some time, hooked up with the Financial Times in an unusual and productive arrangement. On May 2, 1991, the team reported the secret minutes of the President’s National Advisory Council, at which, despite earlier reports of abuses, an undersecretary of state declared that terminating Iraqi loans would be “contrary to the president’s intentions.”
Nightline/Financial Times also cited intelligence reports that Iraq was using U.S. government farm credits to procure military technology. On July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide — some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons — and had shipped it via a CIA contractor.
Regarding insurgents getting ahold of legacy WMDs.
I keep beginning my post by saying, “Lemme get this straight,” and I will now, too.
Lemme get this straight. You’re saying the fact that insurgents got ahold of legacy WMD as a result of the chaos of war is/was a reason to go to war in the first place? How can you write things like that and not get dizzy from the circular logic?
The tiny (and, so far, totally harmless) amounts that have been used by insurgents only fell into their hands because of the chaos of wartime Iraq. Saddam never handed that stuff out to them voluntarily because he wanted a monopoly on that kind of technology, naturally.
Iraq had only minor and mainly incidental ties to terrorism prior to the war. The centrality of Iraq to the WOT now is mainly a result of our having made it so ourselves.
Geez Mantis, there you go again with the Duelfer report. I already explained to you that most of these weapons were found after the Duelfer report was issued, and certainly all of them were found after the Duelfer report began circulating for comment. You asked earlier how I know that, as if your question is somehow a rebuttal. The answer is that I actually bothered to read the memo to Santorum.
“Purpose: This summary provides an unclassified overview of chemical munitions recovered in Iraq since May 2004.”
Stop quoting the Duelfer report. It is irrelevant to the weapons we are talking about, and in fact serves as a direct rebuttal to the Duelfer report. It would be cause to reassess the Duelfer report’s conclusions.
KC – you’re going to have to do better than that. I could make that stuff from a cherry tree and a pot of boiling water in 30 minutes. You can’t claim this was US policy, approved, or material, or that it continued or received any funding or support from the US govt. That claim has been debunked.
WMD only ‘count’ with these people when they cause the horrible death of some of our troops. But hey, they ‘support’ the troops, right?
LJD, once you read above and educate yourself on this debate, you will regret posting that.
Geez Mantis, there you go again with the Duelfer report.
Well, it’s relevant.
I already explained to you that most of these weapons were found after the Duelfer report was issued, and certainly all of them were found after the Duelfer report began circulating for comment. You asked earlier how I know that, as if your question is somehow a rebuttal. The answer is that I actually bothered to read the memo to Santorum.
Yeah, I read it too. Where exactly did it claim that these discoveries were all made after the Duelfer report? Nowhere? Ok, got it. The Duelfer Report details the findings of the ISG thru the end of Sept. ’04. May is before September still, isn’t it? I asked how you knew that the ISG wasn’t talking about any of these weapons. You don’t. And I explained why it was still relevant, as the ISG discussed old chemical weapon leftovers from the 1980s, predicted more would be found, and discussed their usefulness.
Stop quoting the Duelfer report.
No.
It is irrelevant to the weapons we are talking about, and in fact serves as a direct rebuttal to the Duelfer report. It would be cause to reassess the Duelfer report’s conclusions.
You didn’t read the Duelfer report or you wouldn’t believe that these findings are somehow a “direct rebuttal”. Furthermore, the portion I just quoted above concerns the usefulness of old sarin munitions in IEDs, and is thus relevant to the discussion of these munitions and their use by terrorists.
From FoxNews website:
A senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
“This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991,” the official said, adding the munitions “are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.”
What part of this statement from Rummy’s Department of Defence don’t you people understand?
I see Mantis, you are going to hypothesize with a straight face that the weapons we are talking about were discovered between June 2004 and September 2004 when the Duelfer report was issued after a time-consuming process of international vetting? I’m admiring your liberal logic, however, the burden is now on you to prove that ridiculous idea. Let’s not let the facts interfere with your theories.
Josh Narin – huh? I’m not sure what you’re saying about what I wrote. I said I had no explaination?
And what “facts” of a con do you have? an unimpeachable source for this?
Anyway, we’re going around in circles, so let’s leave it at that.
What’s interesting about the Saddam regime is how organized and relatively efficient it was. They had built up a huge stock pile of chemical, and possible some biological, weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.
Yet he was able to apparently destroy the entire stockpile under threat from the UN. So far, only 500 shells from that period have been found. I doubt the USA could have been as efficient. Saddam was obviously trying to comply with the UN at some point.
I had expected much larger cache of these old weapons to be found after we invaded Iraq. The fact that almost none have been found implies that the Iraqi record keeping and tracking system must have been incredibly efficient. In a way, that makes Saddam’s regime scarier than I had appreciated. Sort of like the Germans in WW2.
Of course these few leftover weapons have nothing to do with our stated purpose for invading Iraq. The threat being touted was that he had an active program, or a program that could become quickly active, and that he had the capability to make advanced chemical and possibly nuclear weapons that were compact enough that they could be delivered via his links with terrorists to the USA. None of this was true at all.
As to faulty intelligence being the reason for the above beliefs, that’s ridiculous. The Adminstration cut off the various agencies that were supplying intelligence and instead started their own intelligence stream of raw, unfiltered, unanlyzed intelligence that was cherry-picked to justify the war. Cheny had his “1% theory” that even if the evidence was only likely to have a 1% probability of being accurate, that was enough to act on.
It’s too bad that almost all media sources are biased in some way or another. If you right wingers thing Hannity and Colmes delivers the truth or you lefties think everything Keith Olberman says is fact (let’s not even talk about Bill O’Reilly) then we have a serious problem here. Get your facts from as many places as you possibly can USE YOUR OWN BRAIN to make an opinion. Righties WANT to believe Republican crap so they do. Lefties do the same.
Personally Rick Santorum has a long way to go to impress me but that’s my opinion.
If you want to call each other stupid and idiotic because you both have a different set of ‘facts’ then right on, but realize you will be getting nowhere. The truth about all this crap won’t surface for another 50 years anyway. Just do your best to educate yourself and for god’s sakes have an open mind. Isn’t that what America is about? You may be wrong in some places, but have the guts to admit it. If you are right, don’t be an arrogant jerk.
From everything I’ve read, old WMDs were found in 2004. That’s about all I can gather before right and lefts went to battle over stupid semanitics. Keep it up all, you’re really getting somewhere.
I see Mantis, you are going to hypothesize with a straight face that the weapons we are talking about were discovered between June 2004 and September 2004 when the Duelfer report was issued after a time-consuming process of international vetting? I’m admiring your liberal logic, however, the burden is now on you to prove that ridiculous idea. Let’s not let the facts interfere with your theories.
You are focused only on the question I asked you about whether the ISG considered any of these weapons, which you cannot say because you don’t know. But forget that question, operating on the assumption that none of these weapons were seen by the ISG, so what? They did see munitions of the same type, discussed their presence, their condition, and their usefulness both militarily and to terrorists.
SUH, you are staking out the Rodney King ground in this thread. I guess it would be nice if we all just got along, but no, that is not what American is all about. If you want everyone to get along, there is place for you in Japanese culture. What makes us a great nation is the passion behind our principles, our belief in good and evil, our determination to sacrifice for principle, and our belief in individual freedom and the rights of man. Tom DeLay’s parting speech was actually excellent on this topic.
And by the way I did not in any way hypothesize that the weapons were discovered between June 2004 and September 2004. I asked you how you could know none of them were.
Mantis, I agree with you on your last point, which will hopefully pacify SUH. I believe that these 500 old weapons are largely irrelevant as I said way up at the top of the thread. But others will legitimately differ and are reasonable to call for a reaccounting of the Duelfer report’s conclusions. And that is because any reaonable person will conclude they were discovered after the Duelfer report was vetted.
Saddam Hussein is largely responsible for 2,000,000 dead people in the world. Most of these died from bullets and grenades of mass destruction, not WMD. So to me, whether WMDs are new or old, whether they are 500 or 5000, is irrelevant to this just war.
Oops, there you go again. The understanding of probability theory, Mantis, requires an understanding of mathematical constructs that are generally beyond the average liberal. So I’ll try to make this easy. There are 22 months between September 2004 and June 2006. OK so far? There are 5 months between May 2004 and September 2006. Right? There is, therefore, roughly an 80% chance that the vast majority of these weapons were discovered in the 22 months since the Duelfer report was issued. (That isn’t quite right, but I’m simplifying for you in simple English).
And that ignores the reality that the report was vetted. It is more likely that the data was gathered thru early summer. I’m guessing the data was gathered thru May, which would explain why Santorum asked for a report of WMD discovered after May 2004.
This debate is ridiculous.
If the DEA kicks down your door because they know for sure that you are operating a meth-lab, and they fail to find a meth-lab or any drugs until they go through some fifteen year-old boxes of stuff in your attic and find a bag of pot that you hid in 1990 when you were high and paranoid and subsequently lost track of.
Is that justification for raiding your house?
Does anyone here know anything about chemistry? Sarin loses it’s effectiveness after six months.
Under ideal conditions mustard gas still retains some effectiveness for up to ten years, but the stuff that Saddam was producing was not particularly well made, and those were probably not particulary ideal storage conditions.
The rotunda test proposed by mr 914 would be a bit of a disappointment to him.
A chemist can make better poision gas with pool cleaning products.
A chemist can make anthrax with little more than some culture jars and a dead cow.
The Iraqi government beauracracy was about as efficient as any other third world despot nation’s. I’m sure they lost all sorts of things. I wouldn’t worry about a bunch of dead shells full of what once were Chemical Weapons. I’d worry about the depleted uranium dust that our soldiers have been breathing for the last few years. (and the thousands of nuclear warheads floating around in the balkans)
Sure saddam had WMD’s. Large fragmentation bombs are WMD’s. Tanks are WMD’s. A 747 with a full tank of jet fuel is a WMD.
The term “Weapon of Mass Distruction” is a rather vague term, and should not be the lynchpin of any argument for or against the invasion of a sovereign country.
Did bush lie? Well, it’s possible to be dishonest without lying, so that’s a pretty worthless turn of a phrase to tout or rebut as well.
The key issue is this: Was Iraq a credible and significant threat to the US?
With a secondary question: If yes, did we act appropriately?
And a tertiary query: What do we do with the mess we have now?
You can play gotcha all you want from the left or from the right and you will NEVER SOLVE ANYTHING.
SUH has a point though. Discussions have become so bi-partisan that people are making decisions based soley on party affiliation as opposed to accurate information. Debate becomes difficult when most of the conversation disintegrates into name calling.
This particular thread took a turn for the better though, and I dare say people on both sides are learning something. Even if not learning, thinking, and that’s good too.
Wow, that’s not what I said at all. There isn’t a place in the world where everyone gets along and that’s the price humans pay for having emotion and thought. If you think that’s how Japanese think then you are severely mistaken. What makes our nation great is in a belief in good and evil? What? No other country believes in that? Has principles? Sacrifices? Roughly 10% of Americans have passports, and since 90% of this country hasn’t traveled ANYWHERE ELSE they are led to believe Americans are better than the world. This type of arrogance is not only dangerous, but it’s really going to hurt us when WE need help. If you don’t think that day will come, then China is laughing at you. Maybe everything in your house was made in the USA, who knows…
But anyway that’s off topic, I was just alarmed by people thinking they saw something on Fox News or conversely CNN and considered it ‘fact’. I was merely suggesting that people gather as much info as they can from different sources, not just the ones they are most ‘comfortable’ with. The more educated people are the more open minded they are, and while they never agree on everything, God forbid we can reach a compromise that seems reasonable. It’s how succesful marraiges, companies, communities, etc work. But if people want to call each other morons all day that’s fine. I’m just failing to see the productiveness of it.
Maybe if you all agreed on certain ‘facts’ you could go from there. Is that possible? If not then whatever, i was just trying to help. I do find circular angst to nowhere amusing.
And that is because any reaonable person will conclude they were discovered after the Duelfer report was vetted.
Incorrect. If you read Annex F of the Chemical weapons section of the report, you’ll find it starts:
Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components.
It then details a few examples from May, June, and July of 2004. Annex H begins:
As of 27 July 2004, 9,758 Iraqi munitions caches had been found and scheduled for destruction.
We had found quite a lot of Iraqi munitions by the time the Duelfer report was written, and some of those (53 to be exact), were chemical in nature. Your assumption that the report couldn’t have been written and vetted after May 2004 and therefore couldn’t possibly include any of Santorum’s munitions is just that, an assumption. And a wrong one at that.
Oh, you commented again:
There is, therefore, roughly an 80% chance that the vast majority of these weapons were discovered in the 22 months since the Duelfer report was issued.
As I noted above, 53 chemical munitions were found at the time of the report. If these are part of the weapons from Santorum’s report, than they represent only 10% of those. Fine by me. How exactly does this make the Duelfer report irrelevant? Are the weapons discovered after the report super special chemical weapons that don’t degrade over time or are in some other way different from those discussed in the report?
I’m guessing the data was gathered thru May, which would explain why Santorum asked for a report of WMD discovered after May 2004.
Well, you’re guessing anyway, despite the fact that the relevant information is at your disposal.
McCain: “Saddam Hussein is largely responsible for 2,000,000 dead people in the world. Most of these died from bullets and grenades of mass destruction, not WMD.”
If you are referring to the Iraq/Iran war, please keep in mind that our favorite Mid-East bullyboy was waging that war at the behest of and with the aid of Don Rumsfeld et alii.
“So to me, whether WMDs are new or old, whether they are 500 or 5000, is irrelevant to this just war.”
Just war? 100,00-200,000 innocent Iraqis dead is just? Saddam Hussein sits around getting three squares a day and sporting Armani suits – while peasants get pulverized, lack electricity and drinking water – all so draft-dodging chickenshit George Bush can wage his vanity war? Just war? Buncha hooey!
The understanding of probability theory, Mantis, requires an understanding of mathematical constructs that are generally beyond the average liberal.
And actually using probability theory to arrive at useful results requires that you actually have the correct data, which it seems the average conservative will do anything to avoid.
robert lewis:
Just war? 100,00-200,000 innocent Iraqis dead is just?
Where did this information come from? It’s over-inflated by about 200% – 300%.
all so draft dodging chickenshit George Bush can wage His vanity war?just war? phooey.
So He is so vane as to invade two countries as a chickenhawk? but so chicken hearted that He flew fighter jets in the national guard..
What the hell, makes sense to Me!!
Lee snorted: “Pete – relax. Trust me. These idiots aren’t worth the perspiration….”
This is a joke, right? What with you posting more than anybody else I’ve seen on this site…seems like several comments on just about every thread ‘aren’t worth’ your sweat, eh?
Thanks for providing the data, Mantis, which proves my point. 90% of the weapons were discovered after the report was issued, just as probability theory should have told you earlier. Certainly that is cause to discount the Duefler report since they had found very little WMD at the time.
SUH, America’s resolve to support and fight for liberty is one of the important aspects of the American character. We sacrifice. And no, the “old” Eurpean countries for example don’t have this characteristic to the same degree. The Iraq War is a PRIME example of the distinction between both cultures. It is interesting to me that the “new European” nations DID participate in this war, reflecting a higher appreciation for their newfound freedom from Soviet oppression.
The liberal subculture in America, but the way, doesn’t value freedom either, which puts their arguments against the war in a useful context. They have a different risk/reward calculation in their heads.
Certainly that is cause to discount the Duefler report since they had found very little WMD at the time.
Discount what exactly? Why don’t you read the report and tell me what needs to be discounted, especially concerning the points I raised.
“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991” –Mantis quoting the Duelfer report.
You chose to highlight this passage in bold letters yourself, Mantis. It is discounted through your own research since we know 90% of the weapons have been discovered since the report was issued. And if they were so wrong on the numbers, which you thought so important to highlight, might you consider they are equally wrong on other points and conclusions? For example, it is reasonable now to reassess whether or not Iraqis intentionally tried to destroy their weapons or whether they tried to hide them instead. We just don’t know now.
Folks, before you get your panties in a bunch, the DOD has already shot down your “good news” about WMD. There ARE NONE! There were none and there will never be any found. Please stop drinking the Kool-aid. Hanging on to a figment of your collective imaginations is not doing our great country any good. Dear leader is toast. He will go down in history as the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. You folks are partly to blame for the awful state of our country. Mr Bush was to be a uniter. Well he has united most of the world against us. Do you feel any safer? I didn’t think so. God Bless America…
Tom:
You folks are partly to blame for the awful state of our country. Mr Bush was to be a uniter. Well he has united most of the world against us. Do you feel any safer? I didn’t think so. God Bless America…
If us “folks” are partly to blame for the “awful state of our country” than your folks are the other part of the blame. Besides which, what awful state are you referring to? California? 😛 Things are fine here in NYC. All my civil liberties are intact.
And as a matter of fact, taking into consideration our enemy, yes I do feel safer. Thanks for asking, even though you tried to answer for me.
Falze said:
Lee snorted: “Pete – relax. Trust me. These idiots aren’t worth the perspiration….”
This is a joke, right? What with you posting more than anybody else I’ve seen on this site…seems like several comments on just about every thread ‘aren’t worth’ your sweat, eh?
———-
No sweat here pal. I’m having a wonderful time, and if my words ever give you the impression that I’m angry or upset, rest easy. I am smiling all the way. You guys make it easy.
Here does this help? :^)
I’ll go back to what I said last night at the top of the thread — the part Lorie Byrd left out of her post, but the FACT that blew away this whole cloud of red smoke.
and I mean Huzzah! in the nicest, happiest way. :^)
You chose to highlight this passage in bold letters yourself, Mantis.
I was copying it from the report, where it is bolded. Have you looked at the report?
It is discounted through your own research since we know 90% of the weapons have been discovered since the report was issued. And if they were so wrong on the numbers, which you thought so important to highlight, might you consider they are equally wrong on other points and conclusions?
How were they wrong on the numbers? They found some, they said more will probably be found. What numbers were they wrong about? Have you even looked at the report?
Well, let’s look at the report again and see if that assessment is accurate:
Iraq Unilateral Weapons Destruction in 1991
Iraq completed the destruction of its pre-1991 stockpile of CW by the end of 1991, with most items destroyed in July of that year. ISG judges that Iraq destroyed almost all prohibited weapons at that time.
Yes, the report says that there may have been a “small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions” left, but the vast majority were destroyed. So is 500 a small number (we already know they’re old and abandoned)?
The war with Iran ended in August 1988. By this time, seven UN specialist missions had documented repeated use of chemicals in the war. According to Iraq, it consumed almost 19,500 chemical bombs, over 54,000 chemical artillery shells and 27,000 short-range chemical rockets between 1983 and 1988. Iraq declared it consumed about 1,800 tons of mustard gas, 140 tons of Tabun, and over 600 tons of Sarin. Almost two-thirds of the CW weapons were used in the last 18 months of the war.
Wow, 500 shells seems like small potatoes after what they used in the Iran war, let alone all the munitions that were destroyed afterward. And note:
Iraq declared in its 1996 Full, Final, and Complete Declaration (FFCD) that it produced 68,000 155mm sulfur mustard-filled rounds between 1981 and 1990. Of those produced, Iraq has not been able to account for the location or destruction of 550 155 mm shells. The bulk of 155mm destruction occurred between 1993 and 1994 and many of the log entries show that the mustard was partly polymerized, which is consistent with our findings in the recent sulfur mustard rounds.
There were 550 mustard shells that were never accounted for, out of 68,000, and some were probably among those discovered by the ISG. So the report acknowledges that almost all of them were destroyed, acknowledges that a few were unaccounted for, and implies that some of those have been found. I suppose you could make the argument that they were hiding 550 mustard shells instead of destroying them, even though they are now long past their useful life and still unused (what were they saving them for?). Even if that argument was made, it can’t be proved at this time, and it certainly doesn’t discount the Duelfer report, which you obviously can’t be bothered to read.
It seems the argument that a lot of people are making here is: We found poison gas, therefore bush did not lie to get us into Iraq. Let’s review the lies shall we?
How many times was the phrase “mushroom cloud” uttered by Rice and Bush?
What was the evidence to support that claim?
1) Aluminum tubes
ONE JUNIOR RESEARCHER at the CIA believed these were at all appropriate for centrifuges. More senior analysts at the CIA believed what we can see now as the obvious truth that they were only appropriate for conventional weapons. The state department also came to this obvious conclusion.
2) Yellowcake from niger
The evidence that supported this claim was thin enough to be transparent. Three different reports refuted this claim for a host of reasons.
This was cherry-picking of the highest order. What was presented to the american public was far, far from the truth of the intelligence.
If you guys really believe that the American Public would have gone along with this fiasco without the nuclear threat; if you really believe that the American public would have gone along with this war over some Sarin gas, I want some of what you’re smoking.
KC – you’re going to have to do better than that. I could make that stuff from a cherry tree and a pot of boiling water in 30 minutes. You can’t claim this was US policy, approved, or material, or that it continued or received any funding or support from the US govt. That claim has been debunked.
Simply saying it has been debunked is great. I could make it from a cherry tree and a pot of boiling water in 30 seconds.
Link please.
Mantis, their definition of “small” was 53 bombs but there are actually 500 and counting. That is the point. Change small to “large” and it is reasonable to ask to have the conclusion reassessed, as well as suspect all of their other data since they were so wrong on this point.
Geez, I really hate to link to a page that has something to do with (gasp!) Iran, but here’s a chronology:
Arming Iraq
More
Please, if you’re going to claim that these claims have been debunked – offer some proof.
I’m open to a second opinion.
Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003
What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.
rming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do “whatever was necessary and legal” to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan’s Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of “dual-use” export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the “Anfal” campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: “The US-Iraqi relationship is… important to our long-term political and economic objectives.” [15]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush “wanted better and deeper relations”. Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80’s using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]
August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta’s branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]
June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980’s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into [an aggressive power].” [5]
July, 1992. “The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories… Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons.” Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]
August, 2002. “The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern… We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose”. Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]
This chronology of the United States’ sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam’s army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
References:
Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
Timeline: A walk Through Iraq’s History. U.S. Department of State
Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
Bush’s Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. http://www.gendercide.com
Carter LeBlanc beat me to the point I was going to make. Sarin has a very short shelf life. 15 year old sarin munitions are going to be completely worthless as a weapon to anyone so they should most certainly not be classified as weapons of mass destruction anymore and no one should worry about terrorists getting ahold of them other than the fact that they may be useful for building IEDs from the casings.
Mantis, their definition of “small” was 53 bombs but there are actually 500 and counting. That is the point. Change small to “large” and it is reasonable to ask to have the conclusion reassessed, as well as suspect all of their other data since they were so wrong on this point.
Bullshit, read the report. They never claim that the 53 shells they had examined were all that existed, in fact they repeatedly speculate that more will be found, as I have pointed out to you numerous times. Small is defined as relative to what Iraq had at one time (not to mention as far as military efficacy). 50 or 500, still small. Those 500 shells are less than 1% of the total mustard shells Iraq produced, if they were all mustard. Since they weren’t, add in the other chemical weapons produced and the percentage will shrink.
The right, as usual, is smoking mushroom clouds.
… explain how the following quotes from the CIA report don’t apply.
“While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.”
Posted by: Eric at June 22, 2006 12:35 PM
There is a difference between huffing on an artillery shell like a bong and it being viable weapon. These shells weren’t WMDs or even weapons. They are industrial waste.