One more for the open-minded:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-06-29-voa78.cfm
These are the first photos that I’ve been able to find.
JeffR
This is such a fucking non-story. Are a few hundred old chemical warfare shells lying around in Iraq, of pre-1991 vintage, technically “WMD”? Sure. Are they in any way comparable to the chemical, biological, and radiological arsenal that Saddam was supposedly building and that necessitated a war of choice in 2003? Not even close.
I don’t think we were lied into war, I think there was an honest intelligence mistake about Iraq’s capabilities, and I think the war in Iraq (particularly if it wasn’t being run by incompetents) could have enormously beneficial consequences for the Middle East. But pretending a lone stockpile of old chemical shells is some kind of validation for the war is idiotic.
Never mind Jerffy, he’s just showing the world what a complete cheerleading dunce he is, again.
That there are people that fall for this shit… and don’t see it for what it is… is both amazing and scary.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You could make a case that invading Iraq was not necessary for the war on terror but right now Iraq is in the middle of the war on terror.
That is our fault unfortunately.
I can’t believe you just admitted that.
It must have been a momentary lapse of reason.
[/quote]
Are you truly this dense?
Everyone knows the invasion of Iraq was opening a new front in the GWOT.
Pretending it was for something else is idiotic.
We did not have to invade Iraq. We did not have to invade Afghanistan either. We could have let the courts take care of it as John Kerry and Bill Clinton advocate.
Bush on the other hand believes in pushing the issue and actually trying to make meaningful change to the middle east.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
This is such a fucking non-story. Are a few hundred old chemical warfare shells lying around in Iraq, of pre-1991 vintage, technically “WMD”? Sure. Are they in any way comparable to the chemical, biological, and radiological arsenal that Saddam was supposedly building and that necessitated a war of choice in 2003? Not even close.[/quote]
Hey, gdol. Thanks for your input. Shall we think through the implications? Of course we shall. First, you must wonder what else is out there. Remember how sure some democrats/msm/scott ritter were that saddam had destroyed all his “wmd?”
By the way, 500 munitions are not just a few lying around. Further, this appears to be the tip of the iceberg.
Now, think through how difficult it was for the two Congressmen to get this declassified? Why?
Will this force the Administration to release more information? Why are they stalling? Why aren’t they AT LEAST trumpeting the fact that saddam had not destroyed all his arsenal as the brain-locked among us have desperately tried to convince themselves? If you go to the House Armed Services Committee’s website, check out the the Chairman’s opening statement. There is a list of recent democratic lawmakers stating unequivocally that there were no wmd in Iraq.
AT LEAST, Bush could say that these weapons in the hands of terrorists (that saddam supported) justified extreme danger.
You start coupling this with Bush’s inability/unwillingness to publically trumpet the saddam tapes’ contents, and you begin to wonder at the Administration’s committment to fight the war of public opinion.
In summary, with saddam’s stated desire to reconstitute his weapons, his support of al qaeda and others, his nondestruction of his arsenal, the inability of the u.n. to detect these munitions, and saddam’s history of using these weapons the threat becomes crystal clear.
g-dol, you are one of those people who I THINK has some sembelance of open-mindedness. I am reasonably confident you will think about this information.
There are a couple of other phenomena that I would like you to keep an eye on. First, have you noticed the silence on cnn, msnbc, abc, newyork times, and npr? That should raise some eyebrows. In fairness, I’ve been able to quote more and more sources over time. Imagine if the old information bottleneck was in place. We wouldn’t know about this.
Second, watch the lengths to which the opposition has and will go to justify saddam’s lying. It stuns me how much leeway people give saddam. Even though he was the prototypical anti-social tyrant, people convince themselves that “he would never ally with bin laden.” Or, “he destroyed his whole stockpile.”
You watch how the opposition will try to parse it once this new information reaches more ears. “Oh, he had wmd, but, he couldn’t fire them.”
At the very least, give these points some thought.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
There are a couple of other phenomena that I would like you to keep an eye on. First, have you noticed the silence on cnn, msnbc, abc, newyork times, and npr? That should raise some eyebrows. In fairness, I’ve been able to quote more and more sources over time. Imagine if the old information bottleneck was in place. We wouldn’t know about this.
[/quote]
OMG. You are such a nutbird I don’t know whey they let you out in public, you should be locked up somewhere to keep society safe.
Jerffy, you need to realize that some sources are simply spin faucets. They are happy to put anything out that matches their viewpoint, whether or not it is factually accurate.
If you look at the language, it is quite clever, to keep it from being a direct lie, but everyone knows some left overs sitting in a munitions dump is not why the US went to war.
Everybody but Jerffy it appears…
[quote]JeffR wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Hey Todd.
Thanks for your input. Perhaps you were watching the House Armed Services Committee meeting today? No. Let me fill you in on the details. They were WMD. They were still dangerous.
[/quote]
Hey Jeff,
I never said that the munitions weren’t dangerous. I stated that they weren’t and aren’t massively destructive. Big difference.
Guess what. Mustard gas isn’t even lethal under most circumstances. It is a blister agent (ie it causes blisters upon coming into contact with the skin). Would that suck? Yes. Massively destructive? No.
The fact that 500 munitions were scattered around Iraq is virtually meaningless in terms of WMD. First of all, their disparate disposition means that they couldn’t even have been employed en masse even if the Iraqis had the will to do so.
Were they chemical weapons? Sure, but I could make a chemical weapon in about 5 seconds with regular household cleaners (an event that happens frequently by accident under civilian work circumstances). Chemical weapons do not necessarily correlate to WMD. WMD is strongly dependent upon the type, amount, and disposition of chemical weapons for them to meet that criteria.
Of course, Congress is eager to declare WMD in Iraq. Consider that they lost face when that was, at least ostensibly, a primary motivating factor for going to war in Iraq at the first place. However, simple common sense states otherwise.
[quote]vroom wrote:
JeffR wrote:
There are a couple of other phenomena that I would like you to keep an eye on. First, have you noticed the silence on cnn, msnbc, abc, newyork times, and npr? That should raise some eyebrows. In fairness, I’ve been able to quote more and more sources over time. Imagine if the old information bottleneck was in place. We wouldn’t know about this.
OMG. You are such a nutbird I don’t know whey they let you out in public, you should be locked up somewhere to keep society safe.
Jerffy, you need to realize that some sources are simply spin faucets. They are happy to put anything out that matches their viewpoint, whether or not it is factually accurate.
If you look at the language, it is quite clever, to keep it from being a direct lie, but everyone knows some left overs sitting in a munitions dump is not why the US went to war.
Everybody but Jerffy it appears…[/quote]
The only thing scarier is that he is not alone.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The only thing scarier is that he is not alone.[/quote]
They’re called TFM’s
http://www.udargo.com/mub/2006/05/bush_losing_core_supporters.html
So what’s the big deal about WMD anyway? This war was about freedom and liberating the Iraqi people… try and keep up Jeffy.
Hey Todd,
Thanks for your response.
Take a peek at the last link. There were both sarin and mustard gas munitions found.
I have no idea, nor do our lawmakers (at least publically) where they found them.
Were they scattered? Where did you see that?
Would it change your thinking if they were obviously being hidden?
These are all questions that I think are pertinent and relevant.
Further, there has been quite a sea change in the talk of the people who were adamant about “no WMD.” Now it’s, “Well, these were old. saddam wasn’t building them at the time of the invasion, so this is no big deal.”
I simply don’t understand that elasticity of conviction.
If the guy was harboring, aiding, financing terror and WMD related activities, do you feel more or less safe now that we have actual finds of WMD?
We suspected that he hadn’t declared his WMD in full. We know he didn’t comply with his treaty obligations in so many other areas including convential weaponery.
Is it more or less likely that saddam moved some of his stockpile prior to 2003?
Is it more or less likely that ANY wmd in this guy’s hands were dangerous?
Is it more or less likely that we will continue to find more WMD? Do you think that this is all that has been found? Do you think we won’t find more? What if we find shells produced in 1998? The date of the invasion was 2003. Would these be considered too old for you?
There is currently no evidence that he was producing WMD in 2003, but, I wouldn’t put it past him.
What are the parameters through which you view this issue?
Cutting through political rhetoric, how may pounds/tons/shells/material would constitute “significant” in your mind?
I suspect that you are someone who is at least open to the possibility that this is not a static argument. If you are, please think about my questions.
JeffR
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
So what’s the big deal about WMD anyway? This war was about freedom and liberating the Iraqi people… try and keep up Jeffy.
[/quote]
jtf, this was always about the threat saddam posed to us, our allies, and his people.
Do they have copies of actual W. 2002 speeches on www.rageagainstthemachinebecause allconventialwisdomiswrongaccordingtojustthefacts.com?
If they do, read them.
Thanks,
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey Todd,
Were they scattered? Where did you see that?
[/quote]
These are the lines from the article that definitively state that the munitions were scattered:
“It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump,” he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them."
“Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering up in Iraq for the past several years.” If it took several years of cumulative searches, that would necessarily mean that the weapons were not consolidated into one cache.
“The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.” Once again, the 500 canisters were found throughout Iraq, a country the size of California.
It wouldn’t change my mind if they were obviously being hidden because virtually every one of the caches (the vast majority of which contain conventional weapons only) in Iraq are deliberately hidden. If the regime didn’t hide the munitions, then the Iraqis and insurgents did. If you were to walk along any given major highway in Iraq with a good metal detector for a mile or two, you would be virtually guaranteed to find a weapons cache.
Well that’s kind of a huge if, Jeff. If that was the case, then I would feel much better about the war than I do now. I am certainly far from convinced that that was the case.
I find that to be highly unlikely. Keep in mind that in the lead up to the war, we were closely monitoring the country, particularly the flights in and out to places like Syria and Iran. Is it possible? Probably. Likely? Not very, in my opinion.
I believe that true WMDs in Saddam’s hands would have been bad news. However, in my estimation of what consistutes a true WMD or WMD capability, nobody that I have spoken to (I have very fortunate to have some conversations with people in the intelligence field over this) ever legitimately believed that Saddam truly possessed such a capability.
I already stated that I don’t believe that these munitions constitute WMD’s. I believe that we will probably continue to find piecemeal chemical munitions. I do not believe that we will find a true WMD capability. I am highly skeptical that we will find relatively newer munitions (eg produced in 1998).
Neither would I, but there just isn’t any evidence to show that he actually did. Producing chemical weapons in sufficient amounts to be massively destructive would require a tremendous infrastructure. This is not something that could be quickly dismantled and hidden.
The guys who stated that there is no WMD in Iraq to be found were absolute experts in their field. Call me crazy, but I trust their estimate of the situation more that politicians, who, by definition, have agendas.
I am not really clear what you are asking here. I am a Marine who has served two combat tours in Iraq. I was highly skeptical that the attack was the right call back in late 2002 and 2003 while staged in Kuwait. If anything, I am even more skeptical now.
There would have to be sufficient amounts (ie hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds of chemicals) and there would have to be a viable methods of employment. Virtually all chemicals are burned up or destroyed by the heat and pressure release by high explosive (So anyone, like some people quoted in the preceding articles, who states that chemicals can be collected and stuck in IEDs is either severely lacking in knowledge or integrity). The most difficult aspect to wielding chemical weapons effectively is delivering them in some kind of aerosole or delivery system that spreads the chemicals from liquid to gas in a large coverage area without destroying the chemicals in the process.
Conversely, any nuke is, in my mind, a true WMD.
Todd:
I was excited to hear that you’ve been there.
It’s nice to talk to someone with some first-hand knowledge.
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
These are the lines from the article that definitively state that the munitions were scattered:
“It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump,” he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them."
“Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering up in Iraq for the past several years.” If it took several years of cumulative searches, that would necessarily mean that the weapons were not consolidated into one cache.
“The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.” Once again, the 500 canisters were found throughout Iraq, a country the size of California.[/quote]
Thanks.
[quote]Would it change your thinking if they were obviously being hidden?
It wouldn’t change my mind if they were obviously being hidden because virtually every one of the caches (the vast majority of which contain conventional weapons only) in Iraq are deliberately hidden. If the regime didn’t hide the munitions, then the Iraqis and insurgents did. If you were to walk along any given major highway in Iraq with a good metal detector for a mile or two, you would be virtually guaranteed to find a weapons cache.[/quote]
Again, thanks. Would it be fair to say that there was considerable effort used by the regime to avoid the inspectors?
[quote]These are all questions that I think are pertinent and relevant.
If the guy was harboring, aiding, financing terror and WMD related activities, do you feel more or less safe now that we have actual finds of WMD?
Well that’s kind of a huge if, Jeff. If that was the case, then I would feel much better about the war than I do now. I am certainly far from convinced that that was the case.[/quote]
Which part are you skeptical about?
So far the intelligence community has stated that it has translated about 5% of the saddam tapes. So far, saddam has been quoted as directly supporting al qaeda in the Phillipines. He was asked and accepted a request to broadcast propaganda at the behest of bin laden. Finally, there was al zarqawi. We know that he paid $26,000 dollars to the families of Palestinian terrorists.
If you are having trouble with the effort saddam was putting into reconstituting his WMD program, please read Duefler’s final report. It’s fascinating. Don’t read the summarized version. Read it in total. He was harboring his resources (scientists/know how). He had poured a ton of money into the nascent programs from 1999 on. He made it a crime for said scientists to leave the country. He was caught on tape asking his son in law how long it would take to reconstitute his chemical/biological weaponery in 1995. We’ve found pieces of hidden material from his nuclear program (example in the backyard of his scientist).
If you need some links, let me know.
[quote]Is it more or less likely that saddam moved some of his stockpile prior to 2003?
I find that to be highly unlikely. Keep in mind that in the lead up to the war, we were closely monitoring the country, particularly the flights in and out to places like Syria and Iran. Is it possible? Probably. Likely? Not very, in my opinion.[/quote]
Here’s David Kay from telgraph.co.uk:
[quote]Saddam’s WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 25/01/2004)
David Kay, the former head of the coalition’s hunt for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year’s war to overthrow Saddam.
“We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons,” he said. “But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.”[/quote]
If you don’t like this source, let me know what kind of source you trust more.
[quote]Is it more or less likely that ANY wmd in this guy’s hands were dangerous?
I believe that true WMDs in Saddam’s hands would have been bad news. However, in my estimation of what consistutes a true WMD or WMD capability, nobody that I have spoken to (I have very fortunate to have some conversations with people in the intelligence field over this) ever legitimately believed that Saddam truly possessed such a capability.[/quote]
I’m quite surprised by this. Especially given that he used them on iran and his own people. He had to have had them, known how to use them, and had the ability to disperse them.
Could you expand? One of the internet’s limitations is that you may be saying one thing and I’m interpreting it in another.
[quote]Is it more or less likely that we will continue to find more WMD? Do you think that this is all that has been found? Do you think we won’t find more? What if we find shells produced in 1998? The date of the invasion was 2003. Would these be considered too old for you?
I already stated that I don’t believe that these munitions constitute WMD’s. I believe that we will probably continue to find piecemeal chemical munitions. I do not believe that we will find a true WMD capability. I am highly skeptical that we will find relatively newer munitions (eg produced in 1998).[/quote]
I personally think we will find newer munitions in Iraq. As I have stated, saddam had plenty of time to move the more incriminating of his weaponery to friendly regimes.
This wasn’t new. We know he moved part of his Air Force to iran. The rest he buried or were destroyed.
[quote]There is currently no evidence that he was producing WMD in 2003, but, I wouldn’t put it past him.
Neither do I, but there just isn’t any evidence to show that he actually did. Producing chemical weapons in sufficient amounts to be massively destructive would require a tremendous infrastructure. This is not something that could be quickly dismantled and hidden.[/quote]
I agree with this. However, we’ve produced some pretty impressive evidence that he did just that. Duefler makes a very compelling case.
I agree that these people are far more knowledgable that you or I. I also agree that politicians have their agenda.
However, agendas aren’t limited to politicians.
If you want to see something eye opening, watch how difficult it is for David Kay, Duefler, or hans blix to deal with new findings. There seems to be a common theme that their report is law.
This isn’t a static argument. I think it was summed up beautifully by one of the Congressmen last week. He said, “There is much about Iraq that we don’t know.”
[quote]What are the parameters through which you view this issue?
I am not really clear what you are asking here. I am a Marine who has served two combat tours in Iraq. I was highly skeptical that the attack was the right call back in late 2002 and 2003 while staged in Kuwait. If anything, I am even more skeptical now.[/quote]
I appreciate your honesty in this circumstance. I have been a steadfast supporter of this war and it’s goals from day one.
That is my bias.
[quote]Cutting through political rhetoric, how may pounds/tons/shells/material would constitute “significant” in your mind?
There would have to be sufficient amounts (ie hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds of chemicals) and there would have to be a viable methods of employment. Virtually all chemicals are burned up or destroyed by the heat and pressure release by high explosive (So anyone, like some people quoted in the preceding articles, who states that chemicals can be collected and stuck in IEDs is either severely lacking in knowledge or integrity). The most difficult aspect to wielding chemical weapons effectively is delivering them in some kind of aerosole or delivery system that spreads the chemicals from liquid to gas in a large coverage area without destroying the chemicals in the process.[/quote]
Yet, Tokyo in 1995. I understand you are making the case for having an intact infrastructure. However, I just don’t think it is to large a conceptual leap to think that saddam could have done it in relatively short order.
Agreed. I have to go lift. However, there have been some rumblings about enriched uranium being moved and nuclear components being unearthed. However, I judge this to be the least likely of the three programs to be found intact munitions.
Thanks for your input.
JeffR
[/quote]
[quote]JeffR wrote:
jtf, this was always about the threat saddam posed to us, our allies, and his people.
[/quote]
2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat
2001 footage of Powell and Rice declaring that Iraq is not a threat.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
War with Iraq was never in the US interests – all that hyped intelligence was funneled through the Pentagon’s “Office of Special Plans” at the behest of Israel.
The story we should be talking about is how Israel hijacked US foreign policy – they’re a bigger threat to the US than Saddam and his WMD EVER were or hoped to be…
Attack Iraq soon, Sharon aide says
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
August 16, 2002
WASHINGTON - The United States should attack Iraq soon to stop dictator Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons, Israeli officials said yesterday.
“Postponing the action to a later date would only enable Saddam to accelerate his weapons program, and then he would pose a more formidable threat,” said Ranaan Gissin, a top adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Gissin said Sharon sent the U.S. Israeli intelligence estimates this week that Saddam had boosted production of chemical and biological weapons in anticipation of war with the U.S.
Gissin also charged Saddam ordered Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up work on developing nuclear weapons.
“Saddam’s going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational,” he said.
The Israeli view contrasted with growing Republican opposition to President Bush’s pursuit of a so-called regime change in Iraq.
At his Crawford, Tex., ranch, Bush took note of the “healthy debate.” Top Republicans, including former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, have warned that an attack on Iraq would derail the war on terrorism.
“I listen carefully,” Bush [the Decider] said.
CIA Probe Finds Secret Pentagon Group Manipulated Intelligence on Iraqi Threat
July 25, 2003
A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.
Several current and former intelligence officials told the Times that they felt pressure to tailor reports to conform to the administration’s views, “particularly the theories Feith’s group developed.”
More than a dozen CIA agents responsible for writing intelligence reports for the agency told the former CIA agents investigating the accuracy of the intelligence reports said they were pressured by the Pentagon and the Office of Special Plans to hype and exaggerate intelligence to show Iraq as being an imminent threat to the security of the U.S.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold11.html
Guilty plea entered in Pentagon spy case
YNET News
10/06/05
Top Defense Department analyst Lawrence A. Franklin pleads guilty to giving classified information to an Israeli embassy official and members of a pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.
Franklin at one time worked for the Pentagon’s No. 3 official, policy undersecretary Douglas Feith, on issues involving Iran and the Middle East.
Guilty plea entered in Pentagon spy case
Pentagon denying Israelis security clearances
YNET News
5/17/06
A study conducted by Cohen on the subject of Israel-related security clearance cases, found that “an unusually large number” of cases involving foreign influence concerns seem to relate to Israel.
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3252213,00.html
Inspectors Call U.S. Tips ‘Garbage’
CBS NEWS
Feb. 20, 2003
So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they’ve been getting as “garbage after garbage after garbage.” In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
Warnings on WMD ‘Fabricator’ Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says
Washington Post
June 25, 2006