# Another report of WMDs found in Iraq



## muskrat89 (3 Oct 2003)

I know, I know.. been lots of these teasers that then disappear. The interesting thing is the AP released this the other day, and none of the big networks are even mentioning it. I guess the Rush and Arnold stories are more important. The jist of it is they caught $60million worth of chem and bio weapons being smuggled into Kuwait, which ultimately were destined for a European country

WMD Smuggling Plot


----------



## Bert (4 Oct 2003)

You gotta love these Stratfor reports:

www.stratfor.com


Iraq: Missile Discovery Strengthens U.S. Hand in U.N.
Oct 03, 2003

Summary

Polish troops claim to have discovered French -manufactured anti-aircraft missile systems in Iraq, produced in 2003, giving the United States a stick with which to beat the French in the U.N. Security Council. 

Analysis

Polish troops in Iraq have found four French-built anti-aircraft missiles that were built this year, Polish Defense Ministry spokesman Eugeniusz Mleczak told Reuters Oct. 3. The troops found the Roland-type missiles in an ammunition depot near the region of Al Hillah, approximately 55 miles south of Baghdad, on Sept. 29, Mleczak said. The Roland anti-anticraft system is a short-range air defense missile used against aircraft flying at low and medium altitudes. 

The discovery of the missiles will send sparks flying in both Washington and Paris. Iraq‘s possession of new anti-aircraft missiles doesn‘t necessarily mean that France sold them to Baghdad. Paris may have sold the weapons, although it has denied any such arms transfers, or they might have come from a third party that acquired the missiles from France and re-exported them. Washington will now want to know which country that was, and it will be breathing down Paris‘ neck for answer. 

The timing of Poland‘s announcement may conveniently provide the United States with leverage to gain French cooperation on a new U.N. Security Council resolution, in which Washington seeks approval for a multinational force deployment in Iraq. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Oct. 3 that the U.S. draft resolution would be revised and ready within the next two days for presentation to the Security Council. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said recently that Paris would not approve the draft resolution unless a shorter timetable for a transfer of power to a sovereign Iraqi government was included. 

The discovery of Roland missiles is not unusual. In the 1980s, Iraq imported large numbers of both the Roland-1 and Roland-2 short-range anti-aircraft missile systems. In the last several months, U.S and allied forces have found dozens of Roland missiles scattered throughout the country. The significance is that the Polish troops claim they found missiles manufactured in 2003 -- after it was blatantly clear the United States was going to war against Iraq. This means that one of the countries with access to the missiles knowingly helped the government in Baghdad prepare for war. 

There are ten countries with Roland systems in service: Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, Iraq, Nigeria, Qatar, Spain, Venezuela and the United States. A French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman strongly denied that France has authorized any shipment of military equipment to Iraq since 1990. "It is not credible to say that the Roland missiles found a few days ago were produced in 2003 and delivered just before the Anglo-American intervention," the spokeswoman said. "Let‘s be absolutely clear about this: no military exports to Iraq were licensed after July 1990."

The discovery will not cause a complete breach of French-U.S. relations unless, of course, it is discovered that Paris did in fact sell the weapons to Iraq in early 2003 -- which is not impossible, but unlikely. What it will do is help the United States outflank France in the Security Council and further erode French global influence.


----------



## muskrat89 (12 Jun 2004)

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after 

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared. 

UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported.
"It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal."

"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.

He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters â â€œ the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads.

"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax."

The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles.

"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Buchanan said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."

UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey.

In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jun 2004)

I wonder if Saddam got into bed with his old enemies,Iran and shipped a whole bunch there?
Makes some of us want to gloat, no?


----------



## Slim (12 Jun 2004)

I was thinking back to a thread that someone else posted about 'inflateable armies'. One of the items on display was a full-size scud lancher that would look real enough from a satellite and could be taken down and set up within an hour( actually much quicker!)

I wonder if some of these 'devices' were used to fool the allies in both gulph wars? This is one of the 'dangers' of using SIGINT and IMINTwithout the HUMINT to go with it!! :-[

Slim


----------



## Smoothbore (12 Jun 2004)

If I am not mistaken the SA-2 Guideline (or S-75 - the proper designation) is a surface to air guided missile, why is it considered a WMD? Does it have a limited ability to attack ground targets with several types of warheads?


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2004)

> Posted by: Bruce Monkhouse
> Insert Quote
> I wonder if Saddam got into bed with his old enemies,Iran and shipped a whole bunch there?
> Makes some of us want to



Bruce, don't I recall that before and during Gulf 1 that Saddam sent his Air Force to Iran?  Just what is the nature of an enemy to whom you can send your Air Force for safe-keeping?

I wonder how long it takes CBC/CTV to report this?  Not holding my breath.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2004)

Saddam also never got his aircraft back after GW1.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2004)

By the way I just linked the info to CBC.  

Don't know what good it will do but I feel better.

TTFN.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2004)

You never know though Kirkhill it could help.


----------



## Spr.Earl (12 Jun 2004)

The news of the scrap steel is old,a few months ago it was reported of strange items turning up in Holland and thats when the authorities were called in and it started the investigation into Iraqi scrap steel and where it was ending up.
As a matter of fact I think the CBC or PBS had a program about it not to long ago.


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

To tell you all the truth, I don't trust the United States current leadership at all and wouldn't DOUBT that they faked WMD in Iraq to have a reason to go to war. I wouldn't put it past them at all. Everyone also knows the CIA planted false paper trails+evidence of WMD.

I don't really like the US if anyone can figure that out yet...  

The only reason the US and Canada have such an alliance is because of NEED, not want. And I think that if the rest of the world wouldn't shit on thier heads for it, they'd take Canada over.


----------



## Garbageman (12 Jun 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> To tell you all the truth, I don't trust the United States current leadership at all and wouldn't DOUBT that they faked WMD in Iraq to have a reason to go to war. I wouldn't put it past them at all. Everyone also knows the CIA planted false paper trails+evidence of WMD.
> 
> I don't really like the US if anyone can figure that out yet...
> 
> The only reason the US and Canada have such an alliance is because of NEED, not want. And I think that if the rest of the world wouldn't crap on thier heads for it, they'd take Canada over.


Regardless of what my opinion is on this subject, these kind of blanket statements are pretty dangerous.  Particularly the comment on the CIA and false paper trails.  What FACT are you basing this statement on?

Man, I'm starting to sound like a twisted and bitter university prof.


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

LOL. Not a bad idea to sound like an intelligent professor or teacher of any kind.

Well, the head of CIA retired himself, and it was ALL Over the news about the CIA making paper trails and falsifying documents. Bush wouldn't even comment on it if I remember correctly. It was all denied and all that but Britian found some evidence of the US giving them false information to convince them to join them against Iraq too. And I think that is what started the investigation...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jun 2004)

He asked for facts, not "as I recall"    BRING FACTS!


----------



## Slim (12 Jun 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> LOL. Not a bad idea to sound like an intelligent professor or teacher of any kind.
> 
> Well, the head of CIA retired himself, and it was ALL Over the news about the CIA making paper trails and falsifying documents. Bush wouldn't even comment on it if I remember correctly. It was all denied and all that but Britian found some evidence of the US giving them false information to convince them to join them against Iraq too. And I think that is what started the investigation...



Joe

Try not to let school and the media do all of your thinking for you. Going with the crowd is not always the right thing to do!


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

Here is some "FACTS" for you my friend...

Also, go to Http://www.msn.ca
and type in the search box "CIA False" and a BIG list of all the stuff I was just talking about comes up, too much to list here...

CIA takes fall for Bush's claim on Iraq 
Last Updated Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:26:44 
ENTEBBE, UGANDA - The director of the CIA said Friday his agency was to blame for U.S. President George Bush's false claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material from Africa. 


President George W. Bush   

"Those 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," George Tenet said in a statement. "This was a mistake." 

Tenet's statement was released shortly after U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice blamed the Central Intelligence Agancy for the claim in Bush's 2003 state of the union message. 

"The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety," Rice told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday. 

Her comments came after Bush administration officials admitted Wednesday that a statement Bush made about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger was based on forged documents. 

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said in the Jan. 28 address. 

CIA met with British 

In a related matter, The Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA tried unsuccessfully in September 2002 to persuade the British government to drop from an official intelligence paper a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa. 

A CIA official who went to the African nation to investigate the claim reported that it was highly doubtful such a transaction ever took place. 

British officials learned of those doubts before the allegations were made public, and sent word to several agencies in the U.S. government. 

But Rice said if the CIA director had any reservations about the statement in the president's speech, "he did not make them known" to Bush or his staff. 



Written by CBC News Online staff


----------



## Slim (12 Jun 2004)

"Written by CBC News Online staff"

Again...what are your sources? You have just quoted me something which may or may not be true...or may only be partially true and from just a single source. If, as an Int Op, I did something like that and called it the gospel I would be fired.

I say again, do not let the media and school do your thinking for you!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jun 2004)

I went to your msn search idea and here's some info for you.
cia false-125625 hits
cia true -300466 hits
cia god  -228962 hits
Using your search pattern logic obviously the CIA is more truthful and god-like than falsifying. :


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

*Laughs* You guys are a bunch of old hard-asses eh? I respect that. Also, I am an open-minded individual. I didn't learn anything about the US from school except that they attacked us twice and we need them for defence.

I will admit most of the information I've attained/retained has come from news etc, in regards to this thread.

But as experienced people who possibly have had interactions with US military, you DO think Saddam has sizeable WMD? Or, lets say YES, he did have them, lots of them. Would this constitute going to war with them and raping thier entire country? Before this war, apparrently the people of Iraq used to have running water and electricity which is pretty hard to find there now days apparrently. 

I dunno, I just think that the US pushed thier way into Iraq. Say for instance, we did join them and go to Iraq, would you folks have wanted to go/agreed with the US when it went against the United Nations??? I don't think that would have been very smart or Canadian.

Your the seasoned veterans so you tell me! Like I said, I'm open for being "schooled"...


----------



## Garbageman (12 Jun 2004)

In all fairness to Joe, the problem I had originally was only with the way he phrased what he was saying.  I didn't like to hear "...everyone knows that..." when he was talking about something that is partly opinion rather than necessarily fact.  Unless you're talking about something that is universally accepted (the sky is blue, the earth is round, the Air Force is better than the Army ;D, etc) you have to make sure you're clear in only representing your viewpoint or particular side of a debate.

Whether there's any truth to the statements on the CIA, well, that's a whole other can of worms that I don't want to touch!


----------



## Slim (12 Jun 2004)

Joe

You know what...Maybe its true and maybe its not.

What I was trying to get across to you is that people seem to like being forcefed by their school and by the media. The media do NOT tell the truth...or if they do its slanted to give the impression of something other than what it is. Remember they are in business to SELL something. That doesn't happen by telling the plain, unvarnished truth. Many times reporters will MAKE THINGS UP so they can sell papers. People rarely check the facts...thats what makes the media so dangerous as a tool of influence.

For instance what you're hearing about Iraq is not the truth...at least not all of it. Don't take my word for it...Go and dig for yourself.

As for schools...Well I know some (if not almost all) of the Profs are anti-Government and often demand that their students share their views or not pass the course.

I am not going to tell you whats right and whats wrong...I want you to actually look, and be aware of the sources that you're using and what influence and or deceit they may use in order to achieve their desired aim.

Now do you understand when I say "don't let anyone else do your thinking for you?!"

Slim

P.S. Garbageman you're a dirty bugger!!


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Jun 2004)

As for these WMD's, I have always believed they exist or exsited, and one day some proper evidence will be found (they never found the Paris Gun did they, its still buried somewhere in France, and that was 1918).

Then to see what all the polititians will have to say, and all the other doubters and the anti war mentality snivel liberatrians.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

Well, it's safe to say I've definatly gained some "Food for Thought" from all of this.  

I know that you can only believe about 25% of what the media shits out, and the rest is left to guessing. But that's the problem, there's no damn accountibility and too much guess work!

Anyway,

Thanks for the input folks


----------



## Garbageman (12 Jun 2004)

Slim said:
			
		

> P.S. Garbageman you're a dirty bugger!!



No, no, you misunderstood.  I'm Air Force, we don't play in the dirt!


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jun 2004)

> I will admit most of the information I've attained/retained has come from news etc, in regards to this thread.



There is your first problem.



> But as experienced people who possibly have had interactions with US military, you DO think Saddam has sizeable WMD? Or, lets say YES, he did have them, lots of them. Would this constitute going to war with them and raping thier entire country? Before this war, apparrently the people of Iraq used to have running water and electricity which is pretty hard to find there now days apparrently.



Ask the Kurds or the Iranians about those WMD supplies.  

As for the second statement, I think the term "raping" shows how ignorant you are of the US and Allied operations in Iraq.



> I dunno, I just think that the US pushed thier way into Iraq. Say for instance, we did join them and go to Iraq, would you folks have wanted to go/agreed with the US when it went against the United Nations??? I don't think that would have been very smart or Canadian.



Sure; we had no problem going into Kosovo with the US when they led the way without UN permission.  Why do we need the permission of Libya, Tanzania and Uruguay to conduct our foreign policy as we see fit?  I was quite disappointed that we stood up our two historic allies, Britain and the US, when they decided to pursue further regime change (probably the second of many) in the Middle East.


----------



## Smoothbore (13 Jun 2004)

One more thing the US failed to do was to secure Iraq's borders with Syria and Iran prior to the war in order to intercept the WMD's Saddam was getting rid of. The Americans have themselves to blame, you base some war on one very firm argument, you then provide the evidence, or lose with the leftist media and public opinion.


----------



## JBP (13 Jun 2004)

> As for the second statement, I think the term "raping" shows how ignorant you are of the US and Allied operations in Iraq.



I didn't actually mean "rape" in the literal sense, but they obliterated the country. They may not have carpet bombed or shelled the cities directly, but they took out any and most infrastructure the country had left in regards to water+power etc.



> Sure; we had no problem going into Kosovo with the US when they led the way without UN permission.



Kosovo didn't involve committing ground troops to an extended and deadly field of urban warfare. It was a simple "bomb them back to the stone-age!"...

I do see your points though Infanteer, and they are valid. I agree with you that it makes us look horrible that we didn't stick to our guns and go with our old pals the US+Britain, but there were reasons for saying no. Not just in spite!

I suppose if your all up for "regime change" in a country that isn't ours, would you support the US if they decided to "have a regime change" in Cuba??? That would be a bloody mess also!

As you suggested in a post to me on a different thread, I'll pipe down and set the radio to recieve for awhile... But I suppose I am dispositioned badly towards the Americans as a militaristic nation.


----------



## scm77 (13 Jun 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> Before this war, apparrently the people of Iraq used to have running water and electricity which is pretty hard to find there now days apparrently.



Yeah, they also had Saddam torturing and killing them just because they didn't agree.



			
				Smoothbore said:
			
		

> One more thing the US failed to do was to secure Iraq's borders with Syria and Iran prior to the war in order to intercept the WMD's Saddam was getting rid of.



How would the US secure Iraqs borders with Syria and Iran prior to the war??


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jun 2004)

Reference Water, Power and Infrastructure in Iraq.

Actually they didn't exist in Iraq.   They existed in some enclaves where wealthier Sunni's existed,   notably Baathists.   Coincidentally this group of bodies included Doctors, Engineers, Professors and Civil Servants - most of whom learned to speak English and lived in Baghdad and thus were conveniently placed for idle reporters with agendas to interview.

Talk to the Marsh Arabs that had their water cut off. Talk to the Basrans and the folks in Umm Qasr that not only had their water cut off but their power shut down.   The press talks about how quickly Saddam got the power and water up after GW1, he did this in the areas that his core support lived.   Not in the south, not in Basra, not even in Saddam City (Sadr City now, in Baghdad).

The money that he was making from the UN oil sales programme enriched him and his and a few friends in countries like ours while his people suffered under the sanctions.

If there was a case to be made for war, it wasn't terrorism, it wasn't WMDs, although I believe both of those to be valid, it was that Saddam was a thorough-going b*st*rd who was not only allowing his people to suffer for personal gain, he was causing them to suffer for propaganda value.   Sanctions don't work.   Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died because the UN didn't want/allow/have the balls to Invade.   The invasion has so far cost less than a thousand allied soldiers lives, people that volunteered for the job,   and some 10,000 Iraqis.   You do the math and tell me if it was right not to invade.

Sanctions are a modern version of the oldest form of warfare going - siege warfare - where the goal is to starve out your opponents because you are too weak or too cowardly to take the city/country/fortress.   In that form of warfare the FIRST people to die are the people that can't contribute to the defence, the aged, the women and the children.   

How would that be received if instead of using the bloodless term sanction we stated clearly that we don't want to/can't waste our soldiers lives so we are going to starve the local population into submission or force them to such a state of desparation that they will choose to rise up against their overlords, risking a quick death from machine-gun bullets over a long, lingering painful death for them and their wives, parents and children.

'Pologies for the long run on sentence but I find the moral equivocation of those flaming multilateralists to be vomitous. There is a time for "jaw-jaw" as even Churchill would have it but likewise there is also a time for "War. War".     Even the sainted/benighted Jean Chretien endorsed that view. The only problem that he had with the Iraq war   was not the UN but the fact that his mates didn't want the war - and all of them stood to gain personally and financially.

OK , I'll go chill now that I have had my rant.   Bye Bye.


----------



## SoF (22 Jun 2006)

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

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

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.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2006)

Seems like grasping at straws to me and still doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration was wrong about Iraq being some sort of haven for WMD production.  Gordon and Trainor's recent military analysis of declassified sources from inside Saddam's regime show that he had indeed defanged himself; his generals were a little shocked when he announced that there was no chemical/biological weapons to defend Baghdad with.


----------



## Armymatters (22 Jun 2006)

I think this is the important part:


> 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."



Pre-Gulf War. Meaning before 1991. Meaning that these are most likely forgotten remains buried somewhere or left somewhere in the Iraqi desert from a previous conflict. And since it said degraded, it means almost useless, as chemical and biological weapons have a shelf life of around 10 years or less.


----------



## TCBF (22 Jun 2006)

"means almost useless, as chemical and biological weapons have a shelf life of around 10 years or less."

- I would not stake your life on that, if I were you...

 ;D

Tom


----------



## AmmoTech90 (22 Jun 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> And since it said degraded, it means almost useless, as chemical and biological weapons have a shelf life of around 10 years or less.



Wrong,

Tell that to the fishermen in Baltic who pull up hydrolized mustard from post war dumping.  Or the farmers in France who are exposed to it.  Or the police officer in the US who investigated some WWII vessicant shells in a new property development and ended up in hospital.  Some agents do degrade, but just how many people are people are living on Gruinard Island?

D


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Jun 2006)

> "means almost useless, as chemical and biological weapons have a shelf life of around 10 years or less."
> 
> - I would not stake your life on that, if I were you...
> 
> ...




I would. Amazingly enough in the last 15 years no Canadian or American has been killed by Iraqi WMDs. I'd say my chances are pretty good, as long as I don't go to Iraq. 

I'm pretty sure he means useless as in "not a very useful weapon against the US".


----------



## Nemo888 (22 Jun 2006)

I got burned last time when Colin Powell lied to the UN about WMD. Santorum has been such a weasel in the past he has no credibility. Things must be going badly in theatre if they are trotting out this dead horse.

"You break it, you bought it" - Colin Powell Warning President George W. Bush about going to war in Iraq


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Jun 2006)

> "You break it, you bought it" - Warning President George W. Bush about going to war in Iraq



Bush doesn't care, he's had his run and will be gone in 2 years. The American Chicken Hawks and Car Magnet patriots won't be able to stomach the casualties and the ugly, dirty war that the "reality based comunity" has warned about since the beginning. The cowardly US public opinion will press for a withdraw and the next prez will give it to them, and presto, another Al-Qaida victory.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (22 Jun 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Seems like grasping at straws to me and still doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration was wrong about Iraq being some sort of haven for WMD production.  Gordon and Trainor's recent military analysis of declassified sources from inside Saddam's regime show that he had indeed defanged himself; his generals were a little shocked when he announced that there was no chemical/biological weapons to defend Baghdad with.



I think your expectations of intelligence and the blame on the Administration is unfair.

In a totalitarian regime where information is highly compartmentalized, unless you flip a mole in the inner circle, you can only make a best guess at what's going on.

Look at recent WMD programs and their development.

Iraq - pre-Gulf War I, was 9-18 months away from a nuclear weapon at a huge facility that had been missed by everyone.
Libya - advanced nuclear program that no one knew existed until the A.Q. Khan was "interviewed", at which point Qaddafi cut a deal to have C-5's come pick it all up in exchange for renewed relations with the west.
North Korea - managed to produce nukes right under inspector's noses.

And back to Iraq and this invasion:
i)   As per your note, apparently the fact they DIDN'T have WMD's came as a surprise to many commanders who had been training to deploy them
ii)  Most analysts I've seen agree that even if Iraq was not actively producing the weapons at that time, they certainly had maintained the capability and WOULD HAVE as soon as sanctions were lifted as was being proposed by the Russians, French and Chinese.

Bottom Line:  If you want to point to Administration incompetence, I personally would by-pass intelligence and focus on the military, occupation and reconstruction plan.  That was truly pitiful and costs needless casualties because it allowed the local nationalists to push "the occupation" angle.  Pre-announcing a phased withdrawal at the point of invasion would've eliminated all of that....


Matthew.


----------



## paracowboy (22 Jun 2006)

oh good, a debate on Iraq and it's legalities/necessities. It's not like that's *ever* been discussed here, before.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2006)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I got burned last time when Colin Powell lied to the UN about WMD.



Powell never lied - although he was suspect of some of the information that was given to him, I don't doubt his integrity.  Woodward's interviews with him are pretty revealing.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I think your expectations of intelligence and the blame on the Administration is unfair.



Blame?  What are you trying to spin here.  They were wrong and the President admitted the fact - I'm only stating the historical record.  Yes, Saddam was deceptive with the UN, but it doesn't change the fact that many in the Bush administration saw a "smoking gun" with what many were, even at the time, saying was pretty shaky evidence at best.

Not that I give a shit; WMD doesn't make or break the morality or utility of the war in Iraq for me.  I just find it funny that there is an attempt to revisit an issue that the book has been closed on.


----------



## mover1 (22 Jun 2006)

The source is FOX NEWS so I dont put any wieght into the story they tell.

They are a piss poor newscaster, facts are wrong and views are one sided. Much like the CBC :blotto:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jun 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> And since it said degraded, it means almost useless, as chemical and biological weapons have a shelf life of around 10 years or less.



And once more, when you get all your experience from a book and 'google', instead of life, these are the kind of hokey, gobly gook statements you end up making. :


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2006)

As a bit of closure, here is something from a good discussion on the topic at Lightfighter by "Abu Buckwheat":

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5131022531/m/8171025642



> Originally posted by Abu Buckwheat:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2015)

Resurrecting this old thread.

Some questions come to mind when reports of ISIS using Mustard Gas on Kurds in the North.  Where did ISIS get their hands on these weapons?  Were they always there, after all?  Or were the facilities to produce them still in existence and never destroyed? 

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Mustard gas used in ISIS attack, Germany says
> CBC
> The Associated Press
> Posted: Sep 07, 2015 5:55 PM ET
> ...



More on LINK.


----------

