Chemical Weapons In Iraq? Grain Of Salt Time
I hope you can forgive this George W. Bush fan for experiencing a momentary lifting of hope when I saw this headline: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq. Rick Santorum, among others, is trumpeting a portion of a declassified report:
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.”
The key here is degraded munitions; these are not the missing WMDs. Clearly, we expected to find stockpiles of usable, deliverable chemical and biological agents and an ongoing program for their manufacture. That we found neither is by far the biggest intelligence embarassment of modern times, and it is not going to be erased by this flimsy attempt.
Even the administration is not pushing this:
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.
In sum: proof that Saddam was an evil man with no qualms about using WMDs (but we already knew that) – but the missing link? Not even close..
[...] Decision ‘08 [...]
While I can offer no proof-other than the general of the air force who oversaw WMD transportation to Syria-
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827
(also saw this guy do the Daily Show)
I find it reasonable that the weapons made it to Syria.
Syria has three different intel services-
Daddy’s, dead son #1, and Bashar.
One of these groups killed Hariri, indicating an active foreign policy in the ME. The same group that did this, now posesses all of Saddam’ stuff that he got rid of before the invasion-that wasn’t exactly out of the blue.
Syria is the only Baathist country left, and would very likely assist Saddam, get rid of his stuff.
The stuff that they are finding is all going to be pre-91, the new stuff was acutely accounted for by Saddam, and when he had to get it out of the country, he knew what he was current on…
The hard part in this whole deal is that Cheney once had some real cred on intel. In some cases he may have overreached, and it has hurt his cred. His need to be cautious has hamstrung himself.
Santorum? Oh boy. I like the guy, very loyal to the party and president, but also, sometimes a liability. It probably would have been a good thing if he had consulted with Cheney on this, and in the future, as Rick is going to blurt stuff out, it might as well come secretly from a guy who still has a lot of insight.
To add to the Syria theory-
Why doesn’t Cheney make this argument?
Either 1)He does not believe it to be true. Which may suggest that he is done ‘looking’ and has resigned himself that the intel was at best poor, or at the worst stove-piped.
or 2) What happens if you accuse Syria openly? Too much pressure and they come blaring into Iraq, to protect the Sunni Baathists against what is percieved to be persecution by the US and the Shia. Iraq splinters. Quagmire begins as Kurds want to go it alone, and Southern Iraq merges with Iran.
It is a great hole card to have aginst Syria, but to play it now jeopardizes the results in Iraq. It is also leverage against Syria, and we have one of the intel services working against the other 2. We are operating extemely close to the Syrain border, and it would have been great PR for them to claim US incursions at the Security Council…but something is keeping them mum.
I just read the interviews from the Santorum/Hoekstra conference. I was a skeptic, but they did well.
It does directly refute the claims that there were no WMD’s in Iraq…(but I also don’t believe that this is the stuff the WH was talking about when we were going to war.)
Both gentleman offerred the theory that this stuff could fall into the wrong hands, and be used against the US in urban areas. It is an interesting direction to take on the heels of the report that AQ was going to use gas on our subways, although that story seems to have come and gone.
I am a little surprised that susskind’s revelation that UBL has enriched uranium hasn’t made the news either. I would never have seen it without Decision 08 referencing it.
[...] As Decision ‘08 puts it in the title of their post: Chemical Weapons In Iraq? Grain Of Salt Time and correctly notes in the post: In sum: proof that Saddam was an evil man with no qualms about using WMDs (but we already knew that) – but the missing link? Not even close.. Filed under: Iraq, US Politics, 2006 Elections | |Send TrackBack [...]
“The key here is degraded munitions; these are not the missing WMDs.”
If these shells were totally worthless, then why didn’t Saddam just turn them over to the UN inspectors instead of kicking them out of his country? Degraded doen’t mean harmless.
f these shells were totally worthless, then why didn’t Saddam just turn them over to the UN inspectors instead of kicking them out of his country
Duelfer says this
“ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will
continue to discover small numbers of degraded
chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid
or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes
the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned,
forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because
tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward
deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts.
• All but two of the chemical weapons discovered
since OIF were found in southern Iraq where the
majority of CW munitions were used against Iran in
the Iran-Iraq war.”
In short, the shells were very likely forgotten. Its possible that Hussein kept them in hopes of reusing them at some point in the future, but in that case the ISG should have found documentary evidence.
[And Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out in 2003.]
Saddam let the inspectors back in in 2002, after kicking them out in 1998. Remember Operation Desert Fox?
The story that the WMDs were moved to Syria is very dubious. All we have is one general, who is very likely either scamming or mislead. But for such a major decision to happen, a lot of very senior people (all in our custody) would have to go along, there would be some documentary evidence of a transfer etc. WHy hasn’t the ISG found evidence, if so ?
Also, we know from several well researched books (operation Cobra, for one) that Saddam told his generals at the start of the war that they had no WMD. And why would you move WMDs to Syria anyway ? You would either deploy them for use or keep them hidden if you had them.
I suspect that a lot of stuff was moved to Syria pre-war, but I suspect it was not WMDs, but Baathists moving their ill-gotten gains out of the country.
Saddam let the inspectors back in in 2002, after kicking them out in 1998
.
Exactly, which is why I said he didn’t kick them out in 2003 in response to a comment mentioning that Saddam had kicked them out without mentioning the date. Normally I wouldn’t bother to bring this up, but there has been the meme spread that Saddam kicked the inspectors out or did not let them in just prior to the war, which is not true.
“But for such a major decision to happen, a lot of very senior people (all in our custody) would have to go along, there would be some documentary evidence of a transfer etc. WHy hasn’t the ISG found evidence, if so ?”
I believe thye are still sorting thru the documnetary evidence. If there was a program, it was in serious violation of sanctions, and would at best be kept on a need to know basis.
Chem bio does not require the skill that nuclear wmd’s would, nor would they require a large chain of command, creating the paperwork. We did let ‘doctor germ’ go, but her dossier was made in the 90’s, and our intel since the expulsion of the UN in 98 has been non-existent. Most of the generals in the filed believed that they had it, as evidenced by the 20-30k new chem bio suits we found on our way to baghdad. French and german govts also believed they were there.
‘Senior’ people needed to know? Just the opposite-it had to be kept small as possible. No documents (yet)? Once again secrecy was necessary. Why did we keep getting tales from the inspecction team of having to wait outside facilites or being denied access. Why were their rooms bugged, if there was nothing to hide?
In a big hypothetical-IF there were wmds, they were smuggled out of the country with the ‘workers’ going with their projects. Syria is the only country that would allow it.
Even if we do have the intel that they are in Syria, we have to let it go or worry about Syria ramping up their internference and support of Baathist insurgents.
(I’m not stating this as reality, just a possiblity.)
“And all but one of those people are captured or dead.”
IZZAT IBRAHIM AL-DOURI-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izzat_Ibrahim_al-Douri-
Do we have confirmation that he is dead?
Given his close ties to Saddam-
“At the time of the invasion, Al-Douri, along with President Saddam Hussein and Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, were the three surviving plotters who brought the Ba’ath Party to power in a coup in 1968.”
His history with chemical weapons-”It is alleged that he played a key role in the chemical shelling of rebellious Kurdish villagers near the city of Halabja in 1988 that resulted in the deaths of 5,000 civilians.”
And he has been active, yet unaccounted for-”Following the fall of Baghdad, al-Douri went into hiding. US officials claimed that he was involved in the subsequent Iraqi insurgency against U.S. forces, directing and funding guerrilla attacks as well as brokering an alliance between Ba’athist insurgents and militant Islamists.”
“It was announced by Iraq’s defense ministry on September 5, 2004, that he had been captured in the town of Tikrit. However, later medical tests showed that the man in custody was a relative of al-Douri, not Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri himself.
Several Ba’athist web sites claimed that al-Douri had died on November 11, 2005, and Al Arabiya and the BBC reported these claims without specifying the sources. Other users of these web sites subsequently posted denials.”
No body. Extremely close ties to Saddam. Most likely candidate to oversee a chemical/biological research.
“Finally, and most importantly, the absence of WMDs has hurt our credibility greatly.”
Not great enough to keep Bush from being reelected by 20% more people than voted for him in 2000.
Some factors in why we don’t ratchet up on Syria.
They have established an aliance with Iran, based on the premise that the US might try military action:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4273471.stm
Just as we surround Iraq on the East and West, a US Syrian conflict would mean Iraq is surrounded to the East and West, by Syria and Iran.
Crediblity? Is that going to bring the UN in? Is that going to end the conflict in Iraq sooner? A big ‘no’ to both. Accusing Syria, or even presenting what we already know could only complicate the establishment of Iraq. If Iraq goes down the crapper, the wmd’s (potentially) going to Syria would be just a pickle on a giant sh*t sandwich.
correction, “Just as we surround IRAN…”
That ‘one guy’ is the guy most likely to have had direct knowledge and oversight of his chem/bio division. If there is another leader that you think was more likely, let’s hear it.
“Its mindblowing to imagine that the government would hide any possible movement of WMDs to Syria to avoid offending Syria.”
but everything else they do does blow your mind. “hide” is very different from refusing to ‘publicly speculate’.
For you to even try and find a higher ranking, more-in-the-know guy than Al-duri, is a testament to how badly you don’t want to believe what you really need to know.
You’ve lost it. In your effort to argue whether Syria has Saddam’s wmds, which is a legit argument, you have entered a tangent for which you are absurdly wrong.
He is the politcal equivalent to Dick Cheney and Don rumsfeld, rolled into one.
“So they did publically deny it essentially.”
‘Hide’ does not equate to ‘publicly deny’, which is another tangent of your argument, which is undercutting you.
For you to even try and find a higher ranking, more-in-the-know guy than Al-duri, is a testament to how badly you don’t want to believe what you really need to know.
Your desperate need to cling to one man out of around 55 (and several more that weren’t even in the pack of cards) as the one man who single-handedly (like Superman perhaps ?) carried out the WMD transfer while everyone else apparently remained oblivious is a testament to your unbelievable ability to shut out uncomfortable facts.
You’ve lost it. In your effort to argue whether Syria has Saddam’s wmds, which is a legit argument, you have entered a tangent for which you are absurdly wrong.
You’re the one who’s lost it. This is no tangent because you are making the absurd claim that this man was responsible for all the WMD transfer and program and no one else apparently knew anything.
You’re denying that Saddam Hussein knows more than Al Duri ? That his personal secretary ( one of the aces on the pack of the cards) and reportedly the guy who carried out all his orders to other ministers and was like I said, even higher ranked by the US army as an Ace knows it ?
IN any case, the point is not whether Al Douri knows more about this than any other individual. Even if thats correct, you are claiming that the fact that we have Saddam and all of Iraqs other senior officials (except his sons, who’re dead) and their top scientists is irrelevant to determining whether WMDs were moved to Syria. No, all the evidence is magically hidden with the one guy whom we haven’t found. And this guy magically managed to spirit away all his aides, all his documents and everything. And for what purpose would WMDs be moved just when they were needed?
And you still haven’t explained how the unbelievably incompetent Saddam regime that could not organzie a decent defense, was able to accomplish this great logistic miracle without a trace. [ And Why ?]
‘Hide’ does not equate to ‘publicly deny’, which is another tangent of your argument, which is undercutting you.
Deep, Deep Sigh. Clearly you are not interested in discussion if you’re indulging in such absurd wordplay. I could leave you to your bizarre worldplay and delusions, but let me point out the obviuous.
I said that it was absurd that the US government would hide (i.e. not publically reveal) any evidence that WMDs had moved to Syria out of concern over Syrian support for the insurgents (pointing out too that the US had not hesitated to confront Syria over Hariri).
Brian came back with the master piece
““hide” is very different from refusing to ‘publicly speculate’.”
I pointed out they had explicitly all but denied it, so they had publically commented on it, its not as if they refuesed to publically speculate.
Now you come back with the following masterpiece
“Hide’ does not equate to ‘publicly deny’,”
Well, yes it does. If you publically deny involvement of A with B (and you have reason to assume that A was involved with B), then you are hiding the involvement.
But forget all these stupid strawmen. I repeat — if the US had good solid evidence of movement of WMDs to Syria, they would not have basically denied it (see direct quote above) in the Duelfer report. That is my statement and we can debate that.