PDA

View Full Version : Chemical Weapons in Iraq


Gypsy
06-21-2006, 19:28
Of course, the left is already stuttering "But these are not the weapons of mass destruction we went to war for." :rolleyes: I still think we'll find what we're looking for.

You can read the declassified portion of the report at the link.


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

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Wednesday, June 21, 2006


WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

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."

• Click here to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report.

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents 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," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

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.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, 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."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

"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.

Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

"It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.

The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.

At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.

Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.

"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-22-2006, 06:58
"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.

And that is exactly why politicians, no matter how good intentioned they think that they are being, are dangerous. This is nothing more than political gamesmenship and does absolutely nothing but screw up the ongoing search for these squirreled away systems. No one with a modicum of intelligence doubts their existence. They only thing this is going to accomplish is that the trail to the additional caches will go cold and the involvement of border nations in the complicity of storage and protection of these systems will be locked down tighter than ever. Politicians should stick to screwing their interns and stop screwing the troops either intentionally or unintentionally.

QRQ 30
06-22-2006, 07:56
A moot point. IMO Sadahm over played his hand and had his bluff called. Whether he had the weapons or not he led the world to believe he did.

Whenever a lib pulls this crap I have to ask them where the oil is. They stated that oil was the primary motive -- if they can remember that far back.:rolleyes:

Sdiver
06-22-2006, 08:47
I just look at it this way...

These people have had, 3000+ years of hiding stuff in the Desert.

We're going to be finding caches of WMDs over there, for a long, long time to come.

Monsoon65
06-22-2006, 09:07
I remember flying over Iraq and just seeing one, big "empty". You could hide tractor trailer loads of crap over there and you'd never find it.

The left can't seem to grasp that idea yet. The idea that Saddam could have told a crony, "Hey, Bill, hide this shit. I don't want to know where. I'll get you when I need it," or some such deal.

rubberneck
06-22-2006, 09:09
It still blows my mind that there are people that actually believe that there were no MWD in Iraq. Almost as if the WMD fairy made them all magically disappear on day one of the ground war.

Five-O
06-22-2006, 09:26
The way the Left has alligned itself is that...if the US succeeds in any aspect of the GWOT, Iraq specifically, its negative for their party and their effort to regain power. So, if POTUS or USG has good news to report (which is obvioulsy beneficial) it is bad for the Left and they must put it down or minimize it so they can save face.

The converse of this is the Left celebrates our setbacks and rubs our noses in any perception of wrong doing or tempoary setback...before all the facts are in. The examples of this are too numerous to mention.

You have to wonder who's side the Democraps are on...or do you?

rubberneck
06-22-2006, 09:33
The way the Left has alligned itself is that...if the US succeeds in any aspect of the GWOT, Iraq specifically, its negative for their party and their effort to regain power. So, if POTUS or USG has good news to report (which is obvioulsy beneficial) it is bad for the Left and they must put it down or minimize it so they can save face.

The converse of this is the Left celebrates our setbacks and rubs our noses in any perception of wrong doing or tempoary setback...before all the facts are in. The examples of this are too numerous to mention.

You have to wonder who's side the Democraps are on...or do you?


I have to bleieve that a majority of Americans are smart enough to see that for what it is. While the far left in the country has embraced this cynical game plan I get the feeling that it isn't playing well with most of the crowd in middle of the road. If you look closely enough you can see the Dems are very quickly pissing away any chances they had at regaining the House and Senate. The President may not be very popular but that doesn't mean good people aren't offended by the antics of the Democratic leadership, especially since it seems to come at the expense of our troops. Then again I look forard to the stunned looks on the MSM media/Democrats when they get their heads handed to them in the fall. They didn't learn their lesson with the John Kerry fiasco.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-22-2006, 09:38
Almost as if the WMD fairy made them all magically disappear on day one of the ground war.

Ahhhh, now you understand that the Iraqis understand our culture better than we understand theirs. Having invoked the "WMD Fairy", they realize that we have no way of interrogating him/her/it because of our "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" policy:D

QRQ 30
06-22-2006, 09:50
Undoubtedly some remain but I don't think they existed in the numbers we were led to believe. We apparently believed they were there and that's enough for me. Those troops didn't dress out in full protective gear in the hot sun just for practice. Remember the "Ring of Death" Sadahm said there was around Baghdad?

I still believe in the philosohhy of "All Quiet on the Western Front." All of the world leaders and politicians should be sent out into the desert to fight their wars and leave us alone!! If Kennedy and Kerry and Bush were unit commanders there would be less war.

QRQ 30
06-22-2006, 10:12
Let me expound upon my attitude with a rhetorical situation.

Suppose you were confronted with a menacing man who said he was going to shoot you. He reaches into his pocket. Would you wait to see if he really was armed or would you take immediate action to disarm him -- perhaps lethally.

Now, suppose you find he had a toy gun or perhaps no weapon at all. Would you not still feel justified in your actions?

stone
06-22-2006, 11:11
You have to wonder who's side the Democraps are on...or do you?

To be fair though, not all Democrats are "leftists." I'm a Democrat and I fully support the war in Iraq, the GWOT, the POTUS, and that beautiful flag that represents everything we are.... and I'm a member of the Army National Guard... so I definitely know what side I'm on. ;)

Now I could be an anomaly but I don't think so. I think there are plenty of "regular people" who are Dems and aren't even close to being "leftists."

However, that said, I am seriously considering going Independent because our (the Dems) leadership has failed us, they are (by and large) cowards, and they couldn't run a little league baseball team, let alone the Democratic Party. Politicians and extremists ruin everything. Anyway, this is a thread about WMD, I don't mean to hijack, just wanted to seek clarification. Now I'm gonna get my head down-- have a feeling there might be some incoming!:D

jasonglh
06-22-2006, 11:56
I had a converstion with a couple of RN's late the other night who were lacking in serious substance about whats really going on in the world. I think all the knew about Iraq were Kerry's talking point from the last election and nothing past the headlines in the paper.

Specifically regarding the WMD issue which they kept harping on over and over I explained it this way:

Imagine you are playing poker for serious money on the table with 1 other player. Its 5 card stud and you both have placed your bets and have your cards. You have a full house and lay down your cards. The other guy claims he has a better hand, refuses to show you the hand and starts to take the money. You can talk him to death all night but fact is he is taking your cash. So you do what you have to do you hit him with your chair. While he is unconscious and bleeding on the floor you check his hand and sure enough he had a pair of jokers.


Saddam may have had some WMDs and certainly overstated his capabilities of using them to stay in power but he had to be called on it after failing to heed the resolutions by the UN.

Gypsy
06-22-2006, 18:36
Well said Colonel M.

Here is...a review of the media coverage. If that's what you want to call it.



Oh Where, Oh Where is the WMD Coverage?
Posted by Bobby Eberle
June 22, 2006 at 7:14 am


On Wednesday, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), quoting from a Pentagon report, announced that since 2003, over 500 weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. According to Santorum, these sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles prove that “weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq.” With news this important, one would expect wide-spread coverage, right? Wrong. The so-called main stream media is silent on this discovery, instead painting their own view of Iraq.

At the press conference, Santorum along with Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) said, “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.”


Santorum noted that the six key findings from the Pentagon report are as follows:

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.

It’s quite interesting and disappointing to see how this news has been bypassed by almost all of the major media outlets. This morning, there was not a single mention of the story on the CNN web site. Instead, the main headlines listed under “Latest News” (in addition to prime space for coverage of Western wildfires) where:

4 U.S. soldiers die in Afghan battle
Al Qaeda’s No. 2 releases new video
Attacks kill 5 U.S. service members in Iraq
Debate over Iraq heats up in Senate
Marines, corpsman face murder charges

On the ABC News web site, the lead story is “Seven Marines and One Sailor Charged With Murder.” Also listed on the main page under “Headlines” are the following stories:

U.S. Troops Killed: 4 in Iraq | 4 in Afghanistan
Ariz. Wildfires Dangerously Close to Homes, Park
Calif. May Soon Face ‘Big One’
Japan Ships to Monitor N. Korea’s Missile Tests

The CBS News web site focuses on the wildfires as the lead story. Other main headlines include:

Duke Mom Wants Son ‘To Have Life Back’
Al Qaeda Tape Urges Afghans To Rise Up
Updated: 5 U.S. Troops Killed In Iraq
Times Have Changed In Germany
Dark Days For Bureau Of Indian Affairs

This morning, the FOX News web site had the WMD story on their main page, and it is now found in their political section. The main page of the New York Times’ web site makes no mention of the WMD story, but rather runs as their lead: “G.O.P. Decides to Embrace War as Issue.”

With all the one-sided reporting, is it any wonder that public support for action in Iraq will go down over time? So much was made of Abu Ghraib, yet where is the wide-spread reporting and outrage over what was done to two of America’s soldiers who were captured by Iraqi insurgents?

There is progress being made in Iraq, and the American people deserve honest, fair reporting on both the good and the bad. Their selective coverage does nothing to build a full story of what is happening in Iraq, but instead, is used to promote a left-wing agenda. That is not the role of the media, and hopefully, more and more Americans will see through their attempts to twist the news.

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=316

kgoerz
06-23-2006, 18:49
Gypsy
I like when I see that left extreme outrages behavior most of the time. The Majority of Americans are not dumb. Last Election showed that. That type of behavior just generates more votes for the Republican Party. Michael Moor sitting next to the EX Democratic Presidents at the Democratic Convention was the best thing that happened to the Republican Party. If you noticed the last election the Democratic Party tried to stay away from Hollywood but failed at it. Yes it do's influence some but I think it helps Republicans just the same.

Gypsy
06-23-2006, 21:34
kgoerz I have to agree with you on that point, they do definitely help the cause. Still annoys and angers me, but I do try to keep that in mind when I'm letting loose a string of...errrr...talking back to the television. :D