posted on May 17, 2004 08:36:37 AM new
It seems that the Army found one shell that may have had serin gas in it and it was being used as an explosive. Apparently the people who used didn't even know that it had gas in it at one time.
The female newscaster on the Re-elect Bush cable channel FOX was almost having an orgasm when she was reporting it.
She couldn't wait to ask guests if they thought one mistaken shell justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq and no one would take the slow pitch and hit it for her.
It is also not clear yet if the binary shell was active or if it was one that was inactivated and still had traces of the gas.
But one thing is certain, the guys who deployed it did so for its explosive and not any gas that may have remained in the shell.
But I am also wondering if the sensing equipment that was used was accurate. As I recall the false positives for gas in the first Gulf war were many.
posted on May 17, 2004 08:56:15 AM new
U.S. Army Says It Finds Shell with Sarin Agent in Iraq
40 minutes ago
Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
BAGHDAD (Reuters)
- A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq (news - web sites), the U.S. army said Monday in the first announcement of discovery of any of the weapons on which Washington made its case for war.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a news conference the substance had been found in an artillery shell inside a bag discovered by a U.S. convoy a few days ago.
The round had exploded, causing a small release of the substance, he said.
"The Iraq Survey Group has confirmed today that a 155 (mm) artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) that was discovered by a U.S. force convoy," he said.
"A detonation occurred before the IED be could be rendered inoperable," Kimmitt said, adding that two members of an explosives team had been treated for exposure to the substance.
Kimmitt said the round, designed to mix the sarin in flight, belonged to a class of ordnance that the ousted government of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) claimed to have destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war.
"It is a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time, and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED... when it exploded it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," he said.
IEDs are bombs usually planted at the side of the road to explode as coalition vehicles pass.
The United States launched its invasion of Iraq last year, accusing then-president Saddam Hussein of developing chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. Failure to find such weapons has stirred criticism in the United States and Britain, Washington's closest ally in the war.
----------------
The good news is that the soldiers involved were checked out and released. [per update minutes ago by B.G. Kimmitt.]
posted on May 17, 2004 10:18:00 AM new
Yeah, right. Even the military says that those who rigged the shell for explosives were probably unaware that at one time it had held serin. We all knew that at one time they had this stuff.
Hello! If they'd had this stuff to use now, they'd have used it! Long before this they'd have used it.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 17, 2004 02:12:16 PM new
So most of you are saying it was an isolated event and the shell just happened to contain Sarin.
Well think again, if there is one shell containing Sarin you can bet there are dozens of others.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 17, 2004 04:39:08 PM new
Yes, there are probably dozen others--with only trace amounts left as well. The military states that the people used the shell to create an IED probably didn't even know what hd been in it at one time.
The shell found certainly wasn't "full of" seren as Hannity claimed on his radio show today. And the single other shell found weeks ago with "dead" mustard (in other words, useless) gas was also used to create an IED. Hannity went on and on about how sick he was of hearing that there are no WMDs because these two shells have been found. Two shells. After more than a year. Some WMDs....
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 17, 2004 09:19:51 PM new
Anyone can make sarin and mustard gas. A religious cult made sarin in Japan, and mustard gas can be made with products that are found in nearly every home.
But if this is such a big deal, why didn't we invade when Saddam was using the poison gas against Iran ?
posted on May 17, 2004 09:38:41 PM newor just one in a New York subway?
So they would attempt to smuggle these shells thousands of miles to attack a NY subway, when they could make the gas themselves right here in the US ?
You've got to be joking.
If this is what you're worried about, then we should be using the troops in Iraq and all the money wasted in Iraq to police our borders. They can't attack with these shells if they can't get in.
The only weapons that would justify our invasion, not occupation, of Iraq would be nuclear or biological such as Small Pox. Iraq had neither.
But Iran is closer to nuclear weapons than Iraq ever was and we won't invade Iran. North Korea claims to already have nuclear weapons and we won't invade them either.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons and we won't invade them.
posted on May 17, 2004 11:07:30 PM new
Inspector: Saddam had WMD on 'short notice'
Report by new director of survey group cites new, hard evidence
Posted: May 12, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
A document leaked by U.S. inspectors presents hard evidence Saddam Hussein could have unleashed biological and chemical weapons on foreign nations "at short notice."
The report by Charles Duelfer, the new director of the Iraq Survey group, said there is evidence the ousted Iraqi dictator was plotting to expand his facilities last year, before the invasion of British and American troops, the Scotsman reported.
Duelfer presents what he calls "new information" on Saddam's military build-up, the newspaper said.
"Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons," Duelfer states. "It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities."
The report refers to new evidence testing was done on long-range ballistic missiles and on a commercial biopesticide, which can be used as anthrax.
Duelfer's report, which has been sent to Congress, is his first after taking over in February for David Kay.
Critics of the war already have questioned Duelfer's findings, charging the new inspector has changed the criteria for finding weapons of mass destruction, shifting from hard evidence to signs of "intent."
The numerous United Nations resolutions passed before the war put the burden of proof on Saddam Hussein to demonstrate he did not have the weapons or the programs.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has challenged the CIA, controller of the survey group, to declassify Duelfer's entire five-page report, the Scotsman said.
"Mr. Duelfer's statement," said Levin, "is written to express the author's 'suspicions' as to Iraq's activities relating to possible weapons of mass destruction programs or activities while leaving out information in the classified report which points away from his suspicions."
Duelfer says in his report the survey team's task is made difficult by the reluctance of former government officials to talk about their role in the weapons programs.
"There is a fear former regime supporters would exact retribution," the report says.
But the group, it continues, received "intriguing" reports about concealed stockpiles of weapons.
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said Monday he believes Saddam had WMD and they've fallen into terrorists' hands, making the threat of terrorism greater now than in the wake of 9-11, Canada's Sun Media reported.
"The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are," Martin told a crowd of about 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal. "That means terrorists have access to all of that."
Martin, with the backing of President Bush, is lobbying the international community to form an informational organization to address world issues such as terrorism.
"I believe that terrorism will be, for our generation, what the Cold War was to generations that preceded us," he said. "I don't think we're out of it yet."
Martin's comments on the root of terrorism contrasted with the views of his predecessor, Jean Chretien, who blamed it on poverty.
"The cause of terrorism is not poverty," Martin said, "it is hatred."
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
[ edited by Bear1949 on May 17, 2004 11:11 PM ]
posted on May 17, 2004 11:47:46 PM new"Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons," Duelfer states.
Boy, that's convincing information. 80% of countries of the world have "facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons".
There is no "hard" evidence that Iraq had any weapons that threatened us.
But it doesn't make any difference if they find 50 or 500 shells with gas in them, they were no threat to us.
posted on May 18, 2004 05:34:58 AM new
Finally, Powell, in an interview with Tim Russert of Meet the Press admits that his testimony before the UN was based on information that he was given which was deliberately misleading. The criminals in our government who deliberately misled Powell should be prosecuted.
Excerpt of Interview
MR. RUSSERT: Thank you very much, sir.
In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before
the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam
Hussein. It now appears that an agent called "Curve Ball" had misled the CIA by
suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological chemical weapons.
How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world
is now inaccurate and discredited?
SECRETARY POWELL: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003
, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me.
We studied it carefully. We looked at the sourcing and the case of the mobile trucks and trains.
There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned
out to be not accurate, and so I'm deeply disappointed.
But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective
judgment, the sound judgment, of the intelligence community, but it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that I'm disappointed, and I regret it.
posted on May 18, 2004 08:36:14 AM new
And then helen there's John McCain's statements about the war.....you know...John McCain...the one the democrats are drooling over - almost to the point of 'praying for' - might accept a VP offer from kerry.....
he speaks directly to *your* first suggestion in this war - 'admit defeat and run'. And he explained why your position would the wrong thing to do.
"If we fail in Iraq, we will have taught our enemies the lesson of Mogadishu, only one hundredfold: If you inflict enough pain, America will leave[b]. Iraq will then descend into chaos and civil war. Warlords will reign. There will be bloodletting. [b]We will have energized the extremists and created a breeding ground for terrorists, dooming the Arab world."
posted on May 18, 2004 09:07:58 AM new
A similar prediction was made when the decision was made to leave Vietnam. . Although leaving will not atone for the horrific blunder that the Bush administration committed and I am sure that there will be negative consequences for years, staying will only serve to compound problems and entail even more destruction and lives lost while accomplishing nothing. Our reputation has been ravished by this inept and dishonest administration. There is no reason whatsoever to wallow in this battle any longer. The hearts and minds of the people of Iraq cannot be won in a military battle.
For many Iraqi Shiites, the United States has become Yazid. And that is not something a colonial power can easily recover from. It will get worse. If the US is responsible or perceived as responsible for Muqtada's death, Muqtada will achieve iconic status as a martyr, as like Imam Husain, and his legend will inspire some portion of Shiites to fight the US to the death. Nor are Muqtada's partisans afraid of martyrdom. Achieving death at the hands of the new Yazid brings them and their families honor. And, for these poor slum boys, life anyway hasn't been that great. They know death; they are not afraid of it.
It was always my nightmare that the US Army would come to fight Shiites in Karbala and Najaf near the shrines. They seemed pretty canny about the dangers until about March of this year. And then all of a sudden, they risked being Yazid. I conclude that this does not come from the US officer corps. I conclude that it comes from the desk of George W. Bush. We don't have any officers in Iraq stupid enough to want to be Yazid. But we have civilian politicians who know nothing about Iraq who gave them an order to get Muqtada at all costs. Why that was so urgent is still not obvious, but, like everything in this war, it will be revealed to be a plot.
posted on May 18, 2004 09:19:35 AM new
It is like the passion of the Christ for devout Christians. And just as you wouldn't want to be identified as Judas by believing Christians, so the last thing you would want if you were among Shiites would be to be seen as in some way like Yazid.
posted on May 18, 2004 01:52:33 PM new
Who is this Juan Cole you quote all the time?
Is he an American? Is he a Muslim or an American Muslim. Does he EVER support anything the US does?....since you seem to think his WORDS are your gospel.
Linda, I'm not interested in a discussion with you because you are clearly only interested in personal attacks. Like many posters here, I don't appreciate your mean spirted remarks. Review what you have said in this thread alone.
For the benefit of others here, Juan Cole recently addressed the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. He is Professor of Modern middle Eastern and South Asian History, University of Michigan. Cole is an authority on modern Islamic movements. His most recent book is Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi`ite Islam.
