Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

[Johnny Utah]

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq.

FoxNews.com

June 21, 2006

Excerpt:

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."

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."

Link

The News of WMD's being found is proof Iraq under Saddam did indeed have WMD's which made him a threat. Liberals and the MSM are silent on this because when the Iraq War is judged they will go down in history as being on the wrong side that claimed Iraq under Saddam never had WMD's and was never a threat..

[Liam]

Don't let the facts get in the way...

Per the Department of Defense, that font of liberal propaganda, Santorum was talking about residues from destroyed stockpiles of the pre-1991 WMD program. Are there destroyed bits and pieces of pre-1991 WMDs laying about in piles and in ammo dumps in Iraq? Sure. If an Iraqi went dumpster diving to scrape off some shavings of mostly-degraded chemicals, could they be a potential threat to western forces? Perhaps. Are they evidence of Saddam's post-1991 WMD program. No.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/37966/

[Black Dog]

Jesus, I was just about to post this under the category of "how long before gullible right wingers start flippin' out over this?" Thanks for saving me the effort. And a thanks for the DoD for torpedoing what is nothing more than political grandstanding.

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."

[August1991]

At this late date, the anti-war crowd would accept absolutely no evidence of WMDs. If the US Army discovered a nuclear tipped ICBM buried in a silo in the western Iraqi desert, they would dispute the evidence.

Furthermore, the Left is very good at turning issues like this into a cosmic football. It will be impossible to know what the truth is.

[Black Dog]

At this late date, the anti-war crowd would accept absolutely no evidence of WMDs. If the US Army discovered a nuclear tipped ICBM buried in a silo in the western Iraqi desert, they would dispute the evidence.

Furthermore, the Left is very good at turning issues like this into a cosmic football. It will be impossible to know what the truth is.

Excpt, like, they didn't find a nuclear tipped ICBM, but a collection of rusted out shells containing degraded chemical materials. Again, even the DoD isn't biting on this story. So try as you might to paint the "anti-war crowd" into the corner it don't wash. Indeed, the flip side of that is the appraent desperation by the pro-war crowd to find evidence of WMD where there is none, to stretch every link between Hussein and Al Qaeda to the very breaking point of credibility and beyond to try and make their post-facto case.

[Johnny Utah]

Liberals and the MSM have been running around saying Iraq under Saddam never had WMD's and was never a threat, well thier proven wrong and will go down in history as being on the wrong side of the debate..

If Liberals and the MSM had their way, Bush would never have removed Saddam from power and in the near future Uday or Qusay would have taken over making Iraq even more dangerous..

[Black Dog]

Liberals and the MSM have been running around saying Iraq under Saddam never had WMD's and was never a threat, well thier proven wrong and will go down in history as being on the wrong side of the debate..

No one ever said Iraq never had chemical or bio weapons. So you got that wrong. As for the question of him being a threat, he was never a threat to the west. Not at his peak and certainly not after a decade of sanctions and containment. Even if he did shake off the sanctions and wa sallowed to roam free, he was never anything more than a regional problem. So you're wrong there too.

Now, I'm curious to see how this "discovery" (which, again, has been written off by the DoD as "not the WMDs for which this country went to war.") proves anybody wrong.

If Liberals and the MSM had their way, Bush would never have removed Saddam from power and in the near future Uday or Qusay would have taken over making Iraq even more dangerous.

Or would they have been less dangerous and less capable of maintaining the regime? We'll never know, but Iraq was never and would likely never have become a threat to the west in any meaningful way.

[Liam]

Liberals and the MSM have been running around saying Iraq under Saddam never had WMD's and was never a threat, well thier proven wrong and will go down in history as being on the wrong side of the debate...

Who? Where? Even as a liberal, I was persuaded by and believed the evidence the Administration presented prior to invading Iraq. Once it became obvious that the foundation of this war (WMD) was built on sand, I, and many liberals and conservatives alike, began to question its wisdom.

No one, but no one has ever said that Saddam NEVER had WMD. Clearly he did. At one time. In 1988, for example, when he used chemical weapons against his own people. Did he have WMD on the eve of the war as Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and Rice and Powell and Perle and countless others have claimed. No. Our own military inspectors searched the country without any hindrance for a year and a half and found nothing. We now know that Saddam's WMD program was a ruse.

The problem with right-wing nutbags is that there is absolutely nothing anyone can say or show to allow facts to penetrate their skulls. People who follow their government blindly, who do not bother to ask questions, who refuse to seek the truth are a greater threat to the future of their nation than a hundred million people who stand up and demand answers. It's so sad that you simply can't be men (or women) enough to even search within yourself to question whether or not we made the right decision.

[Johnny Utah]

Liberals and the MSM have been running around saying Iraq under Saddam never had WMD's and was never a threat, well thier proven wrong and will go down in history as being on the wrong side of the debate..

No one ever said Iraq never had chemical or bio weapons. So you got that wrong. As for the question of him being a threat, he was never a threat to the west. Not at his peak and certainly not after a decade of sanctions and containment. Even if he did shake off the sanctions and wa sallowed to roam free, he was never anything more than a regional problem. So you're wrong there too.

Now, I'm curious to see how this "discovery" (which, again, has been written off by the DoD as "not the WMDs for which this country went to war.") proves anybody wrong.

If Liberals and the MSM had their way, Bush would never have removed Saddam from power and in the near future Uday or Qusay would have taken over making Iraq even more dangerous.

Or would they have been less dangerous and less capable of maintaining the regime? We'll never know, but Iraq was never and would likely never have become a threat to the west in any meaningful way.

I meant "After the War" though I said "Liberals and the MSM have been running around saying Iraq under Saddam never had WMD's and was never a threat." I didn't put that in mistake on my part. I still believe he was a threat to the west and Israel and the World is safer he's out of power..

Uday and Qusay were more crazy and brutal then Saddam ever was and if they came into power they would have been a threat not right away of course but in time which would have made dealing with them more dangerous and harder so it was the right time to remove Saddam from power and any chance of them coming into power..

[Liam]

At this late date, the anti-war crowd would accept absolutely no evidence of WMDs. If the US Army discovered a nuclear tipped ICBM buried in a silo in the western Iraqi desert, they would dispute the evidence.

Furthermore, the Left is very good at turning issues like this into a cosmic football. It will be impossible to know what the truth is.

You'd lump me in with the anti-war crowd (though you'd be wrong), but if they found such a missile in a silo, I'd agree that the war was justified. As BD said, though, no such thing exists. How about this -- and I recognize it's impossible to prove a negative -- but what is it about the lack of evidence that our military and intelligence officers have been able to amass about this alleged WMD program? What is it about the absence of evidence that such a program existed that still makes you think that you know better than they do? That there really were WMDs just before the war?

As for cosmic footballs, look no further than the DoD's own statements about this. The truth is there on this issue. Just open your eyes to it. Not on the entire war, just on this. Now, do you still think you know better than the DoD?

[Black Dog]

I meant "After the War" though I said "Liberals and the MSM have been running around saying Iraq under Saddam never had WMD's and was never a threat." I didn't put that in mistake on my part. I still believe he was a threat to the west and Israel and the World is safer he's out of power..

Well, he didn't have any significant WMD capabilities after the first Gulf War. And I'm very curious how he could have been considered a threat given the state of his military. Care to elaborate?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

At this late date, the anti-war crowd would accept absolutely no evidence of WMDs.

Nonsense. My parameters of what constitutes 'WMD's' isn't all that strict, either.

-functional

-enough to be used as a weapon

Plus some others, to be sure, but the rubbish shown earlier in the thread is hardly acceptable (and an extremely similar thread was posted some time ago).

[BubberMiley]

Everybody already knew Iraq had WMDs before 1991 because the U.S. sold them to Hussein.

[sharkman]

I had no idea the number had gotten so high. 500? That's enough to take out an entire U.S. army, plus. I know it's not sexy, like say the number the MSM waited and waited for until they could breathlessly report on,("We now have 1000 casualities") but it is substantial.

[gc1765]

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq.

FoxNews.com

June 21, 2006

Excerpt:

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."

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."

Link

The News of WMD's being found is proof Iraq under Saddam did indeed have WMD's which made him a threat. Liberals and the MSM are silent on this because when the Iraq War is judged they will go down in history as being on the wrong side that claimed Iraq under Saddam never had WMD's and was never a threat..

Who has the most chemical weapons in the world? The U.S.! Does that mean the U.S. is a threat to Canada? Hell no. See the flaw in logic there? The U.S. has so many chemical weapons they don't even know what to do with them. Would Saddam use chemical weapons on U.S. (or Canadian) soil? How? Why? Who knows. It would be pretty stupid of them if they did, since the U.S. would obviously retaliate. Besides chemical weapons are not very effective killers and it would be pretty hard to attack North America with them.

P.S. I'm curious how those chemicals were found stored. They are water-sensitive and decompose on contact with water (including water vapour in the atmosphere). In fact that's how mustard gas works, it reacts with water (ie in your eyes) and produces HCl (hydrochloric acid).

[BubberMiley]

It would have been substantial if they were usable.

[Johnny Utah]

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq.

FoxNews.com

June 21, 2006

Excerpt:

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."

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."

Link

The News of WMD's being found is proof Iraq under Saddam did indeed have WMD's which made him a threat. Liberals and the MSM are silent on this because when the Iraq War is judged they will go down in history as being on the wrong side that claimed Iraq under Saddam never had WMD's and was never a threat..

Who has the most chemical weapons in the world? The U.S.! Does that mean the U.S. is a threat to Canada? Hell no. See the flaw in logic there? The U.S. has so many chemical weapons they don't even know what to do with them. Would Saddam use chemical weapons on U.S. (or Canadian) soil? How? Why? Who knows. It would be pretty stupid of them if they did, since the U.S. would obviously retaliate. Besides chemical weapons are not very effective killers and it would be pretty hard to attack North America with them.

P.S. I'm curious how those chemicals were found stored. They are water-sensitive and decompose on contact with water (including water vapour in the atmosphere). In fact that's how mustard gas works, it reacts with water (ie in your eyes) and produces HCl (hydrochloric acid).

So the United States has Chemical Weapons, I would trust them having such weapons before a Country like Iraq under Saddam. North Korea also has Chemical Weapons as do other Countries but you only singled out the United States. Saddam could have easily passed those Chemical Weapons to Terroists such as Al Qaeda or Hamas and Hezbollah as long as it couldn't be traced back to Saddam..

If there was a Democratic President and this find was made would you're response have been more Positive rather then negative?

[gc1765]

Here's something interesting, the shelf-life of sarin is apparently only a few weeks to months. I'm not sure how the U.S. manages to store their supply of sarin but they must have figured out a way. I suppose they probably store it under nitrogen and keep it frozen, that would make it last. However, I doubt iraq had huge freezers buried underground.

Shelf life

Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA [1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors.

Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Typically an 18 percent aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide is used to destroy Sarin.

Edit: I forgot to include the reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Shelf_life

[Black Dog]

I had no idea the number had gotten so high. 500? That's enough to take out an entire U.S. army, plus. I know it's not sexy, like say the number the MSM waited and waited for until they could breathlessly report on,("We now have 1000 casualities") but it is substantial.

Whah? First: you don't know what condituion the munitions or their payloads were in. If these weapons were so dangerous, why didn't the regime use them? The answer, of course, is that chemical weapons are not very effective even in the battlefield situiations they are designed to be used in. Anything from a shift in the wind, to the rapid movement of modern troops severely reduces the effectiveness of chemical weapons (they worke dwell in World War 2 due to the static nature of the war itself). There is much debate as to whether chemical weapons even should be considered WMD.

[Liam]

...First: you don't know what condituion the munitions or their payloads were in...

Or worse: that just like Santorum, right-wing nutbags know these "weapons" were useless (and NOT the WMD that triggered the war), but don't care because it feeds their perception that everything they do is right, ultimately vidicates their stubborn beliefs, and that people who deal in facts are the true nihilists.

[gc1765]

So the United States has Chemical Weapons, I would trust them having such weapons before a Country like Iraq under Saddam. North Korea also has Chemical Weapons as do other Countries but you only singled out the United States.

I never said that other countries don't have chemical weapons, I only said that the U.S. has the most chemical weapons. That is a fact.

Saddam could have easily passed those Chemical Weapons to Terroists such as Al Qaeda or Hamas and Hezbollah as long as it couldn't be traced back to Saddam..

Remember that the link between saddam and al qaeda was a lie to justify the war. There was no evidence to suggest that saddam has, or was planning to sell chemical weapons to terrorists. If he even had (useable) chemical weapons.

If there was a Democratic President and this find was made would you're response have been more Positive rather then negative?

My response would have been the same, which is that there was no find. The closest thing to WMD's that anyone has found in iraq are these "Weapons of Massive Decomposition". Even the U.S. acknowledges that these chemical weapons were made before 1991, and chemical weapons don't last a few months let alone 10-15 years and the defense department says

a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions."

The same official also said

"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."

Doesn't sound like much of a find to me.

P.S. Here's an interesting article Link

Apparently a roadside bomb containing sarin exploded in may 2004 releasing "a small amount of the deadly chemical". I wonder if they say "small amount" as a clever way to refer to the fact that the rest of the chemical had decomposed.

slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday.

Two people injured hardly sounds like weapons of mass destruction.

[Army Guy]

there seems to be a few misconceptions out there in regards to chemical wpns.

Most chemical wpns are consider WMD, ( during tyhe first gulf war England had threaten to use nuks if the Iraqis used chemicals)They are very effective on and off the battlefield( against military or civilian targets). So much so that most modern armies have spent billions in detection, decontamination, and survival equipment. VX gas is considered to have excellant adhessive qualities and almost impossiable to decontaminate, small quanties can kill thousands, with some agents only requiring a pin head worth to kill. modern armies will saturate an area to ensure a lethal dose.

is below link.

My Webpage

My Webpage

There are many types of nerve agents yes, some have very short shelf-lives, while other have very long shelf lifes. It depends on alot things such as type of agent, how it is stored, how the chemicals are mixed in the shell or bomb. etc etc. it's important to note that most nerve agents that Iraq had did have a long shelf life. as the below link will prove. Used as an IED, where they found it is beyond my guess, but i'm assuming it was manufactured in the 90's left over from the 1 st gulf war.

Chemical wpn found

I know there was a training film that we used to used "filmed during the destruction of Iraqi arty shells filled with Sarin liquid (after the 1 st gulf war)"made by the french" the shell ruptured and soaked 2 american and 2 british soldiers,fully dressed in NBCW suits, plus 2 iraqi civilians wearing nothing, but a dust mask. both the Iraqis died within minutes the 4 soldiers did manged to suvive after serveral hours on decontamination and medical aid...it should be noted that these shells were several years old and very corroded...

I'm not one to add to the confussion already out there due to the lack of solid evidance, it does not prove that one way or another there is or there is not WMD in iraq. Just because they have not found them does not prove they do not exist. That secret will die with sadam and his cronies.

still looking

[Army Guy]

gc1765

I never said that other countries don't have chemical weapons, I only said that the U.S. has the most chemical weapons. That is a fact.

Actually your wrong, Russia has the most declared chemical wpns. how much is undeclared is unkown.

My Webpage

Its also funny that the old warsaw pact countries are not on the list of countries destroying chemical wpns. when they had huge stock piles during the cold war.

My Webpage

[gc1765]

Actually your wrong, Russia has the most declared chemical wpns. how much is undeclared is unkown.

You're probably right, though the u.s. is not far behind. Either way the u.s. has much, much more chemical weapons than iraq.

[Black Dog]

Saddam could have easily passed those Chemical Weapons to Terroists such as Al Qaeda or Hamas and Hezbollah as long as it couldn't be traced back to Saddam..

The question I have is why any terrorist would seek out hard to aquire, unreliable and unstable chemical weapons when good old fashioned explosives have a far superior ability to kill. Remember the Tokyo subway nerve gas attacks? Sarin gas used in ideal conditions (enclosed space, lots of people) caused very few casualties, especially compared to your average suicide bombing. I can see how gas might have a slight psychological edge, but I don't know what other benefit it would offer.

AG:

Most chemical wpns are consider WMD, ( during tyhe first gulf war England had threaten to use nuks if the Iraqis used chemicals)

Considered WMD by whom? As I said, many experts in the chemical weapons field bristle at the idea of them being labeled WMD.

Link

That chemical and biological weapons don't deserve to be called "weapons of mass destruction" is a point long familiar to arms control experts. Here, for example, is Gert G. Harigel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

The term "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), used to encompass nuclear (NW), biological (BW), and chemical weapons (CW), is misleading, politically dangerous, and cannot be justified on grounds of military efficiency. …Whereas protection with various degrees of efficiency is possible against chemical and biological weapons, however inconvenient it might be for military forces on the battlefield and for civilians at home, it is not feasible at all against nuclear weapons.

Also, so do some non-experts.

A Soldier's Viewpoint on Surviving Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Attacks

Chemical weapons are categorized as nerve, blood, blister, and Incapacitating agents. Contrary to the hype of reporters and politicians they are not weapons of mass destruction they are "area denial," and terror weapons that don't destroy anything. When you leave the area you almost always leave the risk. That's the difference; you can leave the area and the risk but soldiers may have to stay put and sit through it and that's why they need all that spiffy gear.

These are not gasses, they are vapors and/or air borne particles. The agent must be delivered in sufficient quantity to kill/injure, and that defines when/how it's used. Every day we have a morning and evening inversion where "stuff," suspended in the air gets pushed down. This inversion is why allergies (pollen) and air pollution are worst at these times of the day.

So, a chemical attack will have it's best effect an hour or so either side of sunrise/sunset. Also, being vapors and airborne particles they are heavier than air so they will seek low places like ditches, basements and underground garages. This stuff won't work when it's freezing, it doesn't last when it's hot, and wind spreads it too thin too fast. They've got to get this stuff on you, or, get you to inhale it for it to work. They also have to get the concentration of chemicals high enough to kill or wound you. Too little and it's nothing, too much and it's wasted.

What I hope you've gathered by this point is that a chemical weapons attack that kills a lot of people is incredibly hard to do with military grade agents and equipment so you can imagine how hard it will be for terrorists. The more you know about this stuff the more you realize how hard it is to use.