POL: Pre-1991 Chemical Weapons Found In Iraq

[duckman]

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


WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('chemical weapons');) in Iraq (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('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 (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('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. (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)

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.

FOX News' Jim Angle and Sharon Kehnemui Liss contributed to this report.

[ISiddiqui]

I find this to be the most important part:

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."

So we only found unusable pre-1991 chemical weapons? Though those aren't the ones the US went to war over, right?

[DaddyTorgo]

LOL. it's degraded chemical weapons that WE sold to him prolly in the late 80's during the Iran-Iraq war. LAME. NOT A THREAT

[Deattribution]

Is it too late to predict that this won't end well?

You can't really make a prediction on something not ending well when you're the one that started it. Well, I guess you can, but it's retarded.

[sovereignstar]

Fox News is fucking stupid.

[chinaski]

I like how they paraded Santorum out there to trumpet this bs. Hes got absolutely nothing to lose at this point, so why not have him lie his ass off for all of the GOP, it if it blows up in his face, so what?

[sabotai]

I like how they paraded Santorum out there to trumpet this bs. Hes got absolutely nothing to lose at this point, so why not have him lie his ass off for all of the GOP, it if it blows up in his face, so what?

Some people named a certain mixture after Rick Santorum. (check the Urban Dictionary)

[sabotai]

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't the first time, nor is this the first report, about us finding unusable, virtually empty chemical weapons munitions, is it?

The timing of this is definately suspicious giving the midterms coming up. I doubt it will be the only time they try and push some kind of "see...we were sort of right" nonsense.

[Dutch]

No doubt politicians love timing, but regardless, it wasn't too long ago that the Pentagon released it's findings on its "torture" investigations from 2002/2003 and that was plastered all over CNN as "Pentagon won't say torture illegal"

So it goes...

[sachmo71]

good lord, how desperate are we? it's already been admitted, by the president no less, that the intelligence we were given was faulty. the case for war was based on mistakes. we're there now and we're knee-deep in it. Hopefully we won't leave until some sort of stable life is available for your average Iraqi. Isn't this finding more of a coincidence rather than a vindication?

[Qwikshot]

Isn't that like the Dave Chapelle episode:

"Will we find WMDs in Iraq?"

"Yes...because...we have the receipt"

[Subby]

Wow. Talk about a disingenuous title.

[stevew]

I like how they paraded Santorum out there to trumpet this bs. Hes got absolutely nothing to lose at this point, so why not have him lie his ass off for all of the GOP, it if it blows up in his face, so what?

I don't usually vote, or if i do, its GOP. But i'm definately getting out this fall to vote against Santorum.

[sachmo71]

BTW...let's make the title of the post more accurate, ok?

[Toddzilla]

Fox News is fucking stupid.The most intelligent information in the thread, right here.

[cartman]

Hmm, is it just a coincidence that a little bit before Santorum's press conference was called, the latest poll numbers were released showing him 18 points back in this Senate race?

[st.cronin]

Why are the voters down on Santorum? I don't really know much about him.

[cartman]

Why are the voters down on Santorum? I don't really know much about him.

He's made quite a few asinine statements during his term. One of the most famous is that allowing gay marriage would open the flood gates that wouldn't stop until man-animal marriage is allowed.

There is also some controversy in PA about his residence. He's married with several kids. However, the address he lists as his residence in PA is a empty house, and neighbors don't recall him living there anytime as of late.

[stevew]

Hmm, is it just a coincidence that a little bit before Santorum's press conference was called, the latest poll numbers were released showing him 18 points back in this Senate race?

Ouch-LOL

[NoMyths]

Wow. Talk about a disingenuous title.
Fwiw, this is the exact headline on Fox News' website.

[sachmo71]

Fwiw, this is the exact headline on Fox News' website.
Actually, when I looked a few minutes ago it was "Hundreds of WMDs found in Iraq"

[Subby]

Fwiw, this is the exact headline on Fox News' website.
No it isn't you stupid liberal troll.

[Subby]

I mean you are like jesse ewiak and flasch's pachuli wearing, nuke-protesting marxist-feminist lovechild.

[Subby]

;)

[st.cronin]

He's made quite a few asinine statements during his term. One of the most famous is that allowing gay marriage would open the flood gates that wouldn't stop until man-animal marriage is allowed.

There is also some controversy in PA about his residence. He's married with several kids. However, the address he lists as his residence in PA is a empty house, and neighbors don't recall him living there anytime as of late.

So I take it he disapproves of women who marry dolphins or snakes?

[sachmo71]

So I take it he disapproves of women who marry dolphins or snakes?


the dolphin lady was british.

[cartman]

So I take it he disapproves of women who marry dolphins or snakes?

Pretty much. He also put the blame for the Boston diocese priest sex scandal on the people of Boston, not the priests who committed the acts. He said the people of Boston created an environment that fostered and encouraged the behavior of the priests, and that the priests couldn't resist the temptations and pressures. This wasn't a one-time, off the cuff comment. He has stood by it several times.

[duckman]

nm

[gstelmack]

You didn't need to be an asshat by using your mod powers to change it.

That would be a nice abuse of the mod powers...

[JW]

I think this story does have more significance than some of you think, even though it is clearly not the smoking gun Santorum wants. I think it has potential significance for the present and near future on the ground in Iraq.

First, it does show Saddam lied about his WMDs (the DOD official says this) and that significant numbers of WMD warheads were apparently on the ground in Iraq at the time of the invasion, and that possibly significant numbers of rounds are still on the ground. That is the present concern.

And if you read the entire story, the story doesn't say that the chemicals have been rendered inert and safe in these rounds. The DOD official says they were not in a usable condition, but what exactly does that mean? Usable as chemical artillery warheads? Well, the insurgents don't have 155mm artillery to begin with. They would attempt to use the weapons in some other way.

It would not be a good thing for Al Qaeda or other insurgents to get their hands on these weapons. An improvised explosive device containing degraded chemicals might still be a pretty ugly thing and a major PR 'victory' for Al Qaeda.

I doubt any of you would want to find out firsthand if 20-year-old sarin or mustard gas is still dangerous.

We may want to just laugh this away, but it is a real potential danger on the ground for US troops. We need to continue searching until we've found and destroyed all these rounds.

[sachmo71]

That would be a nice abuse of the mod powers...


Incorrect. As you may or may not realize, this title created quite a nice little dustup earlier. I changed the title to avoid any further fighting, and avoid having the thread locked. There was no political agenda here.

[stevew]

Snachmo made the right call.

[duckman]

nm

[sovereignstar]

For someone that gives Flasch a whole lot of grief...

[sachmo71]

Fixed that for you.


you can change it to whatever you want. You weren't here when I made the request that you change it, so I did it for you. Just try not to be as flame-a-licious, ok?

[duckman]

Not even worth the trouble...

[sachmo71]

I'll quit when you stop being an asshat.


don't know if that's possible, sir.

[BishopMVP]

it's degraded chemical weapons that WE sold to him prolly in the late 80's during the Iran-Iraq war.FWIW, if you want to be accurate we didn't sell any of the chemical/bio weapons to Saddam. That was mostly the Germans (with the Soviets and French getting in on the other military equipment.) Our relationship was pretty much limited to some satellite imagery once the Iranians began getting the upper hand. But I guess pointing out all those T-72 tanks and AK's we're fighting against instead of American weapons would tear down a nice little comeback.I think this story does have more significance than some of you think, even though it is clearly not the smoking gun Santorum wants. I think it has potential significance for the present and near future on the ground in Iraq.

First, it does show Saddam lied about his WMDs (the DOD official says this) and that significant numbers of WMD warheads were apparently on the ground in Iraq at the time of the invasion, and that possibly significant numbers of rounds are still on the ground. That is the present concern.

And if you read the entire story, the story doesn't say that the chemicals have been rendered inert and safe in these rounds. The DOD official says they were not in a usable condition, but what exactly does that mean? Usable as chemical artillery warheads? Well, the insurgents don't have 155mm artillery to begin with. They would attempt to use the weapons in some other way.

It would not be a good thing for Al Qaeda or other insurgents to get their hands on these weapons. An improvised explosive device containing degraded chemicals might still be a pretty ugly thing and a major PR 'victory' for Al Qaeda.

I doubt any of you would want to find out firsthand if 20-year-old sarin or mustard gas is still dangerous.

We may want to just laugh this away, but it is a real potential danger on the ground for US troops. We need to continue searching until we've found and destroyed all these rounds.:rolleyes: Everyone knows there were never any WMD's in Iraq. None. Unless we sold them to Saddam. Otherwise Bush and the CIA made it up. Even those stockpiles that the UN confirmed were there in 1993 but never confirmed as destroyed.

[BishopMVP]

At the risk of unnecessarily getting involved in a stupid argument, the title "WMD's Found in Iraq" is technically correct since it doesn't specify what type or when. And that's the best kind of correct.

[CamEdwards]

FWIW, I think it was wrong for you to edit the title, Satch. Flame-a-licsious or not, it's not like the title of the thead was offensive to anyone. You requested duckman change it and he declined. It appears it wasn't as much a "request" as it was an "order".

[John Galt]

So, Jesse gets banned for a using a political headline used by various left-of-center media outlets reporting the same thing (something like "Poll shows Troops Hate America"), but you are getting all grumpy because sachmo edited your title? Really, lighten up, Francis.

[duckman]

FWIW, I think it was wrong for you to edit the title, Satch. Flame-a-licsious or not, it's not like the title of the thead was offensive to anyone. You requested duckman change it and he declined. It appears it wasn't as much a "request" as it was an "order".

Don't worry about it, Cam. I changed the title to be more specific and deleted the comments about changing it. It's really not worth the trouble.

[st.cronin]

So, Jesse gets banned for a using a political headline used by various left-of-center media outlets reporting the same thing (something like "Poll shows Troops Hate America"), but you are getting all grumpy because sachmo edited your title? Really, lighten up, Francis.

That's not why Jesse was banned, and you know it.

[Fonzie]

Oh boy. This is about to get good.

[CamEdwards]

Don't worry about it, Cam. I changed the title to be more specific and deleted the comments about changing it. It's really not worth the trouble.

I'm not really worried about. I just have my "opinionated bastard" label to keep up.

[Bee]

FWIW, I think it was wrong for you to edit the title, Satch. Flame-a-licsious or not, it's not like the title of the thead was offensive to anyone. You requested duckman change it and he declined. It appears it wasn't as much a "request" as it was an "order".


I didn't really see anything wrong with the original title myself and I must have missed the "dustup" that resulted from it. In any case, I think sachmo should be disciplined by the Dark Jedi Council by forcing him to wash SkyDog's patriotic undies.

[sachmo71]

I didn't really see anything wrong with the original title myself and I must have missed the "dustup" that resulted from it. In any case, I think sachmo should be disciplined by the Dark Jedi Council by forcing him to wash SkyDog's patriotic undies.


i have to lick them, actually. :)

as for the dustup, the parties involved were very mature and agreed to remove it from the thread. hats off to them...it would be nice to see that happen more often around here.

[duckman]

So, Jesse gets banned for a using a political headline used by various left-of-center media outlets reporting the same thing (something like "Poll shows Troops Hate America"), but you are getting all grumpy because sachmo edited your title? Really, lighten up, Francis.

I've been a part of this community for 6+ years and I have never had a title altered without my permission until now. Instead of talking about how the Republicans will use this in the midterm elections or whether we should have let inspections continued, people are getting sand in their vaginas over the FUCKING TITLE! Last night, someone thought I intentionally made that to deceive when all I did was copied and pasted it from the website. Today, I have someone changing it without the common decency to allow ME to change it.

Oh, and "Lighten up, Francis" part? You should follow your own advice. You're the biggest whiner on this board. "Everthing offends me. waahh"

[CamEdwards]

i have to lick them, actually. :)


I just threw up in my mouth.

[stevew]

Popcorn time.

[sachmo71]

I just threw up in my mouth.


I have to as well to kill the taste.

[Swaggs]

In!

[duckman]

I have to as well to kill the taste.

Ewwww

[sachmo71]

Ewwww


yup, and you don't even want to hear about the chaser.

[MikeVic]

Hm... is this a typical political thread? I don't think I've ever been in one actually.

[duckman]

Hm... is this a typical political thread? I don't think I've ever been in one actually.

They're normally not this civil.....

[larrymcg421]

That's not why Jesse was banned, and you know it.

Yeah, Jesse was banned because a majority of his posts were political, eventhough that wasn't true at all and was proven several times in the thread about his suspension.

[gstelmack]

Incorrect. As you may or may not realize, this title created quite a nice little dustup earlier. I changed the title to avoid any further fighting, and avoid having the thread locked. There was no political agenda here.

I'm sorry some people couldn't handle the truth. As pointed out in the article and in a post or two in the thread, the fact remains that we have proof Hussein was lying about having destroyed all his munitions, and that the weapons inspectors weren't finding them. These may not be nukes like everyone is "expecting", they may not be in an immediately usable form, but neither were most of the ingredients being used for IEDs on a daily basis. It doesn't take much sarin or mustard running around to ruin somebody's day.

So just because some people can't handle this, you changed the thread title to include all these extra adjectives, just because some strict definitionists don't agree that these qualify as WMDs? Wouldn't the correct thing as a mod to have been to head off an off-topic discussion and bring it back to letting people debate whether these were WMDs or not? That would have been a legitimate discussion that may even have led to duckman's changing the title had he been convinced they didn't qualify as WMDs, but instead you let a bunch of people get away with diverting the debate and winning their own political points through whining rather than open intellectual debate.

Great, if I want a thread diverted or changed, all I have to do is whine loud enough in it. Nice to know. It's not like the thread-title was inflammatory, attacked anyone, was obscene, or something else, it was simply considered (non-definitively, and I could argue the point) a bit misleading. Whatever. It's been at least a month since we've had a good "what the heck?" board moment, I guess we were due.

[st.cronin]

I think the thread title was somewhat misleading, but I don't think it required changing.

*shrug*

[John Galt]

Oh, and "Lighten up, Francis" part? You should follow your own advice. You're the biggest whiner on this board. "Everthing offends me. waahh"

I would say almost nothing on this board has ever offended me personally (and I have said as much before), but you keep on believing what you want to believe. And as a long time member of this board, I would have thought you knew "Lighten up, Francis" was a reference to the advice often used by Cam and others. Oh well. But thanks for being a dick.

[John Galt]

I think the thread title was somewhat misleading, but I don't think it required changing.

*shrug*

Agreed. I didn't see much harm in the changing, but I wouldn't have changed it either. All around, I don't see the big deal either way.

[Passacaglia]

I'm sorry some people couldn't handle the truth. As pointed out in the article and in a post or two in the thread, the fact remains that we have proof Hussein was lying about having destroyed all his munitions, and that the weapons inspectors weren't finding them. These may not be nukes like everyone is "expecting", they may not be in an immediately usable form, but neither were most of the ingredients being used for IEDs on a daily basis. It doesn't take much sarin or mustard running around to ruin somebody's day.

So just because some people can't handle this, you changed the thread title to include all these extra adjectives, just because some strict definitionists don't agree that these qualify as WMDs? Wouldn't the correct thing as a mod to have been to head off an off-topic discussion and bring it back to letting people debate whether these were WMDs or not? That would have been a legitimate discussion that may even have led to duckman's changing the title had he been convinced they didn't qualify as WMDs, but instead you let a bunch of people get away with diverting the debate and winning their own political points through whining rather than open intellectual debate.

Great, if I want a thread diverted or changed, all I have to do is whine loud enough in it. Nice to know. It's not like the thread-title was inflammatory, attacked anyone, was obscene, or something else, it was simply considered (non-definitively, and I could argue the point) a bit misleading. Whatever. It's been at least a month since we've had a good "what the heck?" board moment, I guess we were due.

You forgot to mention the grandstanding.

[Glengoyne]

I think the thread title was somewhat misleading, but I don't think it required changing.

*shrug*
I had a post typed up about this earlier,but lost it...damn gamespy connection. I think Sachmo needs to tone down his moderation. He suspended me without giving it a second thought. That decision apparently didn't survive the closer consideration of the other mods, as it was undone(reduced to time suspended) almost before I knew about it. Here he changes the title of a thread with only dubious reasons. The best mods are those who moderate less. Sach seems to be exhibiting a difficulty identifying the correct moment to wear that moderator hat, and when to remain just as a typical member of this community.

[Glengoyne]

Back onto the topic of this thread. Our reasoning for war included the fact that there was no record of the destruction of these very WMDs that Iraq possessed. I mean these are some of the very WMDs that we were looking for back when we went into Iraq, weren't they? This isn't the motherlode of chemical/biological munitions processing that was the headliner, but to dismiss this revelation or write it off as something that wasn't on the list for the scavenger hunt seems a bit disingenuous.

[cartman]

Back onto the topic of this thread. Our reasoning for war included the fact that there was no record of the destruction of these very WMDs that Iraq possessed. I mean these are some of the very WMDs that we were looking for back when we went into Iraq, weren't they? This isn't the motherlode of chemical/biological munitions processing that was the headliner, but to dismiss this revelation or write it off as something that wasn't on the list for the scavenger hunt seems a bit disingenuous.

From all accounts I've read, this appears to be a cache from the Iran-Iraq war that was completely forgotten about. As the Defense Department stated, these aren't the weapons we went to war over.

I think a comparison would be when unexploded ordinance is found in some European city that was under German control during WW2. Is that evidence that Germany violated their unconditional surrender agreement?

[Dutch]

Back onto the topic of this thread. Our reasoning for war included the fact that there was no record of the destruction of these very WMDs that Iraq possessed. I mean these are some of the very WMDs that we were looking for back when we went into Iraq, weren't they? This isn't the motherlode of chemical/biological munitions processing that was the headliner, but to dismiss this revelation or write it off as something that wasn't on the list for the scavenger hunt seems a bit disingenuous.

True. What happened to the "stockpiles" the UN inventoried in 1991? Saddam claimed the US blew them all up in Operation Desert Fox. Yet 300 or so warheads from that time have been found. There's still a bit of a difference between "Iraq had no WMD's" and "We can't find Iraq's WMD's".

It's quite possible that Iraq destroyed all it's capabilities to use it's stockpile, it's possible they moved it to Syria or Libya (which turned in a shitload of WMD's a year after we threw Saddam out). The truth is, we don't know, maybe Iraq never had any WMD's either. Who knows.

[wade moore]

I had a post typed up about this earlier,but lost it...damn gamespy connection. I think Sachmo needs to tone down his moderation. He suspended me without giving it a second thought. That decision apparently didn't survive the closer consideration of the other mods, as it was undone(reduced to time suspended) almost before I knew about it. Here he changes the title of a thread with only dubious reasons. The best mods are those who moderate less. Sach seems to be exhibiting a difficulty identifying the correct moment to wear that moderator hat, and when to remain just as a typical member of this community.

If you read the mod rules that were posted when the changes were made, Sachmo could not have boxed you without the concerance of at least one other mod. Then the mod team as a hole decides on the length/severity of the punishment. A 24-hour boxing was the result of your actions by decision of the mod team.

[SFL Cat]

don't know if that's possible, sir.

TMI...

I'm hoping some of these chemical agents (that don't really exist in Iraq anyway cuz Bush lied) don't wind up in terrorists' hands and end up being used in a major US city's subway system.

[cartman]

I'm hoping some of these chemical agents (that don't really exist in Iraq anyway cuz Bush lied) don't wind up in terrorists' hands and end up being used in a major US city's subway system.

Nice attempt at trolling.

No one disputed that Iraq had chemical weapons. What was disputed, and not proven, was that Saddam was actively manufacturing chemical and biological weapons in the weeks and months before the invasion. These were old munitions from pre-1991, when he was using them on Iranians and Kurds, and were considered so degraded they were classified as not a risk.

Since chemical weapons are voilatile, and do not travel well at all, if they are ever used in the US, it will almost certainly be agents manufactured here, not 5 to 20 year old caches dug up from the Iraqi desert.

[Flasch186]

as for the title, idont think it shouldve been changed and dont see what the big deal was...I certainly dont form an opinion based on a thread title anyways as opposed to reading a thread.

Glen - It is disingenuous for you to platter these weopans as a boon to the WMD argument. Not once in that famous SOtU address by Bush did he mention us going to war because Saddam's record keeping sucked. These are from Iraq/Iran war, shit I'll bet there are munitions in the ground all over the world, including those categorized as a WMD, you don't see us racing to war on those. I think you we're over reaching there.

[clintl]

Want to know for sure how to tell whether these were the WMDs we went to war over? Look for film of the press conference the president held (or one of his top aides held) to announce the discovery.

Since there wasn't any press conference, I think it's pretty safe to conclude the administration itself didn't regard the find as significant, nor that these presented any sort of threat. Instead, what the administration did was bury the info in a classified document that magically got declassified right in the middle of a Senate debate on Iraq War policy, and placed in designated goon Rick Santorum's hands.

[Glengoyne]

If you read the mod rules that were posted when the changes were made, Sachmo could not have boxed you without the concerance of at least one other mod. Then the mod team as a hole decides on the length/severity of the punishment. A 24-hour boxing was the result of your actions by decision of the mod team.

I do understand that Sachmo didn't act alone, it was simply that his was the only name attached to the decision from my perspective. That was cleared up through PM with Sachmo.

As for the 24 hour bit. Hell I'm not going to argue with you on whether you guys decided my boxing was inappropriate and withdrew it, or whether you felt the punishment didn't fit the non-offense as it were. I think it is rather obvious that I didn't do anything wrong.

[Glengoyne]

...

Glen - It is disingenuous for you to platter these weopans as a boon to the WMD argument. Not once in that famous SOtU address by Bush did he mention us going to war because Saddam's record keeping sucked. These are from Iraq/Iran war, shit I'll bet there are munitions in the ground all over the world, including those categorized as a WMD, you don't see us racing to war on those. I think you we're over reaching there.

SOtU or not, the fact that Iraq couldn't demonstrate that they had destroyed their caches of chemical and biological weapons in their possession prior to and during the Gulf War in '91, was of distinct importance in the run up to the invasion. We and the UN Inspectors asked for the records of the destruction of these munitions, and Iraq said "we destroyed them and we didn't keep track of it". So I'm saying that this is pretty clearly at least one aspect of the WMDs that the US was interested in. It aint a "sexy" brand new barrel of sarin gas, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either.

That said. I don't believe this should be trumpeted as a major success either. Just that it shouldn't be dismissed as a non-event.

[JW]

A reminder about the safety of "degraded" chemical munitions.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-02761sy0oct30,0,3545637.story

SPECIAL REPORT, PART 1: The Deadliness Below
Weapons of mass destruction thrown into the sea years ago present danger now - and the Army doesn't know where they all are.
BY JOHN M.R. BULL
247-4768
October 30, 2005
In the summer of 2004, a clam-dredging operation off New Jersey pulled up an old artillery shell.

The long-submerged World War I-era explosive was filled with a black tarlike substance.

Bomb disposal technicians from Dover Air Force Base, Del., were brought in to dismantle it. Three of them were injured - one hospitalized with large pus-filled blisters on an arm and hand.

The shell was filled with mustard gas in solid form.

[wade moore]

I do understand that Sachmo didn't act alone, it was simply that his was the only name attached to the decision from my perspective. That was cleared up through PM with Sachmo.

As for the 24 hour bit. Hell I'm not going to argue with you on whether you guys decided my boxing was inappropriate and withdrew it, or whether you felt the punishment didn't fit the non-offense as it were. I think it is rather obvious that I didn't do anything wrong.

Agreed that I do not want to argue about the merits of an old boxing.

I was merely pointing out that your slander of sachmo "abusing his mod powers" based 50% on that boxing was an unfair characterization since he was merely acting on the decision made by multiple mods, not making some sort of unilateral mod decision.

[cartman]

A reminder about the safety of "degraded" chemical munitions.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-02761sy0oct30,0,3545637.story

SPECIAL REPORT, PART 1: The Deadliness Below
Weapons of mass destruction thrown into the sea years ago present danger now - and the Army doesn't know where they all are.
BY JOHN M.R. BULL
247-4768
October 30, 2005
In the summer of 2004, a clam-dredging operation off New Jersey pulled up an old artillery shell.

The long-submerged World War I-era explosive was filled with a black tarlike substance.

Bomb disposal technicians from Dover Air Force Base, Del., were brought in to dismantle it. Three of them were injured - one hospitalized with large pus-filled blisters on an arm and hand.

The shell was filled with mustard gas in solid form.

This helps to prove my point. If bomb disposal experts had a hard time handling it, what does that say about Joe Blow(himself up) Terrorist who stumbles across a buried cache of chemical shells? The odds are almost nil that any of these discovered by those who wish to do harm with them will be able to do anything with the stuff they discover. They'll more than likely end up just killing themselves off trying to handle them.

[JW]

This helps to prove my point. If bomb disposal experts had a hard time handling it, what does that say about Joe Blow(himself up) Terrorist who stumbles across a buried cache of chemical shells? The odds are almost nil that any of these discovered by those who wish to do harm with them will be able to do anything with the stuff they discover. They'll more than likely end up just killing themselves off trying to handle them.

Well, not exactly. It appears the EOD people who handled the chemical munition in question above did not know it was a chemical munition. After all, no one expected to find them in that case. But a terrorist with some rudimentary training in handling chemical weapons who knows he is handling a chemical warhead or chemicals might fare better. So I would say that any old chemical weapons or chemicals in Iraq would indeed be a potential threat to our troops. I agree that it would not be an easy thing to do, but I would think Al Qaeda and the other bad guys in Iraq would just love to get their hands on some chemical munitions.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I think this sums up the importance of this find:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/from/RS.3/

[Glengoyne]

Agreed that I do not want to argue about the merits of an old boxing.

I was merely pointing out that your slander of sachmo "abusing his mod powers" based 50% on that boxing was an unfair characterization since he was merely acting on the decision made by multiple mods, not making some sort of unilateral mod decision.
Let's knock this "Slander" thing off right now. He participated. He judged, in my opinion, prematurely.

I probably shouldn't have brought that other event up, but it was because it was, in my opinion, further evidence that he was playing the role of an over-zealous mod. We've PMd about this, and I think we're okay with it. I honestly believe that this place thrived under minimal moderation, and while there are more mods than one can shake a stick at around here. I wish that they'd all take a step back and not try to proactively patrol the threads.

I'll be vocal about it, because I actually care about this place(as weird as that sounds). I like this community, and I think heavy handed moderation could be our bane.

[yabanci]

I think this sums up the importance of this find:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/from/RS.3/

Those so-called "senior U.S. intelligence officials" obviously hate America.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yes, quite clearly.

I found this quote from the article to be the best news in there:

"Santorum is down 18 points in his Senate re-election contest, according to a poll released Wednesday."

Of course, this is clearly unconnected to his press conference on the WMDs.

[wade moore]

Let's knock this "Slander" thing off right now. He participated. He judged, in my opinion, prematurely.

I probably shouldn't have brought that other event up, but it was because it was, in my opinion, further evidence that he was playing the role of an over-zealous mod. We've PMd about this, and I think we're okay with it. I honestly believe that this place thrived under minimal moderation, and while there are more mods than one can shake a stick at around here. I wish that they'd all take a step back and not try to proactively patrol the threads.

I'll be vocal about it, because I actually care about this place(as weird as that sounds). I like this community, and I think heavy handed moderation could be our bane.

The misinformation in this post is absurd, but whatever.

There has not been a SINGLE boxing under this change that was not from a reported post (i.e. we are not proactively patrolling threads) and the only thing done without a report was the changing of this thread title.

This change here is the ONLY thing that has happened with the new group that would not have happened when it was just SkyDog and Ryan. This whole "the new mods are so heavy handed, blah blah blah" is just absurd and completely inaccurate.

[sterlingice]

I think the thread title was somewhat misleading, but I don't think it required changing.

*shrug*

(what was the thread title, anyways?)

SI

[st.cronin]

(what was the thread title, anyways?)

SI

Something like: "WMDs found in Iraq"

[SFL Cat]

Nice attempt at trolling.
:rolleyes:

No one disputed that Iraq had chemical weapons.

According to the Iraq Survey Report (issued 10/04) -- "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003" which gave the "see...Bush lied" anti-war crowd a wonderful October surprise and visions of a Democratic White House dancing in their heads for the '04 election. Damn that John Kerry for screwing it up.

What was disputed, and not proven, was that Saddam was actively manufacturing chemical and biological weapons in the weeks and months before the invasion.

The same report states -- Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

These were old munitions from pre-1991, when he was using them on Iranians and Kurds, and were considered so degraded they were classified as not a risk.

"We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces."

[cartman]

According to the Iraq Survey Report (issued 10/04) -- "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003" which gave the "see...Bush lied" anti-war crowd a wonderful October surprise and visions of a Democratic White House dancing in their heads for the '04 election. Damn that John Kerry for screwing it up.

The same report states -- Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

"We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces."

SFL Cat, I'm trying really hard to see how your original post:

I'm hoping some of these chemical agents (that don't really exist in Iraq anyway cuz Bush lied) don't wind up in terrorists' hands and end up being used in a major US city's subway system.

matches up to what you are quoting above to support that statement.

Nowhere have I read that these recently disclosed shells were part of an active stockpile that was maintained by the Iraqis. From all accounts I've read, these were most likely from a forgotten cache that was buried sometime at the end of the Iraq-Iran war. If you have a source that refutes that, I would like to see it.

The report you mention only states that he was trying to deceive the inspectors so he could once again start making WMD if the sanctions were lifted. The report does not state at all that he had an active manufacturing process, which is what I said originally. Your quote supports my statement, and does not refute it.

And finally, as I stated earlier, that the possibillity for these weapons to be discovered, transported to the US, and as you put it "used on a subway" was extremely remote, bordering on the impossible. Your quote above mentions that they are a potential threat to forces in Iraq. I do not disagree with that statement. But nowhere in the quote you provided does it say they are a potential danger in an attack on US soil.

[clintl]

I can't find an online link, but here's what David Kay (former head of the US weapons inspection team in Iraq) said about these weapons in an AP article printed in the Sacramento Bee today:


They were intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq in 2003-2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced in the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard gas would produce burns, but is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.

[JW]

I think this sums up the importance of this find:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/from/RS.3/

I think this story sums up the importance of this find better:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060622/pl_afp/usiraqmilitaryweapons_060622191218;_ylt=AhvW6HUzGhkd7xUEO82FR1asOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

But the intelligence officials, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said the weapons were too degraded to have posed a threat to US forces in March 2003.

They said all chemical weapons found since 2003 were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and they had no evidence Saddam was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons after that.

"Generally they are in poor condition," one official said.

"We assess that they are not in condition to be used as designed. And detailed analysis of the toxic agents shows they are degraded and represent a much lower hazard," he said.

The munitions have been tested and computer simulation models created to determine what effect they might have under a variety of scenarios, the officials said.

Although not suitable for their intended purposed, the officials said such weapons remain a potential hazard if obtained by insurgents and modified in ways they would not discuss.

The officials, however, said they had no evidence that any element of the Iraqi insurgency has possession of chemical weapons.

"I would simply say we have seen a degree of improvisation on the part of the insurgency with regard to conventional munitions," said an official.

"They might apply that same degree of improvisation if in fact they came in contact with these types of munitions. And again we have no evidence that they have," the official said.

Once again, while I am not going to argue the political significance, these WMDs (and they are WMDs, no matter what the MSNBC headline and their morning talking head say) are dangerous, and they do represent a potential threat to US forces.

As for David Kay's statement, that is misleading to say the least. Mustard gas is a blister agent. Its purpose is to burn and disable troops. Another way to paraphrase what Kay said would be: The sarin rounds are probably no longer dangerous, but the mustard gas could still be effective as a blister agent.

Let me say again, I am not arguing that there is a major political significance to the story. I am simply arguing that these things do represent a potential danger. You can bet your ass if bad guys got ahold of a few mustard gas rounds and set the stuff off somewhere, say Baghdad or a subway in New York, that we would be calling it a WMD attack by Al Qaeda. I consider that very, very, very unlikely. But it is possible, and even the declassified portion of the original report Santorum quoted expresses a concern about bad guys getting a hold of some of this material.

Finally, I think some of the reaction from the left is just as funny as some of the reaction from the right. It is like someone looking at a 1989 Camaro and declaring that it isn't a car because it is old and doesn't run very well.

[Glengoyne]

The misinformation in this post is absurd, but whatever.

There has not been a SINGLE boxing under this change that was not from a reported post (i.e. we are not proactively patrolling threads) and the only thing done without a report was the changing of this thread title.

This change here is the ONLY thing that has happened with the new group that would not have happened when it was just SkyDog and Ryan. This whole "the new mods are so heavy handed, blah blah blah" is just absurd and completely inaccurate.

So you don't want to talk about my suspension, but you keep bringing it up. I didn't claim that that was an instance of mods proactively doing anything. So some wuss without the ability to wrap their heads around the context of what I posted and realize that it had nothing to do with calling anyone a name reported me. That is irrelevant. I expect more from someone elevated to moderator, than for at least two of them to read my post, and declare that it was a racial slur, and suspend me. It was apparent to me that there was no due consideration given to the situation at the time. It was a reaction to the report, and in my opinion a rash decision.

In this thread, we have a mod see some folks taking shots at each other, and decide to go Big Brother and protect the people logging into a political thread from insulting each other. In my mind that was clearly another rash decision, done essentiall without good cause.

I'm not misinforming anyone, and frankly I'm surprised your engaging in this debate in this manner. I'm not claiming that all of you mods are being heavy handed. But I've seen a few instances of it, and wanted to bring it up. I'm serious about my belief that the lot of you should pursue less of a moderator role, and more of role of an average member in this community.