UPDATED: TV report: Artillery shells with chemical munitions found in Iraq
I heard a report on Fox News about twenty minutes ago (5 PM Central) that Senator Rick Santorum claims coalition investigators in Iraq found chemical weapons — artillery shells filled with a chemical agent (perhaps sarin nerve agent). The Fox report said Santorum had fought with the Pentagon and White House to get the information declassified. I’d like to see Santorum put his evidence up on the web. Michelle Malkin and her team at Hot Air already had a post up on the story– Hot Air’s post says the artillery shells contained either “degraded mustard” or sarin. I gather the stocks are 1991 (Desert Storm-era) weapons (in other words, left over weapons). I’m not sure that means Saddam had an active chemical weapons program but if this report proves to be true chemical weapons stock would be a violation of UNSCR 687. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Captains Quarters has commentary. Santorum must provide more details and put the declassified documents up on the Web. Fox is replaying Rep Pete Hoekstra– he made the announcement with Senator Santorum. Fox’s Brit Hume says the declassified documents say that since 2003 coalition forces have found 500 weapons with degraded mustard or sarin nerve gas. Fred Barnes said that they are pre-1991 weapons.
Barnes noted Saddam’s chemical weapons program could have been cranked up quickly. That’s correct. Saddam played games with UN inspectors and was playing possum with his nuclear and chemical programs. This is not a large trove of weapons. Artillery rounds are tactical weapons–but nerve gas is still nerve gas and it puzzles me as to why this information took so long to release.
Saddam used WMD and once the Desert Storm sanctions were lifted I believe he intended to reconstitute his programs. To believe otherwise about Saddam is to put you in league with goofs like Michael Moore and George Galloway.
UPDATE 2: If this pans out the categorical statements that “Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction” will be political millstones and albatrosses. I suspect KosKidz and the like will note observations like mine that 500 shells is not a large stockpile. It’s not, but that’s consolation only for the most cynical of spinners and superficial of reporters. I suspect one conspiracy theory we’ll hear is that the shells were planted by the CIA or Pentagon– how long before that crops up?
When it comes to WMD, intent to acquire and use matters. UNSCR 687 and subsequent resolutions gave Saddam very specific guidance and requirements. He violated them in spirit and in fact (in 2003 post-invasion investigators found a handful of modified SCUD missiles violating the requirements).
UPDATE 3: A commenter notes a “wait a minute” from Rawstory. This is why Santorum must put his evidence up on the Web. His claims require evidence. (Thanks for the comment and link.)
UPDATE 4: Michael Ledeen takes me to task:
Austin, if you will read the floor statements by Hoekstra and Santorum you will see that they have read a classified file, of which DNI (Negroponte) declassified a few snippets. Both elected officials said several times that they were very unhappy at the miserly declassification, and they will fight for it all. Your legitimate request for “more information” has to be directed at Negroponte, not at Santorum and Hoekstra.
UPDATE 5:Here’s the document from Negroponte. He needs to release more– and provide more details. (See Michael Ledeen’s comment above.) The administration needs to replace its tin media ear and get off its dense duff. 500 shells is small and likely Iran-Iraq or Desert Storm leftovers– but sarin is sarin.
For readers new to this site–In my well-documented view Saddam had to go because (1) our presence in Saudi Arabia was an Al Qaeda recruiting tool; which is intimately tied to (2) our 12 year war against Saddam had to end with victory, if UN resolutions were to have any substance (and his sanctions evading routines, including Oil For Food, were working); (3) tyrannies are the grounds that breed terrorists, and that is especially true in the Middle East; (4) rogue states want WMD– they are the most-likely supplier of WMD to a terror organization, and post-9/11 we had to show tyrants we mean it about stopping WMD proliferation; (5) Iraq, with its water, source of capital (oil), and comparatively well educated and motivated populace is the prime place to affect democratic change in the politically dysfunctional Middle East.
Thanks for the link, Col. Bay. CNS News has a report here. I’ll be adding video of Santorum in an hour or so.
Comment by Allah — 6/21/2006 @ 4:41 pm
[…] Update: Austin Bay comments: Artillery rounds are tactical weapons–but nerve gas is still nerve gas and it puzzles me as to why this information took so long to release. […]
Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Santorum: Military has found 500 chemical munitions shells in Iraq — 6/21/2006 @ 5:00 pm
Don’t believe the hype: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Republican_Congress_members_claimed_that_evidence_0621.html ED NOTE: I linked in a third Update. Thanks. By the way, some comments are not posting, even if they are approved by the spam filter. This site went down on Saturday and we’ve had a couple of problems since then. I received an email telling me that a few links don’t work– and I know they did work at one time. We’re trying to get these problems fixed by Friday.
Comment by Chuck D. — 6/21/2006 @ 5:02 pm
Anti-Americans will not care about this new revelation. Rather than saying that Bush lied about WMDs, they will go to the ‘quagmire’ or ‘civil war’ idiocies. However, defeating such idiots in a debate is easy, once you know what questions to ask to an anti-American
Comment by Toog — 6/21/2006 @ 6:11 pm
Hmm…, why is Senator Santorum announcing this? Tight race, huh?
Comment by charles austin — 6/21/2006 @ 6:15 pm
Are we surprised that anti-Americans still deny that Saddam once had WMDs, and had often threatedned to use them? The countires who think it was good to remove Saddam, and bring democracy to Iraq, is not small, BTW.
Comment by Toog — 6/21/2006 @ 6:32 pm
Austin, Santorum has put the letter up on the internet. Here’s a PDF file of the letter that National Review has put up at their site: http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/NEGRPONTELETTER.pdf
Comment by Colin Mulloy — 6/21/2006 @ 6:38 pm
Wait, I thought we were over there because Al-Qaida was in Iraq? No, wait, it was because Saddam needed to be taken down. No, it’s because the Iraqis were wanting us to come over and create a democracy for them… Just WHAT is the current reason we’re over there? Are we really back to WMDs? By the way, why is Osama on my television every couple of months mocking America?
Comment by TlalocW — 6/21/2006 @ 6:50 pm
Saddam’s extensive and regular use of chemical weapons against Iran (OK, it was during the 1980’s, but it is well documented in every book about the Iraq/Iran war) is never mentioned at all. Gassing some Kurds got some media play, but I guess both the use and the source of Saddam’s chemical weapons from the eighties might be too embarassing for the anti-war crowd to face.
Comment by Dan Roll — 6/21/2006 @ 6:53 pm
WMDs Found In Iraq… I must have had a database fart, because I wrote about this earlier and then *poof!* it was gone (I may have hit delete instead of edit….I dunno….been one of those days!). Anyway, Santorum was on television earlier talking about intelligence rep…
Trackback by Iowa Voice — 6/21/2006 @ 6:55 pm
Austin, if you will read the floor statements by Hoekstra and Santorum you will see that they have read a classified file, of which DNI (Negroponte) declassified a few snippets. Both elected officials said several times that they were very unhappy at the miserly declassification, and they will fight for it all. Your legitimate request for “more information” has to be directed at Negroponte, not at Santorum and Hoekstra.
Comment by michael ledeen — 6/21/2006 @ 6:57 pm
[…] Austin Bay predicts conspiracy-mongering. Ed Morrissey remembers a sarin gas shell discovery in May 2004. Ed theorizes: Some will claim that the release is strictly for political purposes. They may have a point, but I doubt it will have anything to do with domestic politics. If Bush wanted to use it for that, he would have done so in October 2004 and not in June 2006. This information changes the picture about our pre-war intelligence in time for the Iranian confrontation — and I suspect that the White House wants to declassify it in order to convince European leaders that our intel actually paid off. […]
Pingback by Right Voices » » Iraqi Chemical Munitions Found — 6/21/2006 @ 7:02 pm
Here is what the final comment from the Duelfer report said about a year ago. “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.” “However, ISG believes that any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily signifi cant threat to Coalition Forces because the agent and munitions are degraded and there are not enough extant weapons to cause mass casualties. However, if placed in the hands of insurgents, the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives.” “Since 2003, insurgents have attacked Coalition Forces with two CW rounds (not including attacks with riot control agents) that ISG judges were produced by Iraq prior to 1991.” “ISG believes the perpetrators did not know the rounds contained CW agent because the rounds were not marked to indicate they contained CW agent and they were used no differently than insurgents had employed conventional munition Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).” “There continues to be reporting that indicates terrorists and insurgents possess chemical or biological weapons, although there is no evidence indicating that they have obtained “functional†CBW weapons or agents from the former Regime’s programs. An insurgent captured in Fallujah stated, “If we had chemical weapons, we would have used them.— and so on .. I think we do need more information to properly assess this claim. I recollect there was a raid about a year back on a site in Baghdad that was originally said to be an insurgent site for chemical weapons.
Comment by Mitch — 6/21/2006 @ 7:09 pm
Quote: “By the way, why is Osama on my television every couple of months mocking America?” Because Pres. Clinton let him walk after he was offered to him three times. Great news about the WMDs. Not that the nutter left will give a care.
Comment by Steve — 6/21/2006 @ 7:17 pm
“Great news about the WMDs” You think its great news that insurgents could potentially use chemical weapons in Iraq ?
Comment by Josh m — 6/21/2006 @ 7:19 pm
[…] The “Bush Lied” Lefties are going to cry in their coffee when the MSM picks up this story. […]
Pingback by Silent Running » Blog Archive » George Bush is having a great month — 6/21/2006 @ 7:22 pm
I think the Left’s response will be to dismiss these weapons as Iran-war-era weapons INADVERTENTLY unaccounted for due to their lack of markings and poor Iraqi admin in the chaos of war. So they will presumably say, e.g., that these IN NO WAY indicate any WMD-related intentional post-Gulf-War-I violations of UN Sec Council demands. They may be correct on this, or not–only further intel releases might resolve this issue.
Comment by John Rylander — 6/21/2006 @ 7:35 pm
Wait, I thought we were over there because Al-Qaida was in Iraq? No, wait, it was because Saddam needed to be taken down. No, it’s because the Iraqis were wanting us to come over and create a democracy for them… Just WHAT is the current reason we’re over there? Are we really back to WMDs? Is that the difference between liberals and conservatives? That liberals only do something if there is just one reason to do it, while conservatives can do something if there is more than one reason to do it? Liberals never seem to be able to focus on more than one idea at a time. You know — worst economy every (except that it is as good as it was during the Clinton years). Let’s not do that. How about culture of corruption. (Oops, I guess we got some of our folks, in that too.) No, lets not do that. We’re losing in Iraq (a better one, because until final victory is achieved there is always the chance to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory). Did I miss any? ED NOTE: This is an excellent “deconstruction” of the so-called “appeasenik” arguments. See my update for new readers. I do think this critique is accurate: the Bush Administration did not consistently present the multiple arguments. Look through Bush’s speeches in February 2003 and you will see the democracy, terrorist support, and WMD arguments, but the presentations tend to be split. You have to read the State of the Union then read the AEI speech, etc.
Comment by Mark L — 6/21/2006 @ 7:39 pm
Of all the lies the anti-war movement has told, the one about “no WMD in Iraq” is by far the most heinous.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 6/21/2006 @ 7:39 pm
Of all the lies the anti-war movement has told, the one about “no WMD in Iraq†is by far the most heinous. Yup, its terrible. Think of all those pilotless drones, those massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, that reconstituted nuclear weapons program — all those lies spread by .. er … by someone. And in the end we have a report of a few old shells, most of which may be degraded or not, found in unknown circumstances, which even the intelligence community doesn’t seem to think are significant, and largely predicted by the Duelfer report. Poor Rick. Running at 38% in a re-election race is such a drag.
Comment by Jon — 6/21/2006 @ 7:48 pm
Poor Democrats - caught in another lie.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 6/21/2006 @ 7:49 pm
[…] These 500 shells… […]
Pingback by Strangely Silent: De Doc`s Ventures » Blog Archive » WMD? What WMD? — 6/21/2006 @ 7:51 pm
I cannot believwe the credulity and wishful thinking here. How is this vague, unsubstantiated claim in any way inconsistant with the Iraq Survey Group’s report that “a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered”? Even if this story’s true, and the record of the GOP on this stuff is pretty bad, we’re talking about maybe 500 degraded checmical weapons shells that could very well have been buried and forgotten years before the war. Hardly a threat to the world, and far cry from the “mushroom cloud” we were told was looming. Are a few hundred decayed, probably nonfunctioning shells worth over 2500 dead Americans, 30,000 or more dead Iraqis, the trashing of our global reputation and the degradation of our military? Face facts people, this war was based on lies and deceit and ignorance, on nonexistent weapons and imagined Saddam-Al Qaeda conspiracies. You can live in your little fantasy world all you want, but the country is realizing just what an ugly farce you rightwingers have launched us upon. You can’t stay in fantast land forever.
Comment by Justin K. — 6/21/2006 @ 7:52 pm
Declassified: More WMDs Found in Iraq…. More WMDs in Iraq. Captain Ed has rolling updates on the story. The quick summary is that Senator Rick Santorum has a declassified summary from Intel Czar John Negroponte confirming that between 2003 and now, forces in Iraq have found 500 artillery s…
Trackback by The Sundries Shack — 6/21/2006 @ 7:57 pm
Furthermore, if genuine WMDs were discovered do you think the Administration leave it for a Senator running at 38% popularity right now to publish it ? They would announce it, maybe publish an addendum to the Duelfer report. Of course, the original report should be available to all Senators. I expect more leaks from it pretty soon from the Dems. [ Incidentally, Santorum said in the press conference that the ISG stopped in 2004, and the shells were found since then. Thats not correct, the ISG published a final report in April 2005. Also, Negroponte mentions that these are shells found since 2003]
Comment by Jon — 6/21/2006 @ 8:02 pm
Mustard Gas is inherently unstable: which is why it’s such a good primitive chemical warfare agent. Traces of water are needed to kick off the degradation reaction…the same thing happens with moisture in the victim’s lungs. The mustard gas releases hydrochloric acid: it’s the agent that is the real menace. Sarin is a phosphate ester and even more unstable. Again, traces of water will catalyze the decomposition reaction, although one of its products affects the central nervous system. Sarin is so nasty that even Adolph Hitler did not use it in WWII…perhaps because he was gassed (phosgene) humself in WWI! In any event, it would be hard to determine when the gases were manufactured since we have no idea on how carefully they were synthesized and purified. Storage would be a factor too: high ambient temperatures would also hasten the decomposition reactions. They might well have been made just before OIF went in…we’ll never know although we can suspect.
Comment by Good Ole Charlie — 6/21/2006 @ 8:03 pm
Deadly Chemical Weapons Found In Iraq, Democrats Not Happy… We have listened to the left wing lunatics for three years now and all they have told us is that WMD did not exist in Iraq. We have been told that we were lied into war and that Hussein, being the nice guy he is, got rid of all his WMD when he was tol…
Trackback by BIG DOG'S WEBLOG — 6/21/2006 @ 8:04 pm
“They might well have been made just before OIF went in…we’ll never know although we can suspect.” Well, the ISG seems to have had a pretty good handle on when the shells they found were made. So maybe we can do mroe than suspect ?
Comment by Jon — 6/21/2006 @ 8:16 pm
[…] More at: Captain’s Quarters Hot Air JunkYard Blog Austin Bay Blog American Conservative Daily Sister Toldjah […]
Pingback by WMD in Iraq at 4thelittleguy.com — 6/21/2006 @ 8:24 pm
Does This Change Anything… Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) have gone on the record (video courtesy of Hot Air) today as saying that the US has recovered more than 500 artillery shells containing sarin and mustard gas since 2003. That has quite a few fo…..
Trackback by A Blog For All — 6/21/2006 @ 8:28 pm
I’m amazed at the No WMD in Iraq claim that the MSM keeps insisting on. What about the 340 tons of RDX, PETN and HMX at Al Qa Qaa bunker that the IAEA knew about and had cataloged but then disappeared during the invasion. That was back in 2003. If you don’t know about these, they’re really good at compressing Plutonium cores to criticality for nuclear weapons.
Comment by Mark — 6/21/2006 @ 8:36 pm
[…] Austin Bay has a good round up, as well as Instapundit, Captains Quarters and Michelle Malkin […]
Pingback by Morning Coffee » 500 Chemical Munitions found in Iraq — 6/21/2006 @ 8:40 pm
Leaks and Announcements… This Insta post has a transcript from congressmen who want to tell you something but are not doing so because the information is classified. This is as it should be. I do wonder, however, if the information they are presenting includes the IEDs we f…
Trackback by Chapomatic — 6/21/2006 @ 9:05 pm
Leaks and Announcements… This Insta post has a transcript from congressmen who want to tell you something but are not doing so because the information is classified; they’ve been working to release what can be released and had a press conference announcing the……
Trackback by MilBlogs — 6/21/2006 @ 9:09 pm
Senator Rick Santorum: WMD Found in Iraq… This news broke while I was tied up for a few hour. It’s not easy to make sense out of this at the moment. Austin Bay blogged it as it unfolded: I heard a report on Fox News about twenty minutes ago (5 PM Central) that Senator Rick Santorum claim…
Trackback by Blogs of War — 6/21/2006 @ 9:13 pm
There were tons of stockpiles. If you can dig through the many reports from the first weeks of the war, the Army encountered many tons of barrels that tested positive for nerve agents. It was only later that the CIA would come in and declare that “no, these are tons and tons of insecticide; nothing to look at here.” Even though these thousands of barrels of “insecticide” were found buried at Saddam’s military bases, we were told that the Army’s tests were all false positives. Now who was it at the CIA in charge of WMD? Plame something or other?
Comment by Korla Pundit — 6/21/2006 @ 9:27 pm
Has everyone been under a rock? I’ve heard a lot of reports in the past three years about a number of loaded shells being found. Some of the older blogs covered it but the antique MSM ignored it as usual. It should be of no surpise to anyone since Saddam had the capability to make all kinds of WMD but no capability to destroy any of it, other than what was used to kill any number of people. If the people of this country don’t wake up and quit listening to the cowards on the left from turncoat politicians to out and out communist with an eye on controlling this country they will wake up some morning and find half the country destroyed. People like Hanoi John and Murtha have no one’s interest at heart except their political power. Time to turn them all out to pasture or drag them out and shoot them. I prefer the latter.
Comment by Scrapiron — 6/21/2006 @ 9:42 pm
Yes, those of us who paid attention knew about this a long time ago. But, just because it is “old news” does not mean it is insignificant. The contents of a single one of these blown into the air conditioning ducts of a high rise would be very bad news indeed. Good old Charlie above says they were probably degraded. That presupposes they were not in binary form. I have read that at least some of these are binary shells, the components of which can remain stable for a very long time.
Comment by Reid — 6/21/2006 @ 10:02 pm
Bad News For Democrats… Anybody with more than 2 functioning braincells can logically understand that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his WMD program after the 1991 Gulf War. To believe otherwise is — as Austin Bay puts it — “to put you in league with goof…
Trackback by UrbanGrounds — 6/21/2006 @ 10:04 pm
Here’s your WMD… WMD’s in Iraq? According to Senator Rick Santorum, there are documents which describe WMD discoveries that started in 2003. You and I didn’t hear about them, because they were classified….
Trackback by Righty in a Lefty State — 6/21/2006 @ 10:04 pm
WMDs in Iraq… 500 artillery shells found with remnants of chemical weapons inside. In my view, this amounts to "so what?" We know Saddam had a lot more than that; where is the rest? Did the R ……
Trackback by Chris At Home — 6/21/2006 @ 10:09 pm
How the hell is this news? I’ve been noting this crap was around since early 2004. I mean, it’s great to KNOW instead of just SUSPECT that we found some of it… but anyone paying enough attention and not glurked by the media should have known there were stockpiles left. And now you’re asking the American Government to release the information on how much and how well they’ve cleaned up after Saddam? I’m sure it’d be great to make political points at the cost of making clear exactly what storehouses on the good old list Saddam must have passed out are or are not secured.
Comment by Blue — 6/21/2006 @ 10:37 pm
[…] I’ve been waiting for something like this for quite some time. I want to repeat this post is NOT stating that we’ve found them… Only that certain Senators (Santorum) say that there’s classified information that we have already found WMD’s in Iraq. Here’s a roundup over at AustinBay’s blog. I really liked a point down in his comments about how the anti-war crowd will dismiss these WMD’s in the event that the evidence becomes declassified. That brings up a point, why in the name of the all mighty scrumptious turkey sandwich are they keeping this information CLASSIFIED? If, and I do mean if, this story is found to be true and the MSM don’t run with it and pound it in to the collective public’s head, we internet news people should start donating to start our own damn news channel. We don’t even need it to run over cable, just stream it over the net and make notifying their viewers and readers of any mishaps and corrections the major priority. The damn news should be doing it anyway. Now that I’m off my high horse I’ll put a clip from AustinBay’s comments and leave ya’ll alone to go read his post. I think the Left’s response will be to dismiss these weapons as Iran-war-era weapons INADVERTENTLY unaccounted for due to their lack of markings and poor Iraqi admin in the chaos of war. So they will presumably say, e.g., that these IN NO WAY indicate any WMD-related intentional post-Gulf-War-I violations of UN Sec Council demands. They may be correct on this, or not–only further intel releases might resolve this issue. […]
Pingback by TexasXtreme » WMD Found IN Iraq? — 6/21/2006 @ 10:52 pm
[…] Austin Bay has a sober analysis. […]
Pingback by The Wide Awake Cafe » Chemical Weapons Were There After All — 6/21/2006 @ 11:13 pm
“(1) our presence in Saudi Arabia was an Al Qaeda recruiting tool; which is intimately tied to (2) our 12 year war against Saddam had to end with victory, if UN resolutions were to have any substance (and his sanctions evading routines, including Oil For Food, were working); (3) tyrannies are the grounds that breed terrorists, and that is especially true in the Middle East; (4) rogue states want WMD– they are the most-likely supplier of WMD to a terror organization, and post-9/11 we had to show tyrants we mean it about stopping WMD proliferation; (5) Iraq, with its water, source of capital (oil), and comparatively well educated and motivated populace is the prime place to affect democratic change in the politically dysfunctional Middle East.” (6) Strategically puts logistical capability on the ground to attack either Syria or Iran (2 sides), which was probably a contributor to getting Syria out of Lebanon. (3A/4A) See Libya. (7) Honeypot. etc. NED
Comment by NewEnglandDevil — 6/21/2006 @ 11:26 pm
BULLSHIT ! read even the fox story and you will see it is NOT the WMD.
Comment by nick werle — 6/22/2006 @ 12:05 am
My, my, my. Resorting to the ‘BS’ language indicates a lack of logical thought. When the facts are not on your side, pound the table and shout. Nick, you logic has convinced me. . . . . . or not. I know people that were in country and and confirm this story. However, it may, shall we say, implicate other nationalities. There is far more here than has been released. But, who knows, maybe we can tie Haliburton into this! Regards,
Comment by Mike — 6/22/2006 @ 12:37 am
What a pack of lawyers you are. 500 pre gulf war rounds is a MOLEHILL. You guys have no sense of proportion. Anything to avoid having to admit Iraq is a HUGE mistake. You are only fooling each other, chumps.
Comment by John Williams — 6/22/2006 @ 2:42 am
How many times have these dirtbags lied to you in the past? Lost count?
Comment by John Williams — 6/22/2006 @ 2:48 am
(6-by NED) between Syria and Iran, but also (5b) Violations of UN resolutions meant the USA was already arguably “legal” to enforce prior resolutions. There is a body, the UN SC, to hear such arguments. That UN SC, including the USA veto, did NOT declare the Iraq invasion illegal. Kofi (the crook) may think so, and say so; Bush says legal. The UN SC resolutions are the definitive source — no resolution by them, means it’s unjustified to say the US action is illegal. (I happen to think the US Constitution has NO right for abortion, but it’s the US SC decision, not mine…they’ve said there is such a right.)
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 6/22/2006 @ 4:05 am
I think pretty much everyone’s right on track here, but there’s another factor that I haven’t heard mentioned: Arab culture is a shame-based culture. If you can’t show that you are the biggest and the best (and/or the baddest) you are shamed. Having thrown himself out into the international arena as a Big Man, even if he had no more than the 500 (which every sane and intelligent person knows is b*s*!), there is still no way that he would ever have backed down to say, “Well, guys, I don’t really have any - it was just a bluff, to keep those other guys off my back”. Pretty much every bit of intel that *EVERYONE* had on him says he had it (yes, even you, Europe, so stop whinging), and that intel goes back several decades. And he also had in place extensive facilities and equipment to begin production just as soon as the sanctions were lifted, which I suspect the French and Russians were going to lobby for, had we not made the distinction of holding them to those resolutions imposed on them by the All Holy UN (many salaaams unto them). Not that they have any leg to stand on anymore - after the whole Oil for Food (which could more properly be called Oil for Sadaam’s New Palaces, since his building of them skyrocketed during those years). Funny how the public never gets to hear about all those little details…(”No, don’t bother telling them, they wouldn’t understand it anyway, and besides it might get them all riled up and start making them do things like think for themselves!”)
Comment by Kate — 6/22/2006 @ 4:11 am
The Middle Finger Salute To The “Bush Lied People Died” Hysterics … It was important to re-establish credibility, and the President has played the diplomacy card like a true master. It was now time to squash the critics and prove beyond reasonable doubt that U.S. intelligence was indeed correct. Good man. It shows that…
Trackback by All Things Beautiful — 6/22/2006 @ 6:01 am
We also have the memos CNSNews.com published in October 2004, one of which showed an attempt to acquire mustard gas in 1999. Between Townhousegate and this little piece of news, I think Kos had the mother of all bad days yesterday.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 6/22/2006 @ 6:42 am
[…] Austin Bay, as always, has an excellent round-up. […]
Pingback by The Everyday Economist » Blog Archive » So there were WMDs after all — 6/22/2006 @ 6:55 am
[…] Update! Austin Bay sums up: Saddam used WMD and once the Desert Storm sanctions were lifted I believe he intended to reconstitute his programs. To believe otherwise about Saddam is to put you in league with goofs like Michael Moore and George Galloway. […]
Pingback by Cold Fury » Blog Archive » NOW will you shut up? — 6/22/2006 @ 7:13 am
These comments should be “sticky” and at the top of your blog: For readers new to this site–In my well-documented view Saddam had to go because (1) our presence in Saudi Arabia was an Al Qaeda recruiting tool; which is intimately tied to (2) our 12 year war against Saddam had to end with victory, if UN resolutions were to have any substance (and his sanctions evading routines, including Oil For Food, were working); (3) tyrannies are the grounds that breed terrorists, and that is especially true in the Middle East; (4) rogue states want WMD– they are the most-likely supplier of WMD to a terror organization, and post-9/11 we had to show tyrants we mean it about stopping WMD proliferation; (5) Iraq, with its water, source of capital (oil), and comparatively well educated and motivated populace is the prime place to affect democratic change in the politically dysfunctional Middle East. ED NOTE: This web log follows many issues so I’ll pass on the “sticky” suggestion. Readers are invited to read through the 200 or so columns found in the ON POINT section of http://www.strategypage.com, beginning with the January 2001 column on America’s looming intelligence failures (that’s January 2001).Â
Comment by nick — 6/22/2006 @ 7:42 am
Way back in the olden days of the early 1970s there were acres and acres of one ton containers most full of mustard gas made during WW II but some containing GB made during the 1950s that had been sitting in the desert in Utah until they were finally incinerated. As I recall, the people disposing of that stuff were wearing full butyl rubber suits. It seems that the stuff does not degrade quite as quickly or as thoroughly as some people are suggesting.
Comment by Mark in Texas — 6/22/2006 @ 8:19 am
[…] Also on this story: Power Line | Austin Bay | Flopping Aces | Sister Toldjah | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy | Hot Air (Video) […]
Pingback by The Blorg: Links to Terror — 6/22/2006 @ 9:21 am
If a Tree Falls in the Forest …… Yesterday afternoon John Stephenson reported that Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) had released the details of a recently declassified document:…. the finding of over 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specif…
Trackback by ShrinkWrapped — 6/22/2006 @ 9:47 am
Saddam’s WMD For those interested in this story that the MSM has no desire to cover, Ray Robison Blog is a must read. Also General Sada’s book, Saddam’s Secrets, is also a must read. RBT
Comment by rocketsbrain — 6/22/2006 @ 10:06 am
If this report is true, it IS a major find in the context of potential terrorist operations against this country. As the Aum Shin Rykyo incident showed, it takes only small quantities of nerve agents to launch highly disruptive attacks on civilian populations. Since these concerns were key, if not predominant, reasons for the invasion of Iraq, they will be a major embarassments to critics of the Bush Admin action against Iraq. Even aged artillery rounds contain enough agent for multiple such attacks. We shouldn’t let the inevitable spin from those critics obscure the fact that Iraq could have been a major clandestine instigator of such attacks. It matters little whether Saddam had 500 or 5 or 5000 of these rounds. He was prohibitted from owning even 1 and in skillful hands, 1 is enough. Even now, there is NO guarantee that these weapons haven’t already found those hands. That might explain Bush’ reticicence to publicize this.
Comment by Jim Sweet — 6/22/2006 @ 10:12 am
“The lawmakers [Santorum and Hoekstra] pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.” So these shells were innert, not useable as weapons and buried and forgoton for signifantly more than a dozen years, and you want to cry Weapons of Mass Destruction? Perhaps you should believe the Bush administration when they say this essentially a farce. Even someone at Powerline can see this isnt news: “. . . . but what they’re talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn’t appear to constitute evidence that Saddam’s regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years.” Everyone knows that Saddam used such weapons before the first gulf war. In fact, Rumsfeld traveled to meet with Saddam Hussein to assure that we still backed him during the Reagan administration even though the US knew that he used such weapons against the Kurds. Old deteriorated shells are hardly are not Weapons of Mass Destruction and pose no threat to the US. Responding to some of the comments, I dont see how you equate not believing every silly piece of political propaganda as equivalent to being anti-American. Real patriots arnt afraid of the truth. The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
Comment by Catch22 — 6/22/2006 @ 10:41 am
1) Tlalo, there are now, and have always been, multiple reasons, only some of which are within the bounds for a leader to discuss publicly. Multiple reasons. Convergence. Dig the concept. 2) This find really, really, means nothing. I am very surprised that the reality of chemical weapons has become lost in the Myth. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. But chemical weapons are a century old technology know. Producing these things isn’t a challenge for a military industrial complex of even a third world nation, its barely a challenge for a college chemistry lab. Tech moves on. Good Lord, we have wackos in Gaza, a socially retarded human cesspool, manufacturing and launching rockets that would have been state of the art weaponry in 1860. This we call progress. So the real question, the important question, is not “Did Saddam have chemical weapons?” It is “Was Saddam desirous of producing chemical weapons, now or at some point in the future following the imminent breakdown of the inspections/sanctions system?” That is the meaningful question. Ben
Comment by Ben — 6/22/2006 @ 10:44 am
A blatant lie doesn’t help the critic’s cause. There have been NO recorded sales of chemical agents or weapons by the US. Saddam and friends were perfectly capable of making their own, especially with German and French suppliers eager for sales. If you want to make such charges, provide some proof.
Comment by Jim Sweet — 6/22/2006 @ 10:47 am
The future point to be used against the MWD finds. As was stated on MSNBC on today’s First Look news program the mustard agent found in Iraq was dismissed as not being dangerous. However the military disposal unit crewmember who was severely burned by a French WWII mortar shell filled with mustard agent found in dredged sea bed material in Dover, DE last year would, I’m sure, take comfort from their report. Also, I work at an army base destroying mustard agent. Our people wear expensive, disposable, uncomfortable, inflated suits to protect themselves from 60+ year’s old mustard. We have spent hundreds of million of dollars over the last 3 years to dispose of American pre-WWII mustard agent but based on MSNBC it was obviously wasted money since the mustard agent was old and degraded. And there are other projects gearing up to dispose of mustard agent and other old chemical weapons, so more money could be saved by stopping these projects. Also our silly congress has mandated that this material can not be transported outside of the military bases where they are stored. Disposal, especially in a non-centralized faculty, is obviously a total waste of money. Degraded mustard agent dangerous; must be another one of those Bush lies.
Comment by Al R — 6/22/2006 @ 10:49 am
Them WMDs Must Be Here Somewheres …… By now, you all know that Little Ricky said last night on Fox News that they’d finally found those elusive WMDs, the existence of which was put forward as the first of many reasons we went to war. Of course,…
Trackback by AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring Blogenfreude — 6/22/2006 @ 10:53 am
Old agent isn’t dead agent. I spent 75-79 at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Md as an Army Chemical Officer. Our post was a chemical storage facility (Edgewood Arsenal) and research installation. Most of the nerve agent stored there was manufactured in the early ’60s and earlier. Despite their age and less than ideal storage facilities, this agent routinely tested above 90% purity. Agent in buried munitions is actually a better storage situation than we had, due to reduced moisture and temperature fluctuations. If the reports are accurate, these agents were very likely still quite deadly. Aum Shin Rykyo caused mass panic and thousands of hospitalizations with small quantities of home brewed agent of less than 1% purity. The ignorance of the left here is surpassed only by it’s self-delusion.
Comment by Jim Sweet — 6/22/2006 @ 10:56 am
It is curious that this information was not released a long time ago, isn’t it? Why would the US want to keep it a secret? Former Army intelligence agent Dave DeBatto reported months ago that chemical weapons were found in Iraq in the spring of 2004 - there is a twist in the story, though: One of the most memorable things about the WMD, DeBatto said, was that the bombs had been sold to Iraq in the late 1980’s by the United States. The bills of lading were still attached and perfectly legible. The entire weapons cache was photographed and videotaped for U.S. Army Military Intelligence and hauled away almost immediately after DeBatto’s discovery by a British Army ordinance disposal unit. DeBatto has been unable to get the Pentagon to release any information concerning the disposition of the weapons since he returned from Iraq. See: http://www.davedebatto.com/archive.php?article_id=1 Now DeBatto says he was there when they found them. It is consistent with what Santorum said, except Santorum left out the “Made in the USA” part. One of the things that never gets much attention now is the extent to which the USA aided Saddam during the Iran - Iraq war. Man, this is a twisted and dark world we’ve living in.
Comment by notway — 6/22/2006 @ 11:05 am
For those who dismiss the finding of these 500+ weapons, I am curious to know: Does this mean that if some or all of the weapons are still dangerous and they had been used against Coalition troops and/or civilians, the resulting deaths somehow … wouldn’t count?
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 6/22/2006 @ 11:10 am
There are no WMDs… in Liberal fantasyland… Over and over, we keep finding proof that Saddam DID still have weapons of mass destruction (the new declassified fax is here), he DID have ties to al Qaeda, and Bush’s policy in Iraq is winning, not losing. It seems that the Left, for all its claims….
Trackback by reverse_vampyr — 6/22/2006 @ 12:17 pm
It is interesting that the White House has made no comment on the finding of the weapons. Is it possible that our “good friends,” Russia and China might have been involved in supplying these weapons? John Loftus has been talking to John Batchelor, ABC Radio, about a recently discovered document detailing the whereabouts of anothr WMD stockpile. Looking forward to more information on both discoveries. Did anyone really believe Sadaam had been a good boy?
Comment by Big Deee — 6/22/2006 @ 12:23 pm
People like Hanoi John and Murtha have no one’s interest at heart except their political power. Time to turn them all out to pasture or drag them out and shoot them. I prefer the latter. Comment by Scrapiron — 6/21/2006 @ 9:42 pm Remarkable that none have taken Scrapiron to task for advocating the execution of a U.S. Congressman but I’m curious as to whether the admin of this site supports the general sentiment since the comment has been left standing since last night.
Comment by Badlands — 6/22/2006 @ 1:22 pm
And what the hell were all those trucks going to Syria, and those cargo planes going to Russia, and those ships going to North Korea?
Comment by Sharpshooter — 6/22/2006 @ 2:09 pm
I wouldn’t get too excited about this. These “WMD’s” shelf life expired years ago. Are you really going to resort to “but..wait…he could have started making them again! yeah, that’s it!” You chickenhawks amaze me. Who cares, as long as we are over there kicking some Arab ass, right? Truth and justice be damned (and the 2,500 fallen soldiers).
Comment by scott — 6/22/2006 @ 4:20 pm
Scott said “WMD’s†shelf life expired years ago”. I am a chemist with involvment with nerve agent destruction. These weapons remain lethal for decades.
Comment by Frank — 6/22/2006 @ 6:10 pm
[…] And we're only getting part of the story. The rest is still classified. So classified even the NY Times won't publish it. […]
Pingback by Think Tankers » So Saddam had WMD after all — 6/24/2006 @ 3:07 am
[…] Austin Bay predicts conspiracy-mongering. Ed Morrissey remembers a sarin gas shell discovery in May 2004. Ed theorizes: Some will claim that the release is strictly for political purposes. They may have a point, but I doubt it will have anything to do with domestic politics. If Bush wanted to use it for that, he would have done so in October 2004 and not in June 2006. This information changes the picture about our pre-war intelligence in time for the Iranian confrontation — and I suspect that the White House wants to declassify it in order to convince European leaders that our intel actually paid off. […]
Pingback by Artist Thinker » Chemical Munitions in Iraq — 6/24/2006 @ 3:23 am
Dawn Patrol… Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our daily roundup of information on the War on Terror and other topics - from the MilBlogs, other blogs, and the mainstream media. If you’re a blogger, you can join the conversation. If you link……
Trackback by Mudville Gazette — 6/24/2006 @ 3:55 am
[…] Austin Bay blogged it as it unfolded: I heard a report on Fox News about twenty minutes ago (5 PM Central) that Senator Rick Santorum claims coalition investigators in Iraq found chemical weapons — artillery shells filled with a chemical agent (perhaps sarin nerve agent). The Fox report said Santorum had fought with the Pentagon and White House to get the information declassified. I’d like to see Santorum put his evidence up on the web. Michelle Malkin and her team at Hot Air already had a post up on the story– Hot Air’s post says the artillery shells contained either “degraded mustard†or sarin. I gather the stocks are 1991 (Desert Storm-era) weapons (in other words, left over weapons). I’m not sure that means Saddam had an active chemical weapons program but if this report proves to be true chemical weapons stock would be a violation of UNSCR 687. Stay tuned. […]
Pingback by Senator Rick Santorum: WMD Found in Iraq - America at war blog — 8/15/2006 @ 7:38 am
Sorry guys, but 500 artillery shells is hardly a smoking gun. Its far more likely that these shells were merely overlooked when Saddam had Hussein Kamal destroy all of his WMDS after the 1991 Gulf War,rather than deliberately hidden. The scanty info provide seems to imply that they were all found in the same place, but IMO that seems unlikely. These are battlefield weapons,not WMDS. Artillery shells are not effective dispersal mechanisms for nerve agents.A quick chemistry lesson: when something degrades,like say mutard gas or sarin,it’s chemical composition changes. This means that it is NO LONGER MUSTARD GAS OR SARIN,hence NOT a WMD. Are 500 useless weapons worth half a trillion dollars and 1000;s of deaths and injuries? I do not understand the contention that Saddam had to go because we were in SA. This makes no sense. Are tyrannies breeding grounds for terrorists? Maybe so. But Iraq wasn’t a breeding ground for terrorists until the USA invaded. And since Saudia Arabia is the number one state supporter of terrorism,and 15 of 19 hijackers had Saudi passports,and Saudia Arabia is a model for tyrannical regimes, why have we not invaded Saudia Arabia? Saddam was undoubtly a tyrant,but his tyranny suppressed violent Islamic extremism quite successfully,as Iraq was a secular state,and radical Islam was a threat to Saddams rule. Saddam Husseins primary concern was the continued rule of Saddam Hussein. He would not have jeopardised that by supporting anti-USA terrorism because he is smart enough to know that if he did he would have been removed from power.
Comment by gsmalz — 9/4/2006 @ 3:18 pm
Model Tall Ships…
People who have talked with me about the current economic crisis know that I have been saying for months that I believe it is a global debt crisis– not a credit crisis, not a subprime crisis, not a mortgage crisis, although all of those are contributi…
Trackback by Model Tall Ships — 3/14/2009 @ 8:27 am