MORE THAN 500 WMD FOUND IN IRAQ SINCE 2003

You had a good article here untill the jab at liberals. I saw a very short clip on a news cahnnel when it happened. That was the only time I saw it. I felt vindicated and have been unhappy that many people don't seem to know about it. From what i understand about sarran gas if it were released in a crouded city it could kill hundreds of thousands.

Mathew, check your link. It displays: 'page cannot be found.' I'd like to dig deeper into this site and see what's up. Thanks.

M. This did make the news, but to no great extent. For the most part, many discounted these because they were old and most likely forgotten about over the years...even by the Iraqis'. Dems have attempted to say these are now "harmless" due to age, but the inspectors have confirmed they are still lethal today.

I would surmise Bush has not used this truth because it would only fuel another fire fight with the Left, and as he has repeatedly stated, he has better things to do with his time other than get caught up in pi**ing contests (my words).

M. I forgot to thank you for the post. It does have value.

The liberal media is never going to report the truth that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda, as its own documents prove. These facts don't fit their agenda, so they will just ignore or gloss over them.

I surfed the news that night they found those weapons, after I heard about them from Glenn Beck and Rush. And you would think it would all over the news like everything else gets worn out. But it was spoke of very briefly. They talked about it for several days on Fox.

Emmett, send this to FOX, Gee you got a gem here, Fox will go wild over this. There, ya see ? Bush lying his head off again when he told us many times, recently, that there were NO WMD's in Iraq, that lying SOB, he can't tell the truth to save his soul.

OK guys, these are not the WMDs we went in looking for. Does anyone here in revisionist history land remember mushroom clouds, yellow cake, biological weapons, etc, being touted daily by the Bush de-ministration? Tubes for enrichment? Many, if not all, of the weapons were also empty, or buried (how are you going to get rid of these types of compounds in a third world country, come on)and only included trace amounts of the compound sighted. The fact that the Bush administration wasn't shouting this from the rooftops should give you some clue as to how significant these were. I can't believe anyone is still trying to crank the handle on this old organ again. You CAN bet, if it was significant, it would have been plastered all over every newspaper, page one, for days, and every Republican in the land would have been running around with their chest puffed out saying I told you so, to anyone that would listen. Give it a rest.

Good Emmett, this was on the news, briefly. Very briefly and instead of it, as I expected it to be, when I looked and searched on the net, almost nothing came up. That's awful. Why would anyone want to hide this? I doubt Iraq "forgot" they had these as they are lethal, not just to a few, but to many thousands. Good find that I couldn't find!!!!

Marilyn

Marilyn N.
Once again, let's take a dubious story, about munitions manufactured for the Iran/Iraq war, that had been discarded and buried because they were too old to be safely used, and then let's exaggerate even that tired grasp at a straw.

"I doubt Iraq "forgot" they had these as they are lethal, not just to a few, but to many thousands. Good find that I couldn't find!!!! "

Thousands???? I quote:

"One of the report's key findings was that since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, coalition forces have recovered about 500 shells, canisters or other munitions that contain degraded mustard gas or sarin nerve agent."

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm sure there are lots of info that was classified, and we will never know about it. With all the moving things around the Iraqis did, the tunnels, the caves, etc. who knows what's really out there. And why can't news just report what is newsworthy, instead of dismissing this as unimportant. I would rather know about things of this nature than what celebrities are doing.

I think that the media really needs to start reporting some of the things that back up what Bush has been saying all along. But the media will never report anything that makes Bush look good in even the smallest way. But mabey that will change. Ha-Ha

I think Ron W and multiple symbol John A have stated the reason clearly why this has not been reported widely by the media.

The question is who provided this to Iraq? And Who found this after invasion to Iraq?
Is it no linking and making the true picture. We all know that Sadam was bad leader and he did bad with their people. But question is who is right and doing good things for Iraq? Do you think Iraq is now a safe heaven and people are living happy life there?
Find the corrupt one of today's help and he is the only one.

What hasn't been covered is the reports of where the WMD went when they were removed from Iraq. General Sada has told us as have quite a few other people, but the MSM have failed to report on that story or follow up to find the WMD.

The Israelis seem to know where it is stored. Some of it was trucked into Jordan but captured by Jordanian police in a failed attempt to slaughter thousands of Jordanians.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

Nauman....no one provided it to Iraq. Saran is not difficult to make. Saddam had the people & the technology as well as the equipment to mass produce this gas among tohers & as we now know did do so.

I fixed the link it was doubled... grrr but is should be fine now.

Ron W.
Sarin, also known by its NATO designation of GB (O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate) is an extremely toxic substance whose sole application is as a nerve agent. As a chemical weapon, it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687, and its production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

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

Even at very low concentrations, sarin can be fatal. Death may follow in one minute after direct ingestion of about 0.01 milligram per kilogram of body weight if antidotes, typically atropine and pralidoxime, are not quickly administered. Atropine, an acetylcholine inhibitor, is given to treat the physiological symptoms of poisoning. Pralidoxime can regenerate cholinesterases if administered within approximately five hours.

1980-1988: Iraq employed sarin against Iran during the 1980-88 war. During the 1990-91 Gulf War, Iraq still had large stockpiles available which were found as coalition forces advanced north.

1988: Over the span of two days in March, the ethnic Kurd city of Halabja in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded with twenty chemical and cluster bombs, which included sarin. An estimated 5,000 people died. (see Halabja poison gas attack)
1991: UN Resolution 687 establishes the term "weapon of mass destruction" and calls for the immediate destruction of chemical weapons in Iraq, and eventual destruction of all chemical weapons globally.

1994: The Japanese religious sect Aum Shinrikyo releases an impure form of sarin in Matsumoto, Nagano Prefecture. (see Matsumoto incident)
1995: Aum Shinrikyo sect releases an impure form of sarin in the Tokyo subway. (see Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway)

2004: May 14 Iraqi insurgency fighters in Iraq detonate a 155 mm shell containing several litres of binary precursors for sarin. The shell is designed to mix the chemicals as it spins during flight. The detonated shell releases only a small amount of sarin gas, either because the explosion failed to mix the binary agents properly or because the chemicals inside the shell had degraded significantly with age. Two United States soldiers are treated for exposure after displaying the early symptoms.
Here is a link to read more about Sarin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin


Mustard gas
Mustard agents, including sulfur mustard, are regulated under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Three classes of chemicals are monitored under this Convention, with sulfur and nitrogen mustard grouped in the highest risk class,

Mustard gas is also carcinogenic (cancer causing) and mutagenic (causing damage to DNA of exposed cells).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas

When faced with a question. Does an unstable unpredictable government posses sarin or mustard gas? The efectiveness of the weapons is really a moot point. The NIE had good reason to believe that Iraq retained the ability to quickly start production of the chemicals. It would be somewhat redicules to wait untill an attack occured to see if the weapons were effective.

The notion that there weren't enough or that they were degraded and didn't qualify as WMDs is bizar. They were illegal under the UN.

Olso from reading the information on the two links above. I get the distinct impression the sarin and mustard gas can not be mixed in the same shell. It is possible that there were two types of shells one sarin and one mustard gas. The sarin may have been useless but the mustard gas does not degrade.

The contunious statments that "there were no WMDs are just as false as the statements that there were massive stockpiles, although the word "Massive" is subject to interpretation.

A police officer pulls over a person suspected of posessing drugs. He askes do you have any drugs in your vehicle. The person says no. The officer finds 1/10th of an ounce of caocain. You know what the charges will be.

A little bit about the smoking gun thing. A gun only smokes after it has been shot. If you see the smoking gun you are too late. I suggest yo ulook for bullet holes in your body.

"Dems have attempted to say these are now "harmless" due to age, but the inspectors have confirmed they are still lethal today."

Foolish wingnuts. It wasn't bad enough that Senator Sanitarium and his Hokey little buddy made public fools of themselves with this OLD and MEANINGLESS information. You just couldn't resist doing the same thing yourselves, could you?

If you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed LONG ago that both the white house AND the DOD have said that these 500 rusty, useless shells of skin irritant were NOT the WMD threat that led us into Iraq. They are at LEAST 15 years old, and probably more like 20-25 (when Rummy, Cheney, and Poppy Bush were helping to arm Saddam with them), and were found buried in the sand.

Since the chemicals inside the shells have a shelf life of no more than 2-3 years, and probably more like 6 months, for anyone to claim that these are "WMD" at this point is not only ignorant but just plain idiotic. These are WMD in the same sense that raw sewage is a WMD. Something that you wouldn't necessarily want to bathe in, but hardly something that would be found useful in murdering masses of people at once.

You folks just keep obsessing over this, though. EVENTUALLY, you'll find a way to convince yourselves that Bushie didn't lie us into an unnecessary, illegal war for profit. Say, whatever happened to that "Saddam moved them into Syria" idea that you were running with previously? That one was even more entertaining than this one, to be honest.

And, while you children are busy worshipping these 500 rusty, useless shells of skin irritant and praying that they were real WMD, you should be aware that chemicals are not, and never have been considered terribly effective killing weapons. In fact, after WWI, it was determined that it required one ton of mustard gas to kill one soldier.

Even nerve agent, which is terrifying at first glance, doesn't have the capacity to kill large masses of people. When it was used by a terrorist group in a Japanese subway some years ago, it only managed to kill a handful of people, even though it was concentrated in a heavily populated area.

In short, it may be time for a bit of a reality check for some of you folks. Although they're certainly a suitable weapon system for terrorizing (i.e. "terrifying) a population, chemical agents are hardly a doomsday machine, by any stretch of the imagination.

If it makes you feel better to be terrified of utter nonsensical, mythical threats, however, and it allows you weak justification for supporting a political party and ideology that is utterly failed in every possible measure, by all means, continue to cower under your widdo bwankies at night over this, however. I'm sure it's a helluva lot easier to justify your support of the failed GOP by using mythical fantasies than over any actual policies that they've enacted.

I aslo would like to mention the the prupose of mustard gas was not to kill soldiers. The main reason for their use is to wound as many soldiers as possible. The care and attention given to the wounded soldier then drains the resources of the forces.

Sarin has a similar appication with a dual lethality. Those directly exposed die quickly but the perimiter where the consintration is weeker is where the most insidous problems occure. Small exposure to sarin causes debilitating sypmtoms but death comes much slower. Many survive but are disabled. In a military situation the care and treatment of the wounded drains the resources of the rest of the forces.

In the Matsumoto incident Sarin killed 7 people but injured 200
Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subwaykilling twelve people, seriously injuring 54, and creating vision problems for nearly a thousand more patients.

Be afraid, David. Be VERY afraid. ALWAYS. The boogieman is RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER.

Btw, where's the anthrax killer?

This report about sarin has been discredited so many times it boggles the mind that these delusional right wingers keep bringing up this fully discredited story over and over again. Just like GregS who kept bringing up this story repeatedly on mpr.org until I kept showing him proofs that this story was bogus from day one.

I notice that other right wingers brought up this same story at the same time on other web sites. In each instance they are told that it has been thoroughly discredited. Then they wait a few months and bring it up again!

WILL THESE AMERICA HATERS EVER STOP THEIR LIES???

Thanks Clark, luckky, etc.,
These were revealed long before Santorim and company tried unsuccessfully to use them to influence the upcoming elections, so I say it again, if there were anything to these claims they'd be pumping out the propaganda 28 hours a day every day. They are junk, like the mines they still find in Europe from WWII from time to time. Get over it, people.

Whatever happened to those double wide WMD makin trailers that were supposed to be so threatening?

False alarm, Travis.

It blows my mind that there are people who think the american media is liberal. But it shouldn't; there are also people who believe that the world was created 7 thousand years ago, and some who believe in santa claus. If you think the american media is anti bush its hard to take your arguments seriously.

If the media had anything, i repeat, anything to report that would bolster the administrations efforts and taking the focus of our failure in Iraq and the admins failure to be honest with us, it would be everywhere.

god, how can someone who thinks intelligent design is considered by scientists to be reputable be convinced of anything? The liberal media myth is insane. Lets start somewhere... since 80% of media outlets in the US are owned by enormous corporations, it serves their interests to push the conservative agenda completely. Every foothold that democrats gain in our lawmaking bodies costs media companies money. COSTS THEM MONEY!! the more conservative the ruling bodies, the better the tax cuts for large businesses, the more money the media companies make. If you want to make the argument that major corporations are in it for the honesty and not the cash, go ahead. Maybe next you could report on the evermore common trend of homeless people picketing congress for higher taxes for the lowerclass.

If there was a story in iraq about WMD we would hear about it. if it was simply a bunch of old shells, we will hear about it from o'reilly. Especially if the shells were 15 years old, leftover from the gulf war, and likely as not the US's weapons anyway.
Anyone who thinks the US isnt completely hypocritical about the use of illegal biological or nuclear weapons in wars can start by reading a couple of articles about the 320 TONS of cancer causing uranium-Depleted shells we left on the battlefields of IRaq in the gulf war. we fired 944,000 DU rounds. and you are talking about 500 15 year old shells.
Goddamn.



"The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war, although Russian military experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure.

"In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some 500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to radioactive debris left in the desert.

"According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts."


http://www.sundayherald.com/32522


and if you'd like to read about our continued double standard, heres on from those biased british commies:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2860759.stm

maybe i shouldnt joke; there are people who are very uninformed here. The BBC is arguably one of the least biased sources of information you can find. But if you cant handle the dumbed down, corporate interest, conservative american commentary on bush's failures, you may want to ease into truth.

John,

You commented "It blows my mind that there are people who think the american media is liberal."

So you believe that the big media outlets, that being CBS, PBS, CNN, NBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, et al, are conservative. You should tell Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric that news. They would more than likely throw you out of the room for having insulted them.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

the fact that journalists are liberal has absolutely no bearing on the slant of the news. Journalists dont work for themselves. There is no doubt that CNN and the New York times are not right leaning, but that doesnt mean they would be anti- bush's war and future wars; im going to go out on a limb here and say that media outlets make more money when the country is at war, and i say that completely unsubstantiated, but with some degree of confidence. Compared to Fox, everyone looks liberal. But compared to an Ape, Michael moore looks attractive. Its a huge mistake for anyone in this country to make to think that there is any major media outlet other than fox news that actually channels its ideas from the top down and supresses stories on a company wide level; news outlets representing liberal areas of the country are of course going to carry the news of its region. The fact that the New York Times carries an excessive amount of Gay-related stories is grounds for O'reilly to argue its over the top liberal bias. He said, "And almost all of them were positive [stories]." Conservatives forget that the liberal view on homosexuality is not a stance or a slant at all; its just simply acceptance and reporting about facts and about people.
I definately left room for the fact that there are liberal media outlets. The thing is, they arent indoctrinating their viewers/readers with blatent rejection and manipulation of facts, which the most popular news network is doing.

Insane. Almost everything you read in a newspaper has a liberal slant.

I wish we would not call poison gasses "weapons of mass destruction". They are poison gasses; they're terrible; they're banned by international law. Everyone knows that nuclear bombs are weapons of mass destruction, and the use of one, by anyone, runs a serious risk of a chain reaction where multiple warheads are used making the planet uninhabitable by anyone. Poison gasses are bad - and anyone who helped Saddam develop them belongs in prison - but by calling them "weapons of mass destruction" we take our eye off the ball. We also downplay our responsibility as the only country that has used nuclear weapons.

If you want to clobber me for being partisan let me say it was Democratic presidents who authorized the original production and use of nuclear weapons, and it was Jimmy Carter's administration that began arming and training "freedom fighters" who then successfully created a nightmare for the Russians in Afghanistan. Both of these things have come back to haunt us, and both parties share responsibility (or credit - if anyone cares to make the case that these were good things).

I'm joining a security firm (see my training photos). So I can go over and whoop some but for God. I bet I can find out about all the lies the media is telling us! I bet this war is almost over since the Iraqies are so happy for us to be there. Too bad the media just wants us to look bad!

maybe any questioning of leadership is considered to be a liberal slant by many? If george bush does something stupid and a newspaper reports that george bush does something stupid, that is a neutral stance. maybe this is the confusion?

Mellisa, I'm sure you would whoop some, but for God.

I just wish we could show the world that there ARE some wmd's in Iraq so everyone would love America again!

Contrasted with the NIE report leak, this is a good example of the bias of the mainstream media.

Melissa, even when we prove the existence of WMD's in Iraq, the world's not gonna love us. Hating America is currently in vogue around the world, and, (dare I say it?), even right here in our own country, even in our own Congress, to hear some of the talk....

"I'm joining a security firm (see my training photos). So I can go over and whoop some but for God. I bet I can find out about all the lies the media is telling us! I bet this war is almost over since the Iraqies are so happy for us to be there. Too bad the media just wants us to look bad!"

"I just wish we could show the world that there ARE some wmd's in Iraq so everyone would love America again!"

Mellisa, going to the Mideast to whoop butt for God is what's known as a crusade. This is at odds with your desire to have the world love America. Holy war is the problem, not the solution.

I'm sorry if that's hard to swallow. In your picture you appear to be an adult. Please, no more emails, okay?

There is plenty of evidence for supporting Saddam's dabbling in many types of WMDs. He also used them before on Iranians, Kurds, and others. I also have no doubt that some made there way to countries like Syria, or were buried.
However, I do believe that Bush was SO sure that there must be tons of the stuff around based on past history, that he overplayed his cards on this one. Tunnel vision so to speak, but it was also far from the only reason he went into Iraq. (They sure looked for a long time, not believing that they couldn't be there.) It just made more press, and was pushed for those that didn't agree with the other reasons.
The story on the amount found was in the news by the way, just didn't linger for long.
Thanks.

Saddam's WMD's were moved to Syria by truck with the help of the Russians. According to the Israelis they are in two approximate locations but the exact ones are not known to my knowledge. Various reporters have disclosed these facts as have various members of Saddam's military including General Sada.

John, you certainly backed down quickly re our liberal media. But you must not be reading them or listening to them if you think they are not virulently anti-Bush and anti-war. Just listen to Blitzer and McCafferty for a few minutes and you will find out for sure. The New York Times is also virulently anti-American and regularly does things to help our enemies while attempting to besmirch Bush.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

Hi, I thought I would join this, and as many other similar groups as possible, in the hope of finding meaningful conversation and debate on the Middle East and American policy. However, even here I still find unattributed myths and fantasies geared to justifying what will eventually be noted as the single most catastrophic foreign policy decision in American history.

Regarding the finding of WMD's. There are really three issues included here. One is whether the "finds" listed in this thread are meaningful. It is clear they are not. They are left over, discarded artifacts of the past. They date from the time when Saddam used chemical weapons with the blessing and assistance of men currently in the US government. They were found in unconnected lots, such a a shell or two in the bottom of this storage bin and another couple in that storage locker. They no more comprised an arsenal of wmd's than an unexploded bomb in a British field comprises an attack on England by the current government of Germany.

Secondly, the issue at hand is whether these weapons in any way substnatiate the claim of this administration. Need we go through hyperbole again? Thsees weapons are not "500 tons" of chemical weapons, nor are they "Mobile poison gas factories", nor are they a "reconstituted nuclear program" Get over it folks. The AMerican people were misled by this administration regarding WMD's.

And finally, there is no evidence that WMD's were moved to Syria and or Lebanon. No matter how much you want this to be true, the official US government statement on the matter is that there is no evidence to support the idea. This is further supported by the indirect proof that if such a thing had happened and could be proved, this administration would be ALL OVER IT.

A wilful disregard for reality will not help us in our future battles.

Who really cares what the official government position is about evidence to support the idea that Saddam had WMD? No one believes them anyway.

But no matter what anyone says, there is a plethora of evidence like the attempted transport of WMD into Jordan intercepted by Jordanian authorities. Were these produced by Syria or did they come from Saddam?

How about the translations of Saddam's meetings or General Sada's testimony before Congress? Or how about the Russians who assisted in the transfer to Syria or our satellites which recorded the movement of truck convoys?

Sorry to disagree, John, but that is what it is all about, I guess.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

Ben et al.. John looks like a fake... signed up just yesterday , says he joined this group and many others... but in fact is not signed up to any group, no profile no images, no articles, no nothing except this one post he did here....

Looks awfully suspicious to me...