The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

Those goals are short sighted. You can accomplish you goal and still fail, if you had the wrong goals.

Iraq is a disaster. Democrats and Republicans are to blame.

If you can't admit that, you are a partisan tool.

 

You didn't read the article, because I can see you are OK with ISIS having and using those weapons. It is a big deal, but not to those that despise Bush

 

Reading further in the Times story, there is this:


The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

 

Any WMD in Iraq was held by the Iraqi regime after Bush left, and during Obama, were we afraid of them, it is what the group supports, their RELIGIOUS belief, THEIR ISLAM, that is the bad thing to be attacked, not the possession of (*)(*)(*)(*) from an Ebola patient.

The only people who cared about WMD were those who only cared about the greater odds of their lungs turning to puss. 9/11 took no WMD to accomplish. If we spend all our time whining about WMD then that would be the reason for the war, it was NOT the reason for the war or my support, and his support of terrorism in violation of 687 and 1441 was:

“March 5, 2003: Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html

“The suicide bomber was 20 years old, a student of the Hebron Polytechnic University (from which a large number of suicide bombers have emerged) and a member of the Hamas terrorist organization.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/861590/posts

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber. In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

March 17, 2003: “The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

March 26, 2003: “NASIRIYA, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Marines searching Iraqi military headquarters in this southern city that was the site of intensive fighting came across a mural depicting a plane crashing into a building complex resembling New York's twin towers, a news agency photograph showed Wednesday.”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html

Should we go to war against West Africa because the possess Ebola (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

I saved your comment for when ISIS uses them, which according to the article it is expected that they did on the Kurds. When the NYT's does an in depth article like this, it should have the attention of most Americans, but some of you will never admit saddam was evil

 

I am not Okay with ISIS existence, with or without WMD. WMD is irrelevant, if you make it relevant, then ISIS without it could be legitimatized.

 

We'll see how legitimate they are when they use it.

 

Which was my entire point, though the poster yuo quoted attacked me as anti-bush without any credibility. If he had this info, and our soldiers were wounded by it - why else would it not be disclosed to the public?

 

And YET, Bush, Rice, Powell NOR CHENEY said a word about it for 6 years?? Really? No screaming from every microphone, we were

RIGHT!

Use some common sense people folks. Ask yourselves why not?? On your mark, get set SPIN! I know the answer, it TOOOOO is all over the net!
It is utterly obvious why they didn't!! And we have no one to blame by ourselves....

 

There was nothing secretive or new about this. This has been talked about several times since 2006. These items were found in unstable condition and most likely buried to keep them contained, or too be used on a small scale if Iran invaded after Desert Storm left Iraq crippled and for the most part defenseless. That is why Saddam put on a big front and boasted lies and ridiculous defiance after the US left. If he hadn't he would have been invaded by Iran.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/comment-page-1/

Could they be used by ISIS? Yes if they can contain the old residue and reinstall it into new warheads or other delivery devises it could be used in small scale attacks, possibly even on a larger scale if their capable of retaining the warheads contents. Is ISIS capable of doing such a thing? You bet. Why? Because we haven't crippled their banking system and stopped their money flow. If they have the funds anything is possible. But this is nothing new, just a new antagonist. We knew they were there and knew they could be used in one way or another in the future, but as far as them being capable of being a threat to the USA in 2004, not likely in the condition they were found.

 

Fool us once, shame on us BUT don't try it again! Conservatives are still trying to justify the war of oil obsession and subsequent INVASION. Think about it folks! This so called BOMBSHELL in the NY Times that says our guys had injuries related to WMD in Iraq? They did, OUR WMD! Why would Bush and CHENEY not scream to the top of their lungs each and every time one of our guys found, ferreted out or 'stumbled' upon SADDAMS WMD? Cheney would have been on every microphone available. Fox would have led with that story each and every injury or find! Anyone remember those stories?? It's because what we found was OUR WMD that we supplied--old components, stored, deteriorated and unstable. Remember WHEN and who gave WMD to Iraq! We knew about this WMD, it was reported. (As I remember several stories the first few months BEFORE WE STOPPED LOOKING).


“The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.” Many of the weapons, according to the Times, “appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.”...


The discovery of old, degraded chemical munitions in Iraq is not news. The Bush administration went to war expecting to find older weapons, along with a thriving new chemical weapons program (that didn’t exist). Ten years ago, the final report of the weapons inspectors sent to find Saddam Hussein’s WMDs (commonly known as the Duelfer Report) was released, and it noted that “a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered” in the country, but that Iraq had not produced any new weapons.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/15/no_...ow_conservatives_misread_new_times_bombshell/

 

from SALON, this morning. (My thread containing a counter to the above thread, was MOVED immediately). WTH is going on? This is a legitimate story with
FACTS--that every one knew and my thread point that out gets moved? What are the rules here? 2 very 'different' thread titles with 2 very different takes on deflection and fact. Yet one stays up?

The discovery of old, degraded chemical munitions in Iraq is not news. The Bush administration went to war expecting to find older weapons, along with a thriving new chemical weapons program (that didn’t exist). Ten years ago, the final report of the weapons inspectors sent to find Saddam Hussein’s WMDs (commonly known as the Duelfer Report) was released, and it noted that “a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered” in the country, but that Iraq had not produced any new weapons.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/15/no_...ow_conservatives_misread_new_times_bombshell/

 

I remember seeing that we had found some old corroded chemical weapons and the MSM said that they proved nothing.

I'm not sure that they want to touch this mess. Once a chemical weapon is degraded like these are they can't be fired but they can still kill the people messing with them. They could make a nasty IED for a suicide bomber if they have the equipment to handle the chemicals without killing themselves. The risk/benefit is weighted toward rick in trying to use these old weapons. If they find some buried in sand they might be serviceable but those that have been wet will be hard to deal with.

I guess that 0bama isn't going to mention these weapons either.

 

But that doesn't mean he didn't have them, which is the liberal "smoking gun" against Bush.

He still had them, even if manufacture had ceased.

 

Casualties from OUR WMD bought and paid for by--can you spell R E A G A N?? No wonder Bush and Cheney wouldn't dare take a victory lap! Also, BIOLOGICS!!


How Did Iraq Get Its WMD? -
We Sold Them To Saddam
By Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot
The Sunday Herald - UK
9-6-2

The US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's rep orts on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

 

But what you guys continue to ignore is that so many democrats PRE-Bush said the same thing, going so far as to demand action against Saddam. Why is that part always ignored?

The truth is that both sides of the political aisle agreed he had them and both sides wanted him taken out. The problem occurred when afterward, the political winds blew in a different direction and the dems, true to a politicians "say whatever the masses want to hear" did a 180 and threw out the meme that Bush lied.

Their constituents lost interest, so they changed their tact to distnace themselves as much as possible.

Typical political blame game.

 

Yep. George W. Bush has been proven right. Saddam had wmd's and hid them. Unfortunately, because Bush got belittled over it by the left.....it was all pushed aside, and now ISIS has located many of them. I suspect there are TONS more buried and hidden across both Iraq and inside Syria.

 

I agree we sold the warheads to him, helped him build the facilities to create the chemical agents.

But in the end, he still did have them when Bush made his statement.

 

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

Nothing new. They reported finding remnants of decade's old chemical weapons back in 2003.

We went to Iraq because of supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction; not Weapons, Moldy and in Disrepair.

 

Taxcutter says:
Mustard gas does not corrode. In fact it is one of the most persistent chemicals known. Belgian and French farmers still get burned by pockets of mustard from time to time.

Simple facts:
Saddam Hussein had mustard gas.
Mustard is a WMD.
Thanks to the MSM, the meme that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein having WMD has now shown itself to be a bold-faced lie.

 

From a 2005 CIA report on Iraqi WMD:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

- - - Updated - - -

Iraq is an "urgent threat" to the US.

 

Oh, I was speaking of the corrosion of the shells. In actuality, that makes those shells even more of an issue.

 

What WMDs?

WMD = "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Not Weapons, Moldy and in Disrepair.

- - - Updated - - -

Those moldy old unusable leftovers from the 1980s did not make Iraq an "urgent threat" to the US, sorry.

 

Taxcutter says:
That wouldn't be the first time in history that a weapon was more dangerous to the user than the target.

But that doesn't change the fact: Saddam Hussein did indeed have WMD. Bush did not lie, and all who claim he did are liars.

 

Never said I agreed with the invasion of Iraq, nor do I believe Iraq was an urgent threat to the US.

But Saddam -did- still have them, regardless. We covered up their existence because we sold the shells to him and helped him build the complexes where the chemicals were made.

Either way, as the article shows, there were WMD's in Iraq. Worthy of invasion? Not really. But they existed.