WMD's

October 15, 2014 11:15 PM
NYT: There Were Thousands of Old WMDs in Iraq

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/390338/nyt-there-were-thousands-old-wmds-iraq-patrick-brennan

High-level investigations, such as the 2004 Iraq Study Group, kept the discoveries quiet, even as the Pentagon was finding out some of the defunct chemical weapons could still be dangerous.

Here are the soldiers explaining a cover-up in their own words:
“I felt more like a guinea pig than a wounded soldier,” said a former Army sergeant who suffered mustard burns in 2007 and was denied hospital treatment and medical evacuation to the United States despite requests from his commander.

Congress, too, was only partly informed, while troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. “ ’Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.

Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”

The good news is that the Pentagon is now being forced into action, and will make sure that affected soldiers are getting the attention they need.

Originally posted by Quarl
October 15, 2014 11:15 PM
NYT: There Were Thousands of Old WMDs in Iraq

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/390338/nyt-there-were-thousands-old-wmds-iraq-patrick-brennan

High-level investigations, such as the 2004 Iraq Study Group, kept the discoveries quiet, even as the Pentagon was finding out some of the defunct chemical weapons could still be dang ...[text shortened]... rced into action, and will make sure that affected soldiers are getting the attention they need.

It changes nothing.

Everyone knew Saddam had WMD's because he used them against the Kurds. Therefore, the whole argument that he did not have any was inane and disingenuous.

Even with these facts, people will not change their minds about anything.

Belief has less to do with facts than people think.

Originally posted by whodey
It changes nothing.

Everyone knew Saddam had WMD's because he used them against the Kurds. Therefore, the whole argument that he did not have any was inane and disingenuous.

Even with these facts, people will not change their minds about anything.

Belief has less to do with facts than people think.

The argument at the time, and still is: "Yes, Saddam had them to war on Iran and Kurds but had already destroyed them." This NYTimes article gives background and total found but unreported by the military. Saddam obviously had them on hand when Iraq was invaded. Why the cover up by the military? Tony Blair vindicated!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Originally posted by Quarl
The argument at the time, and still is: "Yes, Saddam had them to war on Iran and Kurds but had already destroyed them." This NYTimes article gives background and total found but unreported by the military. Saddam obviously had them on hand when Iraq was invaded. Why the cover up by the military? Tony Blair vindicated!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

To think that Saddam would be up front about destroying them is insane.

Originally posted by whodey
To think that Saddam would be up front about destroying them is insane.

According to GW there were no WMD in Iraq.

Originally posted by Eladar
According to GW there were no WMD in Iraq.

Bush was referring to Nuclear WMDs that Iraq could make with the reported "yellowcake" they had obtained. It was kept a secret until it had all been removed.

Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq

Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada

updated 7/5/2008 6:57:12 PM ET

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/

What possible interest would NATO have in covering up the evidence they needed to provide a post hoc justification for their invasion?

Originally posted by DeepThought
What possible interest would NATO have in covering up the evidence they needed to provide a post hoc justification for their invasion?

Obviously, if they claimed they did not find WMDs in Irag, then the Islamic terrorists would not be trying to get them. The invasion had already taken place and there was no longer any need of telling the world, including the terrorists, that there were material for WMDs there. It was best kept undercover until they could be removed. Makes perfect sense to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Obviously, if they claimed they did not find WMDs in Irag, then the Islamic terrorists would not be trying to get them. The invasion had already taken place and there was no longer any need of telling the world, including the terrorists, that there were material for WMDs there. It was best kept undercover until they could be removed. Makes perfect sense to me.

R.J. that is ludicrous. First of all had they found evidence of significant stockpiles of chemical weapons then they would have been showing them off. The war faced serious opposition internally and externally and was a crucial factor in destabilizing Afghanistan. Had they been able to show that "they were justified" they would have. Secondly had they found them then they would not have had a problem guarding them from terrorists.

Originally posted by DeepThought
R.J. that is ludicrous. First of all had they found evidence of significant stockpiles of chemical weapons then they would have been showing them off. The war faced serious opposition internally and externally and was a crucial factor in destabilizing Afghanistan. Had they been able to show that "they were justified" they would have. Secondly had they found them then they would not have had a problem guarding them from terrorists.

Well, apparently you are wrong because they did keep it a secret. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, apparently you are wrong because they did keep it a secret. 😏

I should have read the N.Y. Times article in the first place. What you are all failing to appreciate is that these chemical weapons were unusable. The Iraqis had disposed of their chemical weapons by burying them in the ground which rendered them unsafe.

The cover up was probably due to the fact that finding it was evidence that Saddam had disposed of his chemical weapons, just not in a responsible way, so rather than finding post hoc justification for the invasion it did the opposite. The other part of the mix looks like standard military incompetence.

Any insurgents trying to reuse them would have suffered the same fate as the soldiers who were injured. Leaky chemical weapons are not militarily significant.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I should have read the N.Y. Times article in the first place. What you are all failing to appreciate is that these chemical weapons were unusable. The Iraqis had disposed of their chemical weapons by burying them in the ground which rendered them unsafe.

The cover up was probably due to the fact that finding it was evidence that Saddam had dispose ...[text shortened]... e fate as the soldiers who were injured. Leaky chemical weapons are not militarily significant.

It looks like standard liberal incompetence of people like you and Obama to understand how government and the military should work to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It looks like standard liberal incompetence of people like you and Obama to understand how government and the military should work to me.

RJ I want you to try to focus on this for once. The chemical weapons they found had been decommissioned by burying them. This meant that they were unusable and dangerous. The failure to listen to their own troops was happening under Bush. I am not a liberal. Liberals are right wing.

Originally posted by Quarl
October 15, 2014 11:15 PM
NYT: There Were Thousands of Old WMDs in Iraq

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/390338/nyt-there-were-thousands-old-wmds-iraq-patrick-brennan

High-level investigations, such as the 2004 Iraq Study Group, kept the discoveries quiet, even as the Pentagon was finding out some of the defunct chemical weapons could still be dang ...[text shortened]... rced into action, and will make sure that affected soldiers are getting the attention they need.

WMDs is a ridiculous abbreviation for Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons. Clearly there were those weapons in Iraq at one time, and they are such that once created, they could be recreated. For example Iraqi scientists from Sadaam's regime who had fled to the US all said that he had the knowledge to make bombs. He clearly had the knowledge to make and use chemicals and biologicals, as well as the amorality to use them as he saw fit.