WMD Found in Iraq, However...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Some interesting quotes...

Quote:

---

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

---

Quote:

---

"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."

---

... certainly not a slam dunk by any means, but it is significant. I have long held that the Republicans should not have rolled over on the WMD debate. To a lot of Americans, the headline "WMDs Found!" would be enough to put their minds at ease over justification of the war, regardless of the level of operativeness of the weapons. The propaganda machine dropped the ball on this one, and it will cost the right in 2006. :shame:

There is no WMD that can reach America from Iraq, and there is no indication that Hussein would sell it terrorists, nor that terrorists would somehow be able to use it against the US. Iran has more terrorists than Iraq, and N.Korea has more missiles, and may I add, balls than both Iran and Iraq put together. So who cares?

The right has made a booboo in its pants by focussing on the more emotional and worthless sides of consevativism, such as incompetent adventures in the middle-east, and gay-marriage(which affects nearly no one in a real way). All the while neglecting the economic debt, screwing around immigration, and erroding civil liberties. So now they will pay dearly for that, deservantly.

Quote:

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...965231,00.html
Wednesday May 28, 2003

The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous bacteria.

The bad news was that the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland countryside.

---

Bureaucracies lose track of all sorts of stuff. Compare the US, a wealthy, peaceful, stable country with Iraq, a rather poorer country under sanctions and with a disintegrating civil infrastructure. If the ideal conditions enjoyed by bureaucracy in the US can lose track of bio-chemical weapons, how much more so for Iraq, whose bureaucracy was notoriously falling apart? Incidentally, there was another WMD find in the US in 2004 or 2005 which caused some embarrassment to the government which knew nothing of its existence.

**jumps out of way before Saddam/terrorist apologists stampede into the thread**

It's nice to see more objective reporting from the Guardian- Yep, anthrax vaccine is no different from weaponized anthrax loaded into artillery shells.

Yet another editorial passed off as a news story. :dizzy2:

The fact that such a large weapons cache missed the eye of the weapons inspectors sugests a lot more about Saddam's capabilities and intent. I understand how it is possible to Saddam to simply loose track of them, but it is very unlikely considering that his power came from his military. And it is obvious that he uses them. For a peaceful country like the US, when the last time they even used WMD's in a military action was in WWII, I would think that the loss of these things would be more likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevDave

**jumps out of way before Saddam/terrorist apologists stampede into the thread**

---

Well, according to the report that PJ quoted, there now seems to be an actual risk that terrorists have access to WMDs.

Good job...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Good job...

---

on what?

On potentially giving the terrorist groups that are now in Iraq access to WMDs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I have long held that the Republicans should not have rolled over on the WMD debate. To a lot of Americans, the headline "WMDs Found!" would be enough to put their minds at ease over justification of the war, regardless of the level of operativeness of the weapons. The propaganda machine dropped the ball on this one, and it will cost the right in 2006. :shame:

---

Gah. Yes Saddam did posses WMD's at one point, he used them on his own people and against Iran. And yes he lied and obstructed the inspections. He was however not a threat to anyone in 2003 anymore, not by a long shot, which is the relevant issue. Technicalities about tiny amounts of leftovers of pre-1991 chemical weapons are not.

What should've been done, was sell this war on any grounds BUT WMD's. Sooner or later the obvious would become clear: that Saddam didn't pose any threat whatsoever.

That WMD's rubbish has undermined the legitimacy of the invasion, creating all sorts of legitimacy problems in Iraq, undermining America's prestige in the world, and will hopefully backfire at the Republicans.

What Bush and Powell should've said, was 'we're going after some unfinished bussiness, we'll get Saddam, we'll shoot anybody who get's in our way and we don't care what nobody says.

Oh, and we'll pull out on october 1st, 2005, so Iraq better be ready.'

That would've worked so much better than this constant stream of lies, half-thruts, propaganda and half-hearted statements by an administration that has lost control of events after week six. This is, what will cost the right in 2006.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

On potentially giving the terrorist groups that are now in Iraq access to WMDs.

---

I didn't give anybody anything, is this a personal attack? A mod should know better.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

What Bush and Powell should've said, was 'we're going after some unfinished bussiness, we'll get Saddam, we'll shoot anybody who get's in our way and we don't care what nobody says.

---

Agreed, however, since when was any war fought like that? WWI was kicked off with the invasion of Franz Ferdinand, though he really had nothing to do with the real reasons of it. In Vietnam is was the Gulf of Tonkin that really kicked off the US intervention, but in reality is was to contain communism. In the Spanish-American war, it was the USS Maine that started the war, though the real reason was so that we can kick off the last of the European colonies and expand our over-seas economy. These reasons would have worked just fine, but doesn't seem to cut it in Congress. Aparently American blood needs to be spilled before Congress could get enough balls to do anything about war. :wall:
That's probably why Bush used the WMD thing in the first place. (but even though his WMD's didn't pose a direct threat to the US, it would still be a big destabilization factor in the region. Keep in mind that we had people in Afghanistan whilel this was going on.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

What Bush and Powell should've said, was 'we're going after some unfinished bussiness, we'll get Saddam, we'll shoot anybody who get's in our way and we don't care what nobody says.

---

Agreed, however, since when was any war fought like that? WWI was kicked off with the invasion of Franz Ferdinand, though he really had nothing to do with the real reasons of it. In Vietnam is was the Gulf of Tonkin that really kicked off the US intervention, but in reality is was to contain communism. In the Spanish-American war, it was the USS Maine that started the war, though the real reason was so that we can kick off the last of the European colonies and expand our over-seas economy. These reasons would have worked just fine, but doesn't seem to cut it in Congress. Aparently American blood needs to be spilled before Congress could get enough balls to do anything about war. :wall:
That's probably why Bush used the WMD thing in the first place. (but even though his WMD's didn't pose a direct threat to the US, it would still be a big destabilization factor in the region. Keep in mind that we had people in Afghanistan while this was going on.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevDave

I didn't give anybody anything, is this a personal attack? A mod should know better

---

Cute...

Check our Pete’s site for some more info

Here is a nice quote…

Quote:

---

The unclassified summary report of the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center states that since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 munitions containing mustard or sarin nerve agent. It also states that chemical munitions are assessed to still exist in Iraq.

---

What bothers me is the fact that this info has been hidden! WTF!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Check our Pete’s site for some more info

Here is a nice quote…


What bothers me is the fact that this info has been hidden! WTF!

---

So they invaded for 500 shells containing sarin and mustard gas?(probably whats left after the bombing of the kurds in 85)

thats hardly weapons of mass destruction.

Probably for military reasons, but it could have been revealed now as a stumbling block for the November elections. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

So they invaded for 500 shells containing sarin and mustard gas?(probably whats left after the bombing of the kurds in 85)

thats hardly weapons of mass destruction.

---

That’s just what has been unclassified so far and there is a lot more to the report. Plus, how mass is mass destruction. I am not sure how many deaths could result from one sarin nerve agent munition. Anyone know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makkyo

The fact that such a large weapons cache missed the eye of the weapons inspectors sugests a lot more about Saddam's capabilities and intent. I understand how it is possible to Saddam to simply loose track of them, but it is very unlikely considering that his power came from his military. And it is obvious that he uses them. For a peaceful country like the US, when the last time they even used WMD's in a military action was in WWII, I would think that the loss of these things would be more likely.

---

There were entire research programmes that didn't exist except on paper, as scientists lied to Saddam to get funding. The Iraqi bureaucracy was in a dreadful state, with departments not knowing what each other did due to centralised control from Saddam, and centralised control not being possible due to non-existent information gathering from the outlying departments.

For the reality of Saddam's military, read accounts from the commanders of his Republican Guard, supposedly his most trusted troops, kept in the dark as much as anyone else. Saddam the military mastermind? Hitler in his bunker would be a better comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's nice to see more objective reporting from the Guardian- Yep, anthrax vaccine is no different from weaponized anthrax loaded into artillery shells.

Yet another editorial passed off as a news story. :dizzy2:

---

Are you deliberately missing the point? The point is that bureacracies throughout history haven't been able to keep track of every single piece of information they were supposed to keep track of. Not even the mighty US administration.

The reason why the US military haven't made much of WMD finds is probably because they didn't suppose the Iraqi government knew about them. There was one IED attack that involved a chemical shell, dated to the Iran-Iraq war. When pressed about this as a justification for the war, the spokesman replied that it was probably looted from a long-forgotten arms dump somewhere, and the design of the IED meant the insurgent himself probably didn't know it was a WMD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

That’s just what has been unclassified so far and there is a lot more to the report. Plus, how mass is mass destruction. I am not sure how many deaths could result from one sarin nerve agent munition. Anyone know?

---

You know 2 things might work now:

1) smuggle in one of your nukes and say you found the bomb finally.

2) divert the entire propaganda campaign into providing better reasons of invasion instead of beating a dead horse like Iraqs WMD program.

Those decrepit weapons probably wouldn't have caused any damage at all, even if it was directed at Isreal or some other neighbouring US allied country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

That’s just what has been unclassified so far and there is a lot more to the report. Plus, how mass is mass destruction. I am not sure how many deaths could result from one sarin nerve agent munition. Anyone know?

---

It all depends upon the purity of the agent and where it is exploded.

Its duration however will be different depending upon the environment and weather conditions upon delivery. ie chemical munitions don't last long in the desert heat (at least on the surface)

Something like this was news about 2 years ago. They found shells with mustard gass that had been laying around for years apparently.

Quote:

---

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "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." - From Fox News, emphasis mine.

---

The key thing to notice here is that the US has only found degraded munitions in Iraq. That is to say "ex"-WMDs.

The Defense Department knew that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stockpiles were degraded well before 2003, and that regardless of the continued existence of the shells, they were useless as weapons. Hence, they knew that Saddam didn't possess weapons of mass destruction, but that he might still possess some ex-weapons of mass destruction. Ex-WMDs are not particularly threatening to US security, and were unlikely to scare US citizens into supporting the invasion of Iraq. That is why they talked about unaccounted for stockpiles, but failed to mention that they knew that those stockpiles were useless as weapons.

See how honest they were being in the run-up to war?

According to the Defense Department's own experts, Iraq used crude production techniques for its sarin and tabun nerve agents. They had a shelf life of five years. When shells were found during the first Gulf War, many of them were already leaking. Saddam's anthrax stockpiles would have degraded within three years. Thus, the DoD knew that any Iraqi stockpiles that had survived the inspectors (and the reported destruction of stockpiles overseen by Saddam's defecting son-in-law) were completely useless and non-threatening.

That's why this Republican talk of having "found" WMDs is just more silliness. After a massive effort, all they've found is a few degraded ex-WMDs from the pre-Gulf War period. Not a threat or a rational rationale for war.

Check out:
The Militarily Critical Technologies List Part II: Weapons of Mass Destruction Technologies (ADA 330102), "Chemical Weapons Technology" - U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, February 1998 (updated in 2002).

Do a PDF search for "Iraq" to read the details on the honest assessment of their weapons program by the DoD in '98 and '02.

Oh dear lord, and you guys say liberals have tin hats on? Oh my.

Rick Santorum and another republican senator have just been lambasted for bringing up this nonsense. In fact, it provoked intelligence officials within the US goverment today to refute Santorum and the other Republican senator who erroneously quoted the evidence in the debate in the senate yesterday. Here's the story:

Quote:

---

Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims
Comments are response to claims by GOP senators
NBC NEWS EXCLUSIVE

Updated: 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.

Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan on Wednesday pointed to a newly declassified report that says coalition forces have found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents.

They cited the report in an attempt to counter criticism by Democrats who say the decision to go to war was a mistake.

But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.

Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time."

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

"We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces."

‘A bit suspicious’
Democrats said a report from the top U.S. weapons inspector contemplated that older munitions bearing traces of chemical agents would be found.

A leading Democrat on intelligence issues said Santorum's assertion that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was politically motivated.

"It's a bit suspicious that this was rolled out the night before" the debate and vote in the Senate on withdrawal from Iraq "by a senator in a close political race," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.

Santorum is down 18 points in his Senate re-election contest, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Harman said it was "unfortunate" that people have "not learned the lesson about hyping ... and cherry picking" intelligence to suit their own aims.

For his part, Hoekstra, appearing before cameras on Thursday, reiterated his assertions of Wednesday evening, saying, "Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone" and it "amazes me" that members of Congress still say that there was no WMD in Iraq.

NBC News’ Robert Windrem, NBC News' Mike Viqueira and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

---

I believe Rep. Harman's comments are particularly relevant here.

Please, can you not just admit you were wrong and move on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurelian

The key thing to notice here is that the US has only found degraded munitions in Iraq. That is to say "ex"-WMDs.

---

Degraded munitions are not ex- WMD's. I could go into the technical specifications about that - but lets just say that the lethality of the rounds are reduced based upon the stability of the agents contained. For instance I remember watching soldiers at Dugway Proving Grounds that walked through some old chemical weapons test sights having to be treated for chemical burns on their skin and along the mucus membranes from 40 year old mustard agent that has been sitting on the desert floor of the Utah high plain desert. Do not confuse military significant muntion with the ability for the munition to still cause damage and death from its chemical makeup.

Quote:

---

The Defense Department knew that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stockpiles were degraded well before 2003, and that regardless of the continued existence of the shells, they were useless as weapons. Hence, they knew that Saddam didn't possess weapons of mass destruction, but that he might still possess some ex-weapons of mass destruction. Ex-WMDs are not particularly threatening to US security, and were unlikely to scare US citizens into supporting the invasion of Iraq. That is why they talked about unaccounted for stockpiles, but failed to mention that they knew that those stockpiles were useless as weapons.

---

Unaccounted stockpiles were in violation of the 14 United Nations Resolutions.

Quote:

---

See how honest they were being in the run-up to war?

---

The nature of politics is all about misleading to get what the politican wants. Find me an honest politican and I will shake his hand.

Quote:

---

According to the Defense Department's own experts, Iraq used crude production techniques for its sarin and tabun nerve agents. They had a shelf life of five years. When shells were found during the first Gulf War, many of them were already leaking. Saddam's anthrax stockpiles would have degraded within three years. Thus, the DoD knew that any Iraqi stockpiles that had survived the inspectors (and the reported destruction of stockpiles overseen by Saddam's defecting son-in-law) were completely useless and non-threatening.

---

Hmm anthrax - another subject that I remember from my Dugway Proving Grounds experience. A friend of mine father worked on the site back in the 1960's into the early 70's, back when they had to clean up an anthrax area that caused the death of a lot of livestock. Care to guess what area of Dugway Proving Grounds was still off limits up until the last time I looked at a map of the area which was in 1999.

As military significant weapons they were indeed not significant. But don't let that confuse you into thinking that they were completely harmless either. As the article that Hurin posted points out from another Intelligence Official states:

"We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces."

Quote:

---

That's why this Republican talk of having "found" WMDs is just more silliness. After a massive effort, all they've found is a few degraded ex-WMDs from the pre-Gulf War period. Not a threat or a rational rationale for war.

---

That is an opinion held by many. Not neccessarily a wrong one - but not necessarily right either. What the stockpiles prove is the conclusion that is reached in the Duefler Report. That there was a systemic attempt by Saddam's Regime to give the illusion that Iraq still had WMD's and could defend itself.

[i]edit to add the paragraph from Hurin's posted article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Cute...

---

Sexual harassment now!?!?!? You're making me blush with all this attention.:knuddel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I didn't give anybody anything

---

I hear tell that some of your ex-girlfriends would beg to differ with that statement...

~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

You know 2 things might work now:

1) smuggle in one of your nukes and say you found the bomb finally.

2) divert the entire propaganda campaign into providing better reasons of invasion instead of beating a dead horse like Iraqs WMD program.

Those decrepit weapons probably wouldn't have caused any damage at all, even if it was directed at Isreal or some other neighbouring US allied country.

---

1) won't work because all of the "players" can use the isotopes to determine exactly what reactor the material is from. Nobody at the UN will buy a U.S. assertion as valid without cross-checking.

2) many days late and more than a few dollars short.

We are left with a war that was started to remove the threat of Saddam's WMDs (actually, that was only one of the reasons cited, but it got all of the attention). The media waited for a long time (for modern media 3-6 months is a lifetime) for US forces to discover a "significant" (tons of stuff unless nukes) quantity of WMDs. We didn't so the verdict is in. The war was begun on false premises either through incompetent intelligence work or as a lie propagated by the Bush administration. This verdict will stand at least for a decade, probably longer, until historians can parse the history and revise it.

Iraq is a useful point of focus for determining U.S. Policy limitations in the future. We either learn how to win a semi-insurgency/semi-terrorist conflict wherein we must abide by the bulk of the rules of "fair play" while our opponents are free to ignore such "rules" [tough combo] or we had better forget the use of force, our status as a superpower, and any effort to project our goals on others save negotiation/economic bribery.

Numerous parties around the world would love to see us come up a cropper, cease to be a superpower, and take a passive stance in international affairs. Nor is this because they want the "bad guys" to win -- I suspect it often stems from a desire to see what they may view as a group of too-rich pampered louts stop behaving like a bull in a china shop, get over themselves, and let the world live in its own way. I'm virtually certain that Tachi's view on things touches on this...and he's from this culture.

Oh well, think I'll go murder a few pixilated, CA stereotype, pseudo-britons.

Quote:

---

"are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had

---

:inquisitive: :laugh4: :inquisitive:

The rest of the world thought Iraq had manufactured WMDs after 1991? :dizzy2:

Oh this dosent matter. Even Saddam had WMDs they would pose no threat to America. So this rasies the question why did we go in there? Its simple. To protect strategic intrests and even that backfired. So we are here 3 years later with what has it got us? 2500 us sercivemen dead soaring gas prices a rabid idea gaining an obscene amount of power and a limp wristed goverment which does nothing. Great job America the goverment of my adolesnce is marked by idocy. Score