See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Published: Oct 3, 2002
Author: Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Post Date: 2007-04-03 20:34:01 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 5631
Comments: 267
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002 The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan. Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990. The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution. Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed! A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice. However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions. In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people! A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown. It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war. Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. 
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-227) not displayed.
.
.
.
#228. To: BeAChooser (#222)
The ISG Final Report on Weaponization is here. Weaponization Iraq’s capability to produce CW munitions on a large scale ended with Desert Storm. However, Iraq retained the ability to retool existing factories to produce new munitions, and would have relied on basic fabrication techniques to weaponize agent if it had chosen to do so. * * * Disposition of CW Munitions Post-1991 ISG expended considerable time and effort investigating longstanding Iraqi assertions about the fate of CW munitions known to have been in Baghdad’s possession during the Gulf war. We believe the vast majority of these munitions were destroyed, but questions remain concerning hundreds of CW munitions. Since May 2004, ISG has recovered dozens of additional chemical munitions, including artillery rounds, rockets and a binary Sarin artillery projectile (see Figure 5). In each case, the recovered munitions appear to have been part of the pre-1991 Gulf war stocks, but we can neither determine if the munitions were declared to the UN or if, as required by the UN SCR 687, Iraq attempted to destroy them. (See Annex F.) * The most significant recovered munitions was a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile which insurgents had attempted to use as an improvised explosive device. * * * Iraq Unilateral Weapons Destruction in 1991 Iraq completed the destruction of its pre-1991 stockpile of CW by the end of 1991, with most items destroyed in July of that year. ISG judges that Iraq destroyed almost all prohibited weapons at that time. * ISG has obtained no evidence that contradicts our assessment that the Iraqis destroyed most of their hidden stockpile, although we recovered a small number of pre-1991 chemical munitions in early to mid 2004. * * *
You are citing, as your expert on this particular shell, a military spokesman who was unable to accurately identify the shell he was talking about. That is desperation. [BAC] I quoted Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt saying the 155mm shell was filled with sarin (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040517-0761.html). What General Kimmitt, military spokesman, really said at the link. http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/67286.php WHO IS GEN. MARK KIMMITT: PR Man for Iraq War; Dad Is DC Lobbyist for Defense Industry Current Brig. Gen. Mark T. Kimmitt, US Army, is the spokesman for the US military in Iraq. He is also the deputy operations commander. He currently is the main apologist for US misdeeds in Falluja and southern Iraq. In this article we put a face on the faceless voice of the invaders, the Mouth of the Euphrates. As part of his PR efforts, he frequently employs email. His email address is kimmitt.m (at) skynet.be . He used the private Belgian ISP during his service at NATO's SHAPE headquarters in Belgium Kimmitt's father, Joseph Stanley (Stan) Kimmitt, a former Col. in Army (an artilleryman like Mark), has parlayed his military service into a Washington, DC, public relations, or lobbyist, firm -- Kimmitt, Senter, Coates, & Weinferter. As Gen. Kimmitt promotes the war in Iraq, his father represents defense contractors such as Textron Defense Systems, Talley Defense Systems, and Boeing (maker of the Army's Apache attack helicopter). The Kimmitts are a classic example of the revolving-door syndrome of U.S. military officers and defense contractors. Such double-dipping is commonplace. It is one of the things President Eisenhower meant when he referred to the dangers of the "military-industrial complex." It is a self-replicating monster that feeds on war, death, and destruction Ironically, S. Joseph Kimmitt was the secretary and close friend of Sen. Mike Mansfield of Montana, after Kimmitt's military service. Sen. Mansfield came to see the Vietnam war as unnecessary and would doubtless be opposed to the Iraq war if he were still alive. Gen. Kimmitt's brother, Joseph "Jay" Kimmitt, is a Washington, DC, lobbyist employed by Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Truck Corp. the No. 1 maker of concrete mixers, trash haulers and military trucks. Now it wants a bigger slice of the homeland-security pie, too. And Jay Kimmitt hired a Washington-based PR firm (not his father's) to get it. Another example of the revolving door, Jay Kimmitt served 27 years in the Army he is now selling to. ---------- http://www.iiss.org/conferences/military-leaders-forum/brigadier-general-mark-t-kimmitt The International Institute for Strategic Studies has launched the Military Leaders’ Forum, a new series of meetings with leading military practitioners from the UK and around the world. The Forum is co-hosted by the Director of Studies and the Defence Analysis Programme. The inaugural meeting took place on 6 February 2006, and featured Brigadier General Mark T. Kimmitt, U.S. Army. Brigadier General Kimmitt, Deputy Director for Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5) for the United States Central Command, spoke on the topic, “Iraq and Beyond: The Future of Military Operations in the Middle East.” * * * The IISS Military Leaders’ Forum is made possible through the generous support of KBR ----------
Why is anyone bothering with "IT". I think everyone is losing their focus and energy. "IT" is a LIAR. End of story.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Are the what and how (did a 757 hit the pentagon; where the WTCs brought down by the planes with WTC7 colapsing from collateral damage or from pre-placed explosives; was flight 93 shot down) distracting from the much more important Why and Who?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
lol. way to dodge chooser's idiotic and wholly ridiculous assertion.
"IT" is not the topic I'm refering to. You are wasting your time by repsonding to a complete LIAR.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
"IT" is not the topic I'm refering to. You are wasting your time by repsonding to a complete LIAR. I'll take that as a "yes" with which I agree. It steers the conversation in the direction of what and how.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Really? Yet you first introduced that link on this thread (post #94) and quoted from it. Why'd you do that? Why didn't you post your material from the final report if you think the preliminary assessment is wrong? And what does the ISG final report say about Annex F? It refers to it over and over. Why would it do that if the contents of the Annex are not the ISG's current view ... if they don't represent the finding of the ISG? When it comes to talking about that binary shell in the main report, what does it do? Tell the reader to "See Annex F". So I'm curious why you think Annex F is invalid in this instance?
The ISG Annex doesn't say they discovered a 152mm binary sarin artillery projectile *of the type designed to produce 40 percent sarin*. No, it say they discovered "a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile - CONTAINING a 40 percent concentration of Sarin". It also said "The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long—lasting chemical weapons still exist.'" Evidently the ISG thought this shell was viable and a long-lasting chemical weapon. Why would insurgents use a shell that had been tested? Where'd they find it, lying on the ground somewhere? Was it buried and they had to dig it up? Why use that type of shell when (as you folks claim) there were millions of rounds of perfectly good artillery shells in unguarded bunkers around the country? It doesn't make any sense.
Chooser, why don't you just make up a quote that saves your butt and then post a fake link to support it. Recall that's what you did yesterday -- on at least two occasions. And I'm surprised how you can be busted like you were yesterday and not bat an eye. In most circles what you are doing here is called pathological lying.
.
shalom fish breath. it's obvious that it is ok for you to lie as long as you are lying to a goy, but how can you be sure that the peopel you are lying to on this forum are not jewish?
This is the Iraq Survey Group FINAL REPORT findings on Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program. Annex F is a copy of the Preliminary Assessment. The Introduction to the Preliminary Assessment stated, "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile-containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin...." The Final Report contains no representation about the purity of sarin produced by Iraq, either in this shell or any other shell. "The Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force of the US Department of Defense gave the following assessment in March 2001: "Impure or improperly stored sarin is unstable and degrades over time. US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective. Western sources estimate the sarin Iraq produced never exceeded 60 percent purity, and Iraq reported that poor operating practices at Al Muthanna limited the purity of sarin to between 20 and 50 percent." (Link) Excerpts are presented below. The Final Report on Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program, the Intro and six sections indentified and linked below, make no mention of claim made in the Preliminary Assessment. There is no reference to Annex F about such a claim. The Preliminary Assessment, included as an Annex to the Final Report, does not represent the findings of those who issued the Final Report. The Preliminary Assessment stated the single 152mm Binary chemical IED was remotely detonated. They blew it up before testing. They found "partially detonated" IED and they remotely detonated the round to render it safe. They were only able to test “the remaining liquid” after the round was remotely detonated. There was no way to know, and there is no statement made, regarding the quantity of liquid that was in the shell prior to detonation. A key sarin degradation product was found. Just like BAC poop, and other shit, degradation happens. The "40% concentration" is in the introduction to the Preliminary Assessment, but not in the main body comments of the Final Report. There is no indication of where that information derived from. There is no explanation of how you create 40% concentration sarin by exploding a binary shell in the desert. While the 152mm and 155mm shells may have a similar payload area as unitary rounds, modification to utilize a binary payload entails using a significant portion of the payload area for the apparatus which separately stores the components and which, upon firing, releases the components and mixes them in flight. Iraq Survey Group Final Report Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program By God, spare us your evil. Pick up your goods and leave. We do not need an atomic bomb. We have the dual chemical. Let them take note of this. We have the dual chemical. It exists in Iraq. [1] [1] Saddam speaking about the Israeli, US, and UK intelligence services and Iraq's development of binary CW munitions in a speech on 2 april 1990. (Foreign Broadcast Information Service 021329 April 1990). Iraq Survey Group Final Report Evolution of the Chemical Warfare Program A speech by Saddam on 2 April 1990 publicly identified Iraq’s CW research and production efforts in anticipation of the next war. Saddam claimed Iraq had a binary agent capability, an assertion that caught MSE scientists off guard, according to Iraqi declaration corroborated by documents the UN discovered at Al Muthanna. * In less than a month after Saddam’s speech, Iraq restarted its CW production lines, tested CW warheads for al Husayn missiles, and reverse-engineered special parachute-retarded bombs. [According to the FFCD, Iraq did not import any aerial bombs in 1990.] Al Muthanna filled the al-Husayn warheads and aerial bombs with a binary nerve agent component. These weapons were accompanied by Jerry cans containing the second component, a chemical that, when mixed with the weapons’ contents, produced nerve agent. This was the mix-before-flight Iraqi ‘binary’ system. Iraq deployed 1,000 binary bombs and 50 al-Husayn warheads-binary and unitary-by August 1990. -------------- In August 1995, shortly after Iraq revealed its production of bulk BW agent, Saddam’s son-in-law and head of Iraq’s WMD programs, Husayn Kamil, fled the country. Saddam made a decision at that time to declare virtually all hidden information and material they felt was significant on Iraq’s programs, turning over WMD documentation, including 12 trunks of CW documents. * The documentation turned over by Iraq, allegedly hidden by Husayn Kamil, included results of Iraqi research material up to 1988 that indicated more extensive research on VX than previously admitted. Iraq Survey Group Final Report Command and Control Iraqi scientists and engineers could maintain a minimal CW production proficiency without engaging in CW-related R&D and production because they were already experienced in key CW agent production processes. Largely based on data available in previously published technical literature, Iraq had sufficiently developed processes to produce nerve, blister, and psychological agents. * For instance, Iraqi research on VX started in 1985 with a literature survey on the preparation and production methods of VX. Based on their literature review, the best and easiest method was chosen for the preparation of VX agent, according to Iraq’s CW Full, Final, and Complete Disclosure (FFCD) to the UN. Iraq Survey Group Final Report Infrastructure-Research and Development Iraq Survey Group Final Report Infrastructure-Production Capability Iraq Survey Group Final Report Weaponization Iraq’s capability to produce CW munitions on a large scale ended with Desert Storm. However, Iraq retained the ability to retool existing factories to produce new munitions, and would have relied on basic fabrication techniques to weaponize agent if it had chosen to do so. ----- Disposition of CW Munitions Post-1991 ISG expended considerable time and effort investigating longstanding Iraqi assertions about the fate of CW munitions known to have been in Baghdad’s possession during the Gulf war. We believe the vast majority of these munitions were destroyed, but questions remain concerning hundreds of CW munitions. Since May 2004, ISG has recovered dozens of additional chemical munitions, including artillery rounds, rockets and a binary Sarin artillery projectile (see Figure 5). In each case, the recovered munitions appear to have been part of the pre-1991 Gulf war stocks, but we can neither determine if the munitions were declared to the UN or if, as required by the UN SCR 687, Iraq attempted to destroy them. (See Annex F.) * The most significant recovered munitions was a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile which insurgents had attempted to use as an improvised explosive device. The 1991 Decision To Destroy Undeclared Weapons An IAEA inspection led by Dr. David Kay in late June 1991 triggered Iraq’s decision to unilaterally destroy the undeclared weapons that had been concealed from the UN, according to multiple senior Iraqi officials. Dr. Kay’s inspection team was blocked from sites in Abu Ghurayb and Fallujah. The Iraqis fired warning shots over the inspectors’ heads, but Dr. Kay and his group brought back video tapes and photos that indicated Iraq was hiding undeclared uranium enrichment equipment from the inspectors. * Dr. Kay’s inspection and the international uproar surrounding it caused consternation and a measure of panic in the Regime’s leadership, particularly Husayn Kamil, and Saddam appointed a high-level committee headed by Deputy Prime Minister Tariq ‘Aziz to deal with inspection matters, according to multiple sources. Iraq Unilateral Weapons Destruction in 1991 Iraq completed the destruction of its pre-1991 stockpile of CW by the end of 1991, with most items destroyed in July of that year. ISG judges that Iraq destroyed almost all prohibited weapons at that time. * ISG has obtained no evidence that contradicts our assessment that the Iraqis destroyed most of their hidden stockpile, although we recovered a small number of pre-1991 chemical munitions in early to mid 2004. Post-OIF Insurgent Attempts to Tap Chemical Resources A group of insurgents began a nascent CW effort without CW scientists or industrial-scale chemical supplies. After OIF, a group of insurgents-referred to as the al-Abud network-assembled key supplies and relevant expertise from community resources to develop a program for weaponizing CW agents for use against Coalition Forces. The al-Abud network in late 2003 recruited a Baghdad chemist-who lacked the relevant CW expertise-to develop chemical agents. The group sought and easily acquired from farmers and local shops chemicals and equipment to conduct CW experiments. An investigation of these CW attempts suggests that the al-Abud network failed to produce desired CW agents, however it remains unclear whether these failures derive from a lack of available precursors or insufficient CW expertise. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Chemical Munitions-Searching Military Depots and Caches Iraq Survey Group Final Report Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program Detailed Preliminary Assessment of Chemical Weapons Findings Introduction The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile-containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin-which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist. ---------------- 16 May 2004: 152mm Binary Chemical Improvised Explosive Device A military unit near Baghdad Airport reported a suspect IED along the main road between the airport and the Green Zone (see figure 2). The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product. The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. The munitions bear no markings, much like the sulfur mustard round reported on 2 May (see Figure 3). Insurgents may have looted or purchased the rounds believing they were conventional high explosive 155mm rounds. The use of this type of round as an IED does not allow sufficient time for mixing of the binary compounds and release in an effective manner, thus limiting the dispersal area of the chemicals. Historical context: Iraq only declared its work on binary munitions after Husayn Kamil fled Iraq in 1995, and even then only claimed to have produced a limited number of binary rounds that it used in field trials in 1988. UN investigations revealed a number of uncertainties surrounding the nature and extent of Iraq’s work with these systems and it remains unclear how many rounds it produced, tested, declared, or concealed from the UN.
The NIE, the Senate Report, and Colin Powell The Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq of July 9, 2004 contains the following: * Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence. * The IC's bias that Iraq had active WMD programs led analysts to presume, in the absence of evidence, that if Iraq could do something to advance its WMD capabilities, it would. ===================== Colin Powell, Meet the Press, May 16, 2004
COMMISSION ON THE INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES REGARDING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction ceased operations and closed its office on May 27, 2005. After a year of study that included the review of thousands of documents and hundreds of interviews with knowledgeable observers from both within and outside the intelligence community, the Commission presented its report to the President on March 31, 2005. Established by Executive Order 13328 and signed by President George W. Bush on February 6, 2004, the Commission was charged with assessing whether the Intelligence Community is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained, and resourced to identify and warn in a timely manner of, and to support United States Government efforts to respond to, the development and transfer of knowledge, expertise, technologies, materials, and resources associated with the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century and their employment by foreign powers (including terrorists, terrorist organizations, and private networks). T he Commission examined the capabilities and challenges of the Intelligence Community to collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of such foreign powers relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century. COMMISSION MEMBERS Charles S. Robb Laurence H. Silberman Richard C. Levin OF COUNSEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR * * * … U.S. forces searched without success for the WMD that the Intelligence Community had predicted. Extensive post-war investigations were carried out by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). The ISG found no evidence that Iraq had tried to reconstitute its capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991; no evidence of BW agent stockpiles or of mobile biological weapons production facilities; and no substantial chemical warfare (CW) stockpiles or credible indications that Baghdad had resumed production of CW after 1991. Just about the only thing that the Intelligence Community got right was its pre-war conclusion that Iraq had deployed missiles with ranges exceeding United Nations limitations. How could the Intelligence Community have been so mistaken? That is the question the President charged this Commission with answering. … CHEMICAL WARFARE … Post-War Findings of the Iraq Survey Group … The ISG concluded-contrary to the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments- that Iraq had actually unilaterally destroyed its undeclared CW stockpile in 1991 and that there were no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of CW thereafter. Iraq had not regained its pre-1991 CW technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to the war. Further, pre-war concerns of Iraqi plans to use CW if Coalition forces crossed certain defensive “red lines” were groundless; the “red lines” referred to conventional military planning only. Finally, the only CW the Iraq Survey Group recovered were weapons manufactured before the first Gulf War; the ISG concluded that, after 1991, Iraq maintained only small, covert labs to research chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. … Despite having “expended considerable time and expertise searching for extant CW munitions,”-the vaunted stockpiles-the ISG concluded with “high confidence that there are no CW present in the Iraqi inventory.” The ISG specifically investigated 11 sites that were associated with sus pected CW transshipment activity, conducting an in-depth inspection of two of the sites, which were “assessed prior to war to have the strongest indicators of CW movement.” Neither of these sites revealed any CW munitions. Further, the ISG’s “review of documents, interviews, intelligence reporting, and site exploitations revealed alternate, plausible explanations” for pre-war transshipment activity that the Intelligence Community judged to have been CW-related. … Overall, although the vast majority of CW munitions had been destroyed, the Iraq Survey Group recognized that questions remained relating to the disposition of hundreds of pre-1991 CW munitions. Still, given that, of the dozens of CW munitions that the ISG discovered, all had been manufactured before 1991, the Intelligence Community’s 2002 assessments that Iraq had restarted its CW program turned out to have been seriously off the mark. Finally, on two ancillary issues the ISG found little or no evidence to support indications of Iraqi CW efforts. … Analysis of the Intelligence Community’s Pre-War Assessments … A small quantity of human source reporting supplied the bulk of the narrow band of intelligence supplementing the imagery intelligence. And the most striking fact about reporting on Iraq’s CW program was, as with other elements of Iraq’s weapons programs, its paucity. Yet there was more than just scarcity, for-as with sources on Iraq’s supposed BW program-many of the CW sources subsequently proved unreliable. Indeed, perhaps even more so that with the BW sources, Community analysts should have been more cautious about using the CW sources’ reporting, as much of it was deeply problematic on its face. In our view, prior to the war, analysts should have viewed at least three human sources more skeptically than they did. In addition, post-war, questions about the veracity of two other human sources have also surfaced. Sources Whose Reliability Should Have Been Questioned Prior to the NIE One source, an Iraqi defector who had worked as a chemist in Iraq through the 1990s, reported information that made its way into the NIE. This happened even though, from the start of his relations with the U.S. Intelligence Community, the Community had deemed aspects of his reporting not credible. … Indeed, analytic skepticism about the source’s claims was later confirmed by revelations about his operational history, revelations that led to the Intelligence Community deeming him a fabricator and recalling his reporting, although not all of his reporting was recalled until almost one year after the war started.… Another source, who was described as a contact with “good but historical access” but lacking “an established reporting record,” reported in July 2002 that, as of 1998, Iraq was producing mustard and binary chemical agents. At the same time, he also reported on a “wide range of disparate subjects,” including on Iraq’s missile program and nuclear and biological weapons programs. Such broad access, on its face, was inconsistent with what analysts understood to be Iraq’s well-known tendency towards compartmentation of sensitive weapons programs. Yet because of the Community’s own compartmentation-working-level analysts saw reporting on their area but not on others-they did not realize at the time that one source was reporting on a range of topics for which he was unlikely to have access. Moreover, although analysts did not know it at the time, the source obtained his information from unknown and undescribed sub-sources. Finally, a third source provided information that was technically implausible on its face. His reporting claimed that Iraq had constructed a factory for the production of castor oil that could be used for the production of sarin. Although castor beans can be used to make ricin, not sarin-a fact that analysts readily understood-analysts did not discount the information. …
UK SOURCE MIDDLE EAST REFERENCE FILE Without evidence, BAC finds that they could do better by putting the components in a shell, partially detonate the shell and let it lie in the desert for a while, detonate the shell some more to make it safe, and have the stuff mix together as a result of the two explosions of the shell. http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsc.html Evaluation. The main G-agents produced by Iraq were Tabun, Sarin and Cyclosarin. It is generally accepted that Iraq stopped producing Tabun in 1986 (UNMOVIC accept that this account "is plausible and appears to be supported by UNSCOM's findings", in "Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.68), in favour of concentrating on the producing of Sarin and Cyclosarin. These agents deteriorate rapidly, especially if impurities are present in their manufacture. This seems to have been the case with Iraq's nerve agents. The Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force of the US Department of Defense gave the following assessment in March 2001: "Impure or improperly stored sarin is unstable and degrades over time. US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective. Western sources estimate the sarin Iraq produced never exceeded 60 percent purity, and Iraq reported that poor operating practices at Al Muthanna limited the purity of sarin to between 20 and 50 percent. Since it contained at least 40 percent impurities when manufactured, sarin produced at Al Muthanna had a short shelf life. The CIA estimates the chemical warfare agent in the rockets stored at Al Muthanna had deteriorated to approximately 18 percent purity by the time that Bunker 2 was destroyed, leaving about 1600 kilograms (1.6 metric tons) of viable sarin." "The Gulf War Air Campaign - Possible Chemical Warfare Agent Release at Al Muthanna, February 8, 1991", 19 March 2001; http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html#about About This reference file is an inventory and critical analysis of the claims made about the weapons and programmes that Iraq is proscribed from having under the terms of Security Council Resolutions 687 (1991), paragraphs 10 and 12: that is, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km. The file was compiled before UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors were withdrawn from the country on 18 March 2003, and the evaluations contained have not been altered in light of subsequent information. However, suggestions for further reading continue to be added in light of the new information that has come to light since that date. These sections are marked "Key post-war readings", and are at the end of some sub-sections on particular weapons categories. This reference file is not about Iraq's overall compliance with that resolution or subsequent resolutions on Iraq, including SCR 1441 (2002). For example, it does not attempt to analyse the extent of Iraq's obstruction of inspectors from UNSCOM, UNMOVIC or IAEA. It is instead a presentation of what is actually known about the weapons and programmes themselves. For the UN inspectors who were in Iraq, discovering what is unknown about the history and present status of these items was the task at hand. Inspectors engaged with the possibility of Iraq's retention or development of non-conventional weapons, and reported to the Security Council on this basis. However, a set of evaluations can also be made of the likelihood of Iraq's non-conventional weapons programmes, given the material available. No overall judgements are made in this reference file, but material is presented that should allow a more well informed opinion to be reached. The author of this reference file is Dr Glen Rangwala, an independent analyst at the University of Cambridge, UK. If any of the technical claims made below are incorrect or incomplete, such mistakes have not been made in a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader: corrections and clarifications would be greatly appreciated. Contact details are at the end of this page.
In discussing an Un-Constitutional War, we must consider the things that were said to influence public opinion. Lest we forget, here is a review using comments taken directly from the Senate Report. SOURCE: July 9, 2004. -- Ordered to be printed The following quotes are taken from pages 453, 454, 459, 460, 461 of the source publication. The Bush Administration's case against Iraq was largely based on the argument that we knew with certainty that Iraq possessed large quantities of chemical and biological weapons, was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, and that an established relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda would allow for the transfer of these weapons for use against the United States. This national security rationale being put forth publicly by senior Administration officials in support of regime change in Iraq was simple, direct and often fundamentally misleading. The rhetorical drumbeat for war in the months leading up to the Intelligence Community's October estimate, sounded from the highest levels of the government, repeatedly overstated what the Intelligence Community assessed at the time. Here are some examples of the exaggerations: "... it's been pretty well confirmed that [9/11 al-Qaeda hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." (Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, December 9,2001) "[Saddam Hussein] is a dangerous man who possesses the world's most dangerous weapons." (President Bush, Press Conference, March 22, 2002) "But we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.. .Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." (Vice President Cheney, Speech to the VFW's 103rd National Convention, August 26, 2002) "We do know that there have been shipments going... into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to - high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." (National Security Advisor Rice, Late Edition, September 8, 2002) "I think if you asked, do we know that he had a role in 9/11, no, we do not know that [Saddam Hussein] had a role in 9/11. But I think that this is the test that sets a bar that is far too high." (National Security Advisor Rice, Late Edition, September 8, 2002) "Very likely all they need to complete a weapon is fissile material - and they are, at this moment, seeking that material - both from foreign sources and the capability to produce it indigenously." (Secretary Rumsfeld, Testimony Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 19, 2002) -453- "[Saddam Hussein] has said, in no uncertain terms, that he would use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. He has, at this moment, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and is pursuing nuclear weapons." (Secretary Rumsfeld, Testimony Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 19, 2002) "[Iraq] has weapons of mass destruction. And the battlefield has now shifted to America..." (President Bush, Remarks at OHS Complex, September 19,2002) "Well, I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched. There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information." (Press Secretary Fleischer, Press Briefing, September 24, 2002) "[Y]ou can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." (President Bush, Photo Opportunity, September 25, 2002) "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of- weapons of mass destruction capabilities." (Secretary Rumsfeld, Dot) News Briefing, September 26, 2002) "We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn't any debate about it." (Secretary Rumsfeld, DoD News Briefing, September 26, 2002) "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.. .and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." (President Bush, Radio Address, September 28, 2002) "The dangers we face only worsen from month to month and year to year.. .and each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group." (President Bush, Radio Address, September 28, 2002) These high-profile statements in support of the Administration's policy of regime change were made in advance of any meaningful intelligence analysis and created pressure on the Intelligence Community to conform to the certainty contained in the pronouncements. -454- "The danger to America for the Iraqi regime is grave and growing... Delay, indecision and inaction are not options for America, because they could leave (sic) to massive and sudden horror." (President Bush, Radio Address, October 5, 2002) -459- "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof- the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." (President Bush, Speech in Cincinnati, October 7, 2002) "After September 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." (President Bush, Remarks in Dearborn, MI, October 14, 2002) "We cannot afford to wait until Saddam Hussein or some terrorist supplied by him attacks us with a chemical or biological or, worst of all, a nuclear weapon, to recognize the danger we face.. .The dots are there for all to see. We must not wait for some terrible event that connects the dot for us." (Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, Remarks at Fletcher Conference, October 16, 2002) "Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon. We don't know whether or not he has a nuclear weapon." (President Bush, Q&A in Crawford, TX, December 31, 2002) "[Saddam Hussein] could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us. And as the President said on Tuesday night, it would take just one vial, one canister, one crate to bring a day of horror to our nation unlike any we have known." (Vice President Cheney, Remarks to the Conservative PAC, January 30, 2003) "And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind." (President Bush, Remarks with Prime Minister Blair, January 31, 2003) "We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.. .The danger Saddam Hussein poses reaches across the world." (President Bush, Statement in the Roosevelt Room, February 6, 2003) "[Saddam Hussein] provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries." (President Bush, News Conference, March 6, 2003) "The strongest link of- of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida - we've never said that he somehow masterminded 9/11 or was even involved in 9/11. But the strongest -although there are a lot of tantalizing meetings that - with people who were involved in 9/11." (Dr. Rice, Face the Nation, March 9,2003) -460- "[Saddam Hussein] claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighborhoods." (Secretary Rumsfeld, Press Briefing, March 11, 2003) "...we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons... We know he's reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." (Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003) "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." (Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16,2003) * * * By the time American troops had been deployed overseas and were poised to attack Iraq, the Administration had skillfully manipulated and cowed the Intelligence Community into approving public statements that conveyed a level of conviction and certainty that was not supported by an objective reading of the underlying intelligence reporting. The charge levied in the President's State of the Union Address in late January 2003 that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa is the most notable example of how the Intelligence Community's agreed to let the Administration be a fact witness to an intelligence report the CIA considered "weak" and "not credible." Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his speech before the United Nations eight days later with Director Tenet seated directly behind him. The content of his speech was approved by the CIA and laid out the Intelligence Community's case against Iraq in a high degree of certainty that was unencumbered by the limitations of the underlying intelligence and corresponding analytical judgments. It was in this speech that Secretary Powell assured the United Nations General Assembly - and the world at large - that "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are fact and conclusion based on solid intelligence." The day before the February 5th United Nations speech, a CIA official involved with intelligence reporting on Iraq sent an email to another agency official responding to concerns about the use of one particular source at the center of the assertion that Iraq had constructed numerous mobile biological weapons laboratories: -461-
Says a poster who claimed the Madrid fire burned at 2000 degrees and couldn't back up the claim when asked. Says a poster who claimed WTC7 "steel was found to have sulphaded, eutectic formations. The structual steel was turned to swiss cheese and was completely evaporated. It takes around 5100 degress to evapoate structual steel" when steel experts who examined the WTC 7 steel said "The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge." Says a poster who claimed " The towers not only were designed for an airliner impact, but multiple impacts, at any speed and the fuel dumped involved." I posted the statement of the head structural engineer on the project, Leslie Robertson, who said the towers were NOT designed for the impact of jets at the speed of the 911 jets and that they were NOT designed for the fires that would result. Says a poster who claimed "NIST did fire temp tests on the steel from the impact area and found physical temps of 480- 600." Again, this is untrue. NIST did not perform fire temp tests on steel from the area where their fire code models show the most intense fires occurred. What those tests do, actually, is confirm the fire codes because they show the temperatures in the tested locations agree with what the fire codes say the temperatures would have been in those locations. Furthermore, NIST did not find a reliable, robust method to test temperatures much above 250 to 300 C. They based their conclusions only on tests (using the condition of paint). Those tests would not have worked in regions where steel reached a 1000 C ... which is what the fire codes show happened and experts around the world believe happened. Says a poster who claimed "NIST has no proof of sagging floors pulling the outer perimeter girders" even after being shown PHOTOS of the towers from NIST that show sagging floors pulling on the outer perimeter girders. And NIST also has good structural models that tell them this happened. They also have photos before the collapse showing the perimeter columns bowing inward where those sagging floors would have connected. Says a poster who claimed "NIST states that the majority of the damage and heat was seen at that impact holes". FALSE. ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Says a poster who claimed "NIST concluded ... snip ... the vibration played no role in shaking off the 2.2-2.5 inches of upgraded SFRM, and NIST left this out of its final draft" when the final report says "The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored possibly damaged and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact. A robust criteria to generate a coherent pattern of vibration-induced dislodging could not be established due to (1) the numerical noise inherent in the acceleration time-histories on structural components obtained from the aircraft impact analyses, and (2) lack of data on the strength of insulation materials under such a high rate of loading with sharp peaks in a very short duration. However, there were indications that insulation damage occurred over a larger region than that estimated. Photographic evidence showed insulation dislodged from exterior columns not directly impacted by debris (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C). The towers underwent a period of strong impact loading fro about .6 to .7 s. Further, video analysis showed that WTC 2 vibrated for over 4 minutes after aircraft impact with amplitudes in excess of 20 inches at the roof top (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A). First person interviews of building occupants indicated that building vibrations due to aircraft impact were strong enough to dislodge ceiling tiles and collapse walls throughout the height of both WTC towers and to cause nearly all elevators to stop functioning (NIST NCSTAR 1-7)." It simply doesn't say what Mark claimed about vibrations, does it.
shalom fish breath. you come off as a kook when you rant like this.
I'm not the one who brought up the topic of what and how on this thread.
So how are you doing over here? Got'em all fooled yet?
Yet it references Annex F and tells the reader to "See Annex F" when the topic of that discovered munitions is mentioned. The Final Report directs the reader to "See Annex F" when the topic of the discovered munitions is mentioned. Why do that if they believe the contents of Annex F are inaccurate? There is no indication where many claims in the report derive from. Are all such claims to be dismissed now? I'm sorry but it would appear the writers of the document took great care with their wording throughout the report. And they said "projectile - containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin" when they could just as easily have said "of a type that must produce 40 percent concentration to be effective". And the assertion that this statement meant the ISG thought the shell actually contained enough agent to produce several liters of 40 percent sarin was repeated in many venues and not once denied or corrected by members of the ISG.
But the concern isn't military effectiveness. The concern is that a WMD, even a degraded one, might fall into the hands of terrorists and be used to create terror (not to mention kill a lot of people). The final ISG report actually mentions that concern in the addendum. Did you miss that?
Chooser, your ridiculous parsing here is idiotic and fools nobody.
.
Let me ask you a single question: If there is a shred of merit to your silly and utterly discredited WMD KOOKERY, then why doesn't Bush get on national TV tomorrow and save his Presidency with it? The fact that Bush and his media team lied us into the war is one of the primary reasons he is now going down the toilet. And you damn well know this. So is your WMD Kookery is true, then Bush could save himself with it. The question is why doesn't he do it? And why is the type of WMD kookery you push only targeted to gullible goobers like yourself and only in the lowest form of Repbulcan goob fooler publications? Surely you've got a kook conpiracy theory that explains this.
.
Those who issued the Final Report did not include your favorite information from the Preliminary Assessment. It's a tragedy, but it happened.
Link/quote to where "the assertion that this statement meant the ISG thought the shell actually contained enough agent to produce several liters of 40 percent sarin" in any official report. They stated that the shell, partially detonated when found, was remotely detonated and they only tested what residue was left behind (after the shell had detonated twice). You have a wonderful imagination.
There was one already partially detonated 10+ year old prototype shell and nothing left to test but residue. NON-FUNCTIONAL PROTOTYPES are not considered deadly WMD. They do not even function well as an IED. They seem to function splendidly as a BAC propaganda tool. You must have missed the part that stated: The binary chemical round detonated near the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP) probably originated with a batch that was stored in a Al Muthanna CW complex basement during the late 1980s for the purpose of leakage testing. Iraq placed at least 12 filled binary Sarin munitions, either 152 or 155mm projectiles, in the basement of the Salah al-Din laboratory at the Al Muthanna CW complex, according to a report. * * * The Technical Research Center (TRC) also worked on producing 152mm binary Sarin artillery shells, but we have no reason to believe that they possessed functional chemical munitions. According to the Iraqi FFCD, the TRC conducted lab experiments with 152mm binary munitions using a simulant to test the mixing of the binary components. No binary tests using chemical agent at the TRC were declared. * * * If the number of 152mm artillery shells produced by Al Muthanna was a few dozen, as was stated in the aforementioned sensitive report, then the shells which remained in the basement of the Salah al-Din Laboratory in the late 1980s may have been the only filled binary sarin rounds which existed at the time of the Gulf war. Reporting states that the only 152mm binary Sarin rounds produced by Al Muthanna that were not destroyed in field tests were in the basement of the Salah al-Din laboratory. The report stated that at least 12 binary munitions were placed there, although they may have been 152mm, 155mm, or a mixture of both.
But they did tell readers to "See Annex F" when it came to the discussion of discovered munitions. Also, the included Annex F on the website where the Final Report was provided. You wish to ignore both, but it happened.
Official report? I never claimed such a thing. But I did claim reports like the following which the ISG never challenged: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html "Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin, Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday. ... snip ... Intelligence officials stressed that the compounds did not mix effectively on Saturday. Due to the detonation, burn-off and resulting spillage, it was not clear exactly how much harmful material was inside the shell." They didn't say "when found". They called it a "partially detonated IED". http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_06/ChemicalMunition.asp "a “very small” amount of nerve agent was released from the shell because it partially detonated before it could be disarmed. Two members of an explosive ordnance team sustained minor injuries as a result of exposure to the agent." http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3024 "The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent. The round was an old binary type requiring the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell before the deadly agent is produced. The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece. Mixing and dispersal of the agent from such a projectile as an IED is very limited." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html " An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday." http://www.katc.com/global/story.asp?s=1873019&ClientType=Printable "Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121035,00.html "Because the shell was not fired from a gun but was detonated as a bomb, officials say the initial explosion on May 15 dispersed the precursor chemicals and apparently mixed them in only small amounts."
Show us an official report that actually says this. Since you're big on official reports. And by the way, Annex F states "and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product." Not quite what you are trying to claim. What they are saying is they have no reason to believe Iraq had binary sarin munitions. That is ... weapons that were deployed. It doesn't mean the shell wouldn't have worked as intended if fired by artillery. In fact, documents and interviews indicated that the Iraqis were quite pleased with their binary sarin program. Iraq initially denied researching binary weapons at all. It wasn't until 1995, after Kamil fled Iraq, that they claimed to have produced a limited number of binary rounds. And then claimed they were ALL destroyed. Obviously they've lied about that and probably numerous other things related to binary sarin. And by the way, you could have just as easily have underlined a statement below that in the material quoted ... one that implied the possibility this was a "FILLED" binary sarin round from the basement of the Salah al-Din Laboratory. Whoever used this shell as an IED didn't know what they had. It lacked the usual markings that identify chemical munitions (an attempt by Saddam to hide the fact it was a chemical shell?). If they had known, they might have removed the contents and used a better means of combining the binary components and dispersing the resulting sarin. And killed thousands.
Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday. The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S. military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable Points from the BAC/Fox News article: Official reports confirm that it was a very old 152mm prototype, not a 155mm shell. The unnamed Defense Department officials did not even know what type of shell they were talking about. Unnamed "intelligence officials," on the basis of misidentification of the size and type of the shell, GUESSED that "three to four liters is likely the right number." The shell was apparently filled over ten years previously and stored for leakage testing. The shell had been partially detonated prior to its discovery by U.S. troops. The shell had been sitting in the desert for some time prior to its discovery by U.S. troops. The official reports confirm that the shell was remotely detonated by U.S. troops. It did not explode all by itself before it could be rendered inoperable. It was remotely detonated to render it safe. The shell is rendered safe by having the explosive charge burn off the sarin and completely detonate any remaining explosive. The shell was exploded twice. All that was left for testing was whatever liquid remained, i.e., residue. residue. [fr. L. residuum] something that remains after a part is taken, separated,, or designated: REMNANT, REMAINDER. The only binary shells which were tested with sarin were the early ones that were mixed just before firing. After one explosion, sitting in the desert for an unknown time, and another explosion to render the shell safe, the remnants of the ten-year old shell were determined to test positive for sarin and substances given off when sarin degrades. The official report by those who have examined the actual evidence and rendered an informed opinion is evidence superior to BAC bullshit from Fox News based on unnamed "intelligence officials" who misidentify the type of shell and admittedly take a guess at how much sarin was in the shell, based on an estimate of what some other shell might be capable of holding. Except in BAC propaganda world.
Sadly, your favorite bit of unsupportable information was neither stated, cited, nor referenced in any way in the final report.
BAC, you're practically resorting to accusing Saddam of using the "F" word. Your assertions are that impertinent - although your assertions are cleverly re- packaged for those stupid enough to take you seriously. Your thought processes are as limp-wristed as you are. Go away, BAC - just leave!
Where do you get that claim? As far as I know, no document says that. I don't even think a credible media source says that. The media reports make it sound like it detonated while US troops were trying to disarm it or certainly after they discovered it. Official statements said it detonated BEFORE it could be disarmed. No, I think there is a difference between what you meant to imply by residue and liquid. I don't think you can prove this. The truth is that the ISG doesn't really know what the Iraqi's tested since the documentation they have is incomplete (many of the documents were destroyed by the Iraqis or they just didn't record certain things) and the other sources they have are not exactly trustworthy either. The Iraqis since 91 all the way up to and including the ISG effort have consistently tried to minimize what they did, what they had, and what they intended to do. It's been one lie after another so sorting out the truth is difficult. Especially given that the ISG also said the Iraqis systematically sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD and they have a credible source who says WMD related items were moved to Syria before the war. You just making up a story now. That scenario is NOT stated in any official document or even any credible mainstream media outlet. The ISG said the shell contained a "40 percent concentration" of sarin. I'm sure they didn't say that without some reason and with careful attention to their language.
[BAC] Where do you get that claim? As far as I know, no document says that. I don't even think a credible media source says that. The media reports make it sound like it detonated while US troops were trying to disarm it or certainly after they discovered it. Official statements said it detonated BEFORE it could be disarmed. The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. It was partially detonated when discovered. The media reports make it sound like it detonated while US troops were trying to disarm it or certainly after they discovered it. The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product. You do not partially detonate a shell and try to mess with it. You use a remote charge and completely detonate it. You are invited to play with partially detonated shells. The report explicitly states that the munitions were remotely detonated. The report explicitly states that the "remaining liquid" tested "positive" in "ISG field labs" for sarin and "a sarin degradation product." [nc] All that was left for testing was whatever liquid remained, i.e., residue. [BAC] No, I think there is a difference between what you meant to imply by residue and liquid. No, you are leaving out a word and changing "remaining liquid" to just "liquid." [nc] After one explosion, sitting in the desert for an unknown time, [BAC] You just making up a story now. That scenario is NOT stated in any official document or even any credible mainstream media outlet. A partially detonated round has exploded but not all of the explosive charge has been expended. And your favorite nonsense from the preliminary assessment never made it into the Final Report. It did not get a mention, or even a reference.
But the claim you have to back up is that "it was detonated prior to its discovery by U.S. troops." That is not what the official reports said. They said it partially detonated before it could be disarmed. Well the reports specifically say that's what happened. That 2 soldiers were injured while carrying the partially detonated shell somewhere else. And that the shell partially detonated before it could be disarmed (which suggests it was not detonated before thoughts of disarming it came to mind). Not arguing that. Not arguing that. I think there is a difference between what you meant to imply by residue and "remaining liquid". But NOTHING in any document or media report indicates that shell first exploded then sat in the desert for an unknown time before being discovered. The wording of the official reports clearly suggests the shell partially detonated after it was discovered but before it could be disarmed. You are wrong. Annex F is referenced in the Final Report.
But the claim you have to back up is that "it was detonated prior to its discovery by U.S. troops." The official report says that the U.S. troops remotely detonated the shell after they discovered it. To be BAC-clear, the report does not explicitly state that they remotely detonated the shell only after they discovered it. In BAC-world, perhaps they remotely detonated the shell before they discovered it. A BAC-certified psychic, using remote viewing, performed a psychic remote detonation. He used the power to BAC's mind to remotely detonate the shell with psycho power. The report does not explicitly state that the U.S. troops did not partially detonate the shell. In BAC-world, the EOD folks might partially detonate a shell so they could make it more dangerous to handle. It is explicitly stated that it was a partially detonated shell. Unless it somehow got to be a partially detonated shell after it was discovered, it must have been a partially detonated shell prior to, and at the time of discovery, until the U.S. troops remotely detonated it to make it safe to handle. A partially detonated shell would contain unpredictable explosive material and possibly be leaking CW agents. A partially detonated shell is unsafe to handle. Nobody but BAC would consider partially detonating a shell prior to handling. This would mean discovering an undetonated shell and partially detonating it, rendering it unpredictable and unsafe to handle. This insanity only occurs in BAC-world, where insanity is the norm. The remote detonation is designed to render a shell into a non-explosive device, and the explosive detonation causes a burn off of chemicals. But NOTHING in any document or media report indicates that shell first exploded then sat in the desert for an unknown time before being discovered. Nothing in the report indicates that the shell sprang up every four hours and did calisthenics to keep in shape. Perhaps the shell did not just lie in the desert. Perhaps it had some Aussie in it and went walkabout. But only in BAC-world. Have you figured out yet if "you support the 'right' of Israel to deliberately attack a U.S. Navy ship and kill 34 U.S. Navy men and wound 171 more, and shoot at lifeboats...." Or do you remain passionately of NO OPINION?
I see you're implying with your quotation marks that they weren't pirates. Just your typical dishonest bullshit. When you have to lie, we're done.
Officials also said that it partially denotated before it could be disarmed ... implying that it hadn't partially detonated before it was discovered. But official sources also say it partially detonated before it could be disarmed. That language would imply that efforts to disarm it began before it partially detonated. Which is exactly what the language in the reports and by officials at the times suggests happened. But it wasn't identified as a CW shell (it was unmarked). Well maybe you can square your fantasy that the shell had already been detonated at the time US forces discovered it, with this report from the military that day. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3024 "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent. The round was an old binary type requiring the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell before the deadly agent is produced. The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece. Mixing and dispersal of the agent from such a projectile as an IED is very limited. The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. Two explosive ordnance team members were minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round."
--------------------------------------------------------- Consider yourself priveleged. You get to receive one of my rare posts. I've been restricted to only 10 a day by christine. She did it after I laughed when I heard that she, Arator and Kamala met Rodriguez in person at Alex Jones' and Charlie Sheen's 911 Conference. I guess that was nothing to laugh about.
Yeah, BAC, you asshole, we know you can split hairs. This single round was declared as a freak find, by the U.S. command. Nobody but you gives a shit! The price of being queer. Your rationalization skills can arbitrarily assign meaning or non-meaning - to anything. Say, BAC, did you notice that no one cares about your limited posting limitations - other than to applaud your status? Take a clue; nobody wants you.
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
* ISG has also recovered 155mm chemical rounds and 122mm artillery rockets which we judge came from abandoned Regime stocks.
* These remaining pre-1991 weapons either escaped destruction in 1991 or suffered only partial damage. More may be found in the months and years ahead.
#229. To: BeAChooser (#213)
And just for you information, the quantity of nerve gas in a 152 mm round is about the same as in a 155 mm round. So you are worrying about the nits (I call it desperation) and missing the big picture.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C390
The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent.
----------
by Al Swalley Monday April 19, 2004 at 05:13 PM
#230. To: christine (#209)
#231. To: Kamala, christine (#230)
I think everyone is losing their focus and energy.
#232. To: Destro (#226)
You guys are way off topic.
#233. To: wbales (#231)
Are the what and how (did a 757 hit the pentagon; where the WTCs brought down by the planes with WTC7 colapsing from collateral damage or from pre-placed explosives; was flight 93 shot down) distracting from the much more important Why and Who?
#234. To: Kamala (#233)
Are the what and how (did a 757 hit the pentagon; where the WTCs brought down by the planes with WTC7 colapsing from collateral damage or from pre-placed explosives; was flight 93 shot down) distracting from the much more important Why and Who?
#235. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#227)
It is the Preliminary Assessment as included as Annex F of the final report. It does not represent the finding of the ISG.
#236. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#225)
No, sarin at less than 40% purity fails to meet the minimum standard for weapons grade. The shell is designed to work with 40% pure sarin.
The shell was a prototype which was tested.
#237. To: BeAChooser (#235)
#238. To: BeAChooser (#236)
#239. To: BeAChooser (#236)
* The documents also included papers related to new agent research, mix-in-flight binary munitions development, and previously undisclosed involvement of other organizations in CW research.
* Iraq’s CW agent purity, formulation, and production standards in the 1980s program - although inferior to Western standards with the exception of its high-grade mustard - were “good enough” to produce harmful agent proven successful during previous use.
* ISG has also recovered 155mm chemical rounds and 122mm artillery rockets which we judge came from abandoned Regime stocks.
* A senior Iraqi scientist who directed the destruction of chemical and biological munitions contends that the decision to destroy the hidden materials was made at the end of June 1991. David Kay’s inspection and the ensuing controversy prompted Iraqi concerns about renewed war with the United States, according to Dr. Mahmud Firaj Bilal. Amir Rashid contacted Dr. Bilal and ordered that all hidden chemical and biological munitions be destroyed within 48 hours. When Bilal responded that this was impossible, Rashid directed that Bilal use the resources of the Iraqi Air Force and the surface-to-surface missile force to accomplish the task. Dr. Bilal gathered his colleagues from Al Muthanna State Establishment, went to the locations of the stored munitions, and began the destruction.
* Iraq declared some of the unilateral destruction-missiles and chemical munitions-to UNSCOM in March 1992 but continued to conceal the destruction of the biological weapons program.
* These remaining pre-1991 weapons either escaped destruction in 1991 or suffered only partial damage. More may be found in the months and years ahead.
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
Annex F
Chemical Munitions-Other Finds
#240. To: BeAChooser (#236)
"But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."
#241. To: BeAChooser (#236)
Co-Chairman
Co-Chairman
John McCain
Henry S. Rowen
Walter B. Slocombe
William O. Studeman
Charles M. Vest
Patricia Wald
Lloyd Cutler
Vice Admiral (Ret.) Scott Redd
#242. To: BeAChooser (#236)
#243. To: BeAChooser (#236)
108th Congress, 2d Session
SENATE
S. Report 108-301
REPORT of the Select Committee on Intelligence
on the
U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence
together with
Additional Views
#244. To: Kamala, ALL (#230)
Why is anyone bothering with "IT". I think everyone is losing their focus and energy. "IT" is a LIAR.
#245. To: BeAChooser (#244)
#246. To: wbales, Kamala, ALL (#234)
It steers the conversation in the direction of what and how.
#247. To: BeAChooser (#246)
Formerly Fun and Happy Balls.
Formerly balls alert.
Formerly tinfoil wonderballs.
Formerly trilateralballs
Formerly statist miniballs
Formerly balls beat
Formerly Yomin Postelballs
Formerly ballwitch muncher
Formerly tuna piano but not tune your balls
Formerly llort daerter balls
Presently cone of balls
#248. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#239)
This is the Iraq Survey Group FINAL REPORT findings on Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program. Annex F is a copy of the Preliminary Assessment.
The Final Report contains no representation about the purity of sarin produced by Iraq,
The "40% concentration" is in the introduction to the Preliminary Assessment, but not in the main body comments of the Final Report. There is no indication of where that information derived from.
#249. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#242)
US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective.
#250. To: BeAChooser (#248)
#251. To: BeAChooser (#249)
But the concern isn't military effectiveness. The concern is that a WMD, even a degraded one, might fall into the hands of terrorists and be used to create terror (not to mention kill a lot of people). The final ISG report actually mentions that concern in the addendum. Did you miss that?
#252. To: BeAChooser (#248)
There is no indication where many claims in the report derive from. Are all such claims to be dismissed now?
#253. To: BeAChooser (#248)
And the assertion that this statement meant the ISG thought the shell actually contained enough agent to produce several liters of 40 percent sarin was repeated in many venues and not once denied or corrected by members of the ISG.
#254. To: BeAChooser (#249)
But the concern isn't military effectiveness. The concern is that a WMD, even a degraded one, might fall into the hands of terrorists and be used to create terror (not to mention kill a lot of people).
Origin of the Binary Sarin Round Used on BIAP
#255. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#252)
Those who issued the Final Report did not include your favorite information from the Preliminary Assessment.
#256. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#253)
Link/quote to where "the assertion that this statement meant the ISG thought the shell actually contained enough agent to produce several liters of 40 percent sarin" in any official report.
They stated that the shell, partially detonated when found,
was remotely detonated and they only tested what residue was left behind (after the shell had detonated twice).
#257. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#254)
and nothing left to test but residue.
we have no reason to believe that they possessed functional chemical munitions.
No binary tests using chemical agent at the TRC were declared.
They do not even function well as an IED.
#258. To: BeAChooser (#256)
#259. To: BeAChooser (#255)
#260. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#256)
#261. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#258)
The shell had been partially detonated prior to its discovery by U.S. troops.
All that was left for testing was whatever liquid remained, i.e., residue.
The only binary shells which were tested with sarin were the early ones that were mixed just before firing.
After one explosion, sitting in the desert for an unknown time,
the remnants of the ten-year old shell were determined to test positive for sarin and substances given off when sarin degrades.
#262. To: BeAChooser (#261)
#263. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#262)
[BAC] Where do you get that claim? As far as I know, no document says that. I don't even think a credible media source says that. The media reports make it sound like it detonated while US troops were trying to disarm it or certainly after they discovered it. Official statements said it detonated BEFORE it could be disarmed.
The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s.
It was partially detonated when discovered.
You do not partially detonate a shell and try to mess with it.
The report explicitly states that the munitions were remotely detonated.
The report explicitly states that the "remaining liquid" tested "positive" in "ISG field labs" for sarin and "a sarin degradation product."
No, you are leaving out a word and changing "remaining liquid" to just "liquid."
[nc] After one explosion, sitting in the desert for an unknown time,
[BAC] You just making up a story now. That scenario is NOT stated in any official document or even any credible mainstream media outlet.
A partially detonated round has exploded but not all of the explosive charge has been expended.
And your favorite nonsense from the preliminary assessment never made it into the Final Report. It did not get a mention, or even a reference.
#264. To: BeAChooser (#263)
#265. To: BeAChooser (#61)
"pirates"
#266. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#264)
The official report says that the U.S. troops remotely detonated the shell after they discovered it.
It is explicitly stated that it was a partially detonated shell.
Unless it somehow got to be a partially detonated shell after it was discovered
A partially detonated shell would contain unpredictable explosive material and possibly be leaking CW agents. A partially detonated shell is unsafe to handle.
Nobody but BAC would consider partially detonating a shell prior to handling. This would mean discovering an undetonated shell and partially detonating it, rendering it unpredictable and unsafe to handle. This insanity only occurs in BAC-world, where insanity is the norm.
#267. To: nolu_chan, beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#266)
....about that binary round....
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest