WMD's found in Iraq

[Bill_Thompson]

Senator Santorum has released an unclassified document saying that 500 canisters of nerve agents have been found in Iraq.

So why is the media dancing around this? Why is the suposition of the Haditha killings are written about as facts before an investigation? WHy is the document found at the Al-Zawaquari are treated as possible fakes without any indication that they are fakes? And yet the media is silent about this?

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m- ... 052804.htm

The Sound of Silence: Iraq's WMDs Found

May 28, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Joe Mariani
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After spending more than a year attacking the Bush administration daily for their supposed failure to produce the WMDs that everyone -- including the United Nations, as well as most leading Democrats -- believed Saddam had hidden, the Left has suddenly gone strangely silent on the subject. The "mainstream" media has been tiptoeing around the discovery of a 155-mm mortar shell containing Sarin gas in Iraq, the contents of which have been confirmed. The shell was used as part of an improvised explosive device (IED) on a road near the Baghdad International Airport, and exploded as it was being disarmed.

The shell contained three liters of Sarin -- nearly a gallon. It was a type of shell designed to mix chemical components during flight, which was why the explosion didn't kill anyone (though two soldiers were treated for exposure). Three liters of Sarin is enough, if the components are mixed properly, to realistically kill hundreds, and potentially thousands. A concentration of 100 milligrams of Sarin per cubic meter of air is enough to constitute a lethal dose for half the people breathing it within one minute.

This type of chemical warfare shell had never been declared by Iraq -- it was not even known that Iraq had ever made them. The 1999 UNSCOM report on Iraq reported that thirty binary/Sarin shells were known to exist, and stated that all had been accounted for. According to UNSCOM, "Iraq developed a crude type of binary munition, whereby the final mixing of the two precursors to the agent was done inside the munition just before delivery." Someone actually had to physically pour the components of the Sarin (or other type of G-series nerve agent) into the shells before they could be fired. At least, that's how the ones we knew about worked.

So, a previously-unknown type of artillery shell is found in Iraq, containing an actual, verifiable chemical weapon. This is front page news, right? Should we expect apologies from formerly doubting Liberals? Newspapers filled with retractions from prominent Democrats? Conciliatory visits to President Bush from Jaques Chirac and Gerhardt Schroeder? Not so fast. Remember: it's an election year. Liberals, Democrats, terrorists and appeasers all want President Bush to lose the election so everyone can get back to business as usual. Terrorists want to get back to their implacable war against Western civilisation, and the others want to get back to trying to placate them. The media, as long as we let them get away with it, will only run stories that attack President Bush and undermine support for him. In fact, Liberals already have their spin on this Sarin find ready to go. The vast majority of them -- when you can get them to admit that the Sarin and the shell are real -- argue that it doesn't matter for one of four "reasons."

A. The shell is old, from before the 1991 Gulf War, so it's not what we were looking for.

Since the cease-fire that suspended the Gulf War depended on Saddam's handing over to the UN "[a]ll chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities", this shell is precisely what we were looking for, especially if it predates 1991. This shell and others like it is why the UN passed 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam disarm. No matter how old it was, it was still lethal. There is no statute of limitations on weapons of mass destruction.

B. There is only one shell, not a stockpile, so it doesn't mean anything.

This one shell contained enough WMD material to potentially kill as many people as died on 9/11, all by itself. Is it logical to assume that this is the only one in existence -- or just wishful thinking? The fact is that we still don't know how much Sarin Iraq actually produced. "At first, Iraq told UNSCOM that it had produced an estimated 250 tons of tabun and 812 tons of sarin. In 1995, Iraq changed its estimates and reported it had produced only 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin." (Yes, that's tons.) At the very least, it tells us that we haven't nearly finished looking for the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to surrender, and didn't. Besides... a shell containing mustard gas was also found. Well, maybe there were only two WMD shells in all of Iraq.

C. Just because Saddam had WMDs after all, it doesn't mean Bush didn't lie about them.

As ridiculous as it sounds, this appears to be the instinctive, defensive reaction of many Liberals to this news. They so badly need to believe that President Bush lied in order to legitimise their hatred of him that they're capable of this sort of twisted reasoning. The rationale seems to be that WMDs don't count if they aren't exactly where the CIA told us they were, as if they couldn't be moved.

D. The terrorists didn't even know it was a chemical shell.

Well, they do now. And they know where they found it, too.

We need to redouble our efforts to stop the terrorists and find Saddam's WMDs, before they're used to derail the new Iraqi government's formation. The media's refusal to give this news the coverage it deserves can only be due to a calculated attempt to reduce American support for our efforts in Iraq, including that of tracking down Saddam's banned weapons. The Left's deliberate silence on this subject for the purpose of influencing our election only helps our enemies.

[Dragon Star]

The media is possibly the most negative source of information in the world, they focus on others mistakes and make issues and heroes out of people who don't deserve it...it's just what they do. Now say they make a mistake, are they going to flat out admit it? No, because it makes them look bad. The media has no balls.

Now, as for the findings of WMD's being true or not, who knows...this is the first I have heard about it...

[Мастер]

The media is possibly the most negative source of information in the world, they focus on others mistakes and make issues and heroes out of people who don't deserve it...it's just what they do. Now say they make a mistake, are they going to flat out admit it? No, because it makes them look bad. The media has no balls.

The media are, by and large, for-profit businesses, and behave pretty much the way I would expect for-profit businesses to behave. But, I rather suspect most media outlets would love to be the first to report that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, provided they don't end up having to retract the story. The two cardinal objectives of being first and being right are rather in conflict sometimes. . .

Now, as for the findings of WMD's being true or not, who knows...this is the first I have heard about it...

If it's true, the question I have is not why it isn't reported more in the media, but why the US government isn't spouting off about it in the UN Security Council.

[Dragon Star]

The media are, by and large, for-profit businesses, and behave pretty much the way I would expect for-profit businesses to behave. But, I rather suspect most media outlets would love to be the first to report that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, provided they don't end up having to retract the story. The two cardinal objectives of being first and being right are rather in conflict sometimes. . .

True, but when I think about if I was the one to make the decision to report found WMD's when I have spent years telling everyone that Bush is an idiot and was only their looking for oil exc...exc...I would feel like a dumb-ass for reporting against my best efforts. :)

If it's true, the question I have is not why it isn't reported more in the media, but why the US government isn't spouting off about it in the UN Security Council.

Well, think about it. Which is more noble, rubbing it in everyone's face or keeping it on the down low? Because either way the information would get out. If this is true Bush is doing exactly what he needs to do, playing the game with a poker face instead of letting everyone know he just drew that ace he needed to win the game...

[Мастер]

True, but when I think about if I was the one to make the decision to report found WMD's when I have spent years telling everyone that Bush is an idiot and was only their looking for oil exc...exc...I would feel like a dumb-ass for reporting against my best efforts. :)

I think he would be an idiot if he invaded Iraq only to get their oil. It would have been much cheaper to buy the oil.

But, it may well be that individuals who have argued that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will not want to report the finding of such weapons. But not everyone in the media said this, and even those that did say it aren't going to save themselves from feeling like a dumb-ass by not reporting it, because other people will report it.

Personally, I think if really solid evidence of pre-war weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were to be found, it would be trumpeted from every hilltop within hours. . .

Well, think about it. Which is more noble, rubbing it in everyone's face or keeping it on the down low? Because either way the information would get out. If this is true Bush is doing exactly what he needs to do, playing the game with a poker face instead of letting everyone know he just drew that ace he needed to win the game...

Well, that could be a tactical choice, I suppose. Personally, I would have it in the UN Security Council (if it were solid evidence), but the government of the US does many things differently than the way I would do them.

[Dragon Star]

I think he would be an idiot if he invaded Iraq only to get their oil. It would have been much cheaper to buy the oil.

Yea I know, but people love to false speculate.

But, it may well be that individuals who have argued that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will not want to report the finding of such weapons. But not everyone in the media said this, and even those that did say it aren't going to save themselves from feeling like a dumb-ass by not reporting it, because other people will report it.

At one point or another I bet every single news station reported quite a bit about MIA-WMD's, it's not up to the journalists to what is showed on the news, it is up to the producers (or whoever is in charge of what comes and goes), and they are the ones that ask for the stories. They look like the idiots, and it reflects on their news station. It all boils down to ratings and money.

It looks to me like the "You go first!" scenario, no one wants to make the first move.

I expect that if their is no conformation within this year of these WMD's it is a false story...

[Lance]

If it's true, the question I have is not why it isn't reported more in the media, but why the US government isn't spouting off about it in the UN Security Council.

Basically, though there have been hundreds of shells found, they are found "a few at a time" and the contents are very old and degraded. There was no recent WMD program. It's mostly garbage left over from the '80s.

[Мастер]

If it's true, the question I have is not why it isn't reported more in the media, but why the US government isn't spouting off about it in the UN Security Council.

Basically, though there have been hundreds of shells found, they are found "a few at a time" and the contents are very old and degraded. There was no recent WMD program. It's mostly garbage left over from the '80s.

OK, I figured it would be something along those lines.

So it may well be the case that el Bush invaded one of the only countries in the middle east that doesn't have weapons of mass destruction :P

[Lance]

Heh, yeah, I think that's just about it.

[Dragon Star]

If it's true, the question I have is not why it isn't reported more in the media, but why the US government isn't spouting off about it in the UN Security Council.

Basically, though there have been hundreds of shells found, they are found "a few at a time" and the contents are very old and degraded. There was no recent WMD program. It's mostly garbage left over from the '80s.

OK, I figured it would be something along those lines.

So it may well be the case that el Bush invaded one of the only countries in the middle east that doesn't have weapons of mass destruction :P

I am sure they have them, they are just very well hidden, besides, they only have a few trillion tones of sand to cover anything they want at moments notice. :P

[Doe, John]

If it's true, the question I have is not why it isn't reported more in the media, but why the US government isn't spouting off about it in the UN Security Council.

Basically, though there have been hundreds of shells found, they are found "a few at a time" and the contents are very old and degraded. There was no recent WMD program. It's mostly garbage left over from the '80s.

OK, I figured it would be something along those lines.

So it may well be the case that el Bush invaded one of the only countries in the middle east that doesn't have weapons of mass destruction :P

I am sure they have them, they are just very well hidden, besides, they only have a few trillion tones of sand to cover anything they want at moments notice. :P

You mean like this?

[Dragon Star]

My point exactly. :D

[Bill_Thompson]

The media is possibly the most negative source of information in the world, they focus on others mistakes and make issues and heroes out of people who don't deserve it...it's just what they do. Now say they make a mistake, are they going to flat out admit it? No, because it makes them look bad. The media has no balls.

Now, as for the findings of WMD's being true or not, who knows...this is the first I have heard about it...

It is true. Heard it also on the drive home today on National Public Radio. Now they are a liberal biased news source so, sure they sais "the chemical weapons are old" without saying that this particular type of weapons actually are more dangerous when it is old.

[Bandit]

There's bias in the media Mr. Thompson, but it's not just confined to the liberal angle.

I would imagine Iraq had some left-over chem munitions from the pre-1991 period but what you're linking to is not the supposed robust NBC program that we heard about prior to the 2003 invasion. I agree with KOS that if massive WMD stockpiles were found this administration would be making a lot of noise about it considering the domestic and international damage not finding them has caused it.

[Bill_Thompson]

I am not a chemist. But I have heard from some ex-military friends who say that it is bull that the old chemical weapons are harmless. I will have to do some homework to get the straight dope on this story.

MEDIA: "Let me see your WMD."

LEFT: "You don't need to see this WMD."

MEDIA: "We don't need to see this WMD."

LEFT: "These aren't the WMD's you're looking for."

MEDIA: "These aren't the WMD's we're looking for."

LEFT: "We can go about our business."

MEDIA: "You can go about your business."

LEFT: "Move along."

MEDIA: "Move along! Move along!"

[Lance]

I am not a chemist. But I have heard from some ex-military friends who say that it is bull that the old chemical weapons are harmless. I will have to do some homework to get the straight dope on this story.

But it doesn't matter. The fact that all they find are old indicates there was no current WMD program.

[Enzo]

60 year old explosive shells from WW2 are also dangerous, but they are not evidence of a WMD program. The fact that the shell could be dangerous is irrelevant to whether or not there IS a WMD program.

[Bill_Thompson]

60 year old explosive shells from WW2 are also dangerous, but they are not evidence of a WMD program. The fact that the shell could be dangerous is irrelevant to whether or not there IS a WMD program.

I am not so sure. It seems that this would be one of the things Saddam should and was entitled to and had agreed to disclose.

[Enzo]

Disclosure implies awareness. I have no trouble believing that Saddam could have been unaware that these few leftover weapons were still sitting around. it is pretty well established that they had destroyed the particular program some years earlier. They managed to overlook a few here or there.

Saddam was a bad guy, but that doesn't mean everything we want to accuse him of is legitimate.

[Doe, John]

I remember a few years ago when the search for WMD's was active and they were interviewing scientists and generals associated with the past Iraqi regime's military. Everybody they talked to said basically, yes, there was a program but I wasn't associated with it. All the generals thought that other formations were equipped with the agents. All the scientists thought somebody else was involved in development.

It appears now that there wasn't an active program, but Saddam was doing everything he could to convince people there was.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

It was the only thing he had left with which to scare the rest of the world.

In the weeks leading up to the war, and even during, he seemed so self-confident that I expected him to have a couple of surprises left.
Guess it was all bluff.

I really can't figure him out.
Maybe he's just stupid.

[Lonewulf]

It was the only thing he had left with which to scare the rest of the world.

In the weeks leading up to the war, and even during, he seemed so self-confident that I expected him to have a couple of surprises left.
Guess it was all bluff.

I really can't figure him out.
Maybe he's just stupid.

(Emphasis mine)

Why would he be "stupid", exactly? He had you convinced that he had a couple of surprises left. And it's already been stated that that was his main goal.

[Superluminal]

Several of Saddam's generals who have been interviewed since the invasion, have stated that Saddam didn't believe we would invade. He thought massive air strikes was all we do, and he would survive that. Everything his generals advised him to do in preparation for the invasion, he ignored. Such as blowing up several bridges to slow our advance.

He needed those bridges to move his own troops, because he thought our strategy would be that the bombing campaign would spur up risings. He needed those bridges to quell the up risings.

I've read several accounts of convoys in the weeks leading up to the invasion crossing the border into Syria. Could be that if he had anything he didn't want destroyed in the bombing, he moved it to Syria. I don't know if anyone has seriously looked into it.

[Dragon Star]

Well, blowing up the bridges would indeed be a bad idea, as we had portable flotation bridges when we invaded.

[Bandit]

...I've read several accounts of convoys in the weeks leading up to the invasion crossing the border into Syria. Could be that if he had anything he didn't want destroyed in the bombing, he moved it to Syria. I don't know if anyone has seriously looked into it.

I heard the same thing. The Hussein regime had no qualms about flying their advanced Soviet and French fighters to Iran during the first Gulf War to avoid destruction (I think Iran ended up keeping the planes) so it's not out of the question that something could have been shipped to Syria prior to the invasion. It's interesting speculation but something that we'll never know for sure unless Syria fesses up.