Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Sound of Silence: Iraq's WMDs Found (good factual info)
Men's News Daily ^ | May 28, 2004 | Joe Mariani

Posted on 05/29/2004 9:28:28 PM PDT by FairOpinion

After spending more than a year attacking the Bush administration daily for their supposed failure to produce the WMDs that everyone -- including the United Nations, as well as most leading Democrats -- believed Saddam had hidden, the Left has suddenly gone strangely silent on the subject. The "mainstream" media has been tiptoeing around the discovery of a 155-mm mortar shell containing Sarin gas in Iraq, the contents of which have been confirmed. The shell was used as part of an improvised explosive device (IED) on a road near the Baghdad International Airport, and exploded as it was being disarmed.

The shell contained three liters of Sarin -- nearly a gallon. It was a type of shell designed to mix chemical components during flight, which was why the explosion didn't kill anyone (though two soldiers were treated for exposure). Three liters of Sarin is enough, if the components are mixed properly, to realistically kill hundreds, and potentially thousands. A concentration of 100 milligrams of Sarin per cubic meter of air is enough to constitute a lethal dose for half the people breathing it within one minute.

This type of chemical warfare shell had never been declared by Iraq -- it was not even known that Iraq had ever made them. The 1999 UNSCOM report on Iraq reported that thirty binary/Sarin shells were known to exist, and stated that all had been accounted for. According to UNSCOM, "Iraq developed a crude type of binary munition, whereby the final mixing of the two precursors to the agent was done inside the munition just before delivery." Someone actually had to physically pour the components of the Sarin (or other type of G-series nerve agent) into the shells before they could be fired. At least, that's how the ones we knew about worked.

So, a previously-unknown type of artillery shell is found in Iraq, containing an actual, verifiable chemical weapon. This is front page news, right? Should we expect apologies from formerly doubting Liberals? Newspapers filled with retractions from prominent Democrats? Conciliatory visits to President Bush from Jaques Chirac and Gerhardt Schroeder? Not so fast. Remember: it's an election year. Liberals, Democrats, terrorists and appeasers all want President Bush to lose the election so everyone can get back to business as usual. Terrorists want to get back to their implacable war against Western civilisation, and the others want to get back to trying to placate them. The media, as long as we let them get away with it, will only run stories that attack President Bush and undermine support for him. In fact, Liberals already have their spin on this Sarin find ready to go. The vast majority of them -- when you can get them to admit that the Sarin and the shell are real -- argue that it doesn't matter for one of four "reasons."

A. The shell is old, from before the 1991 Gulf War, so it's not what we were looking for.

Since the cease-fire that suspended the Gulf War depended on Saddam's handing over to the UN "[a]ll chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities", this shell is precisely what we were looking for, especially if it predates 1991. This shell and others like it is why the UN passed 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam disarm. No matter how old it was, it was still lethal. There is no statute of limitations on weapons of mass destruction.

B. There is only one shell, not a stockpile, so it doesn't mean anything.

This one shell contained enough WMD material to potentially kill as many people as died on 9/11, all by itself. Is it logical to assume that this is the only one in existence -- or just wishful thinking? The fact is that we still don't know how much Sarin Iraq actually produced. "At first, Iraq told UNSCOM that it had produced an estimated 250 tons of tabun and 812 tons of sarin. In 1995, Iraq changed its estimates and reported it had produced only 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin." (Yes, that's tons.) At the very least, it tells us that we haven't nearly finished looking for the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to surrender, and didn't. Besides... a shell containing mustard gas was also found. Well, maybe there were only two WMD shells in all of Iraq.

C. Just because Saddam had WMDs after all, it doesn't mean Bush didn't lie about them.

As ridiculous as it sounds, this appears to be the instinctive, defensive reaction of many Liberals to this news. They so badly need to believe that President Bush lied in order to legitimise their hatred of him that they're capable of this sort of twisted reasoning. The rationale seems to be that WMDs don't count if they aren't exactly where the CIA told us they were, as if they couldn't be moved.

D. The terrorists didn't even know it was a chemical shell.

Well, they do now. And they know where they found it, too.

We need to redouble our efforts to stop the terrorists and find Saddam's WMDs, before they're used to derail the new Iraqi government's formation. The media's refusal to give this news the coverage it deserves can only be due to a calculated attempt to reduce American support for our efforts in Iraq, including that of tracking down Saddam's banned weapons. The Left's deliberate silence on this subject for the purpose of influencing our election only helps our enemies.

(Excerpt) Read more at mensnewsdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; mediablackout; sarin; wmd
Suggest going to the original link to read the article, because the author has a lot of links to references and articles, that you may want to use.
1 posted on 05/29/2004 9:28:29 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Kool-Aid avec Sarin goes great!


2 posted on 05/29/2004 9:41:15 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

It is important to note that the shell was a binary delivery system. UNSCOM supposedly accounted for all that existed in Iraq (circa of construction, the mid to late 90's), but AT LEAST one escaped the Ritter smoke screens. The construction time is the essential point ... if produced during the clinton administration period, this is evidence of an ongoing WMD program that had to be stopped!


3 posted on 05/29/2004 9:42:22 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Hope this is the real deal and gets broadcast loudly.


4 posted on 05/29/2004 9:50:23 PM PDT by Kate of Spice Island (sKerry to imagine the Kerry's swearing around Tony Blair or anyone else in power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Note that we had no clue, until Saddam's son-in-law defected and told us about it. He also told us about other chem and biological weapons developments, which the media and even the intel community called in question. This find also proves that he told us the truth about this and most likely about the other stuff too.

"Iraq's first field-test of a binary-type shell containing sarin was in 1988, U.S. defense officials have noted. Saddam's government only disclosed that it was testing and producing sarin after Iraqi weapons chief Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid, Saddam's son-in-law, defected in 1995. But Iraq never declared any sarin or shells filled with sarin remained. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4133894,00.html


5 posted on 05/29/2004 10:06:35 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
The discovery of this Sarin gas mortar round only confirms that Saddam's WMDs ARE out there, somewhere. And the scarey part is that they could be in the hands of terrorists.

And these idiot liberals and Dems are busy attacking Bush because the stockpiles have not been found. Do they have any clue as to what danger we are in?

6 posted on 05/29/2004 10:14:14 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

*BUMP*!


7 posted on 05/29/2004 10:26:43 PM PDT by ex-Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
In 1995, Iraq changed its estimates and reported it had produced only 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin." (Yes, that's tons.)

Am I the only one that thinks that 790 tons is a LOT of sarin?

This type of chemical warfare shell had never been declared by Iraq -- it was not even known that Iraq had ever made them. The 1999 UNSCOM report on Iraq reported that thirty binary/Sarin shells were known to exist, and stated that all had been accounted for.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and bet that there's more shells somewhere. If the democrats would just shut the hell up and let Bush do his job, we might get to the bottom of this before one goes off in the US.

8 posted on 05/29/2004 10:29:52 PM PDT by Grim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Grim

It seems that the despicable strategy of the Democrats is to obstruct Bush's ability to fight the war on terror, then if an attack occurs, they can blame Bush, for not being effective, if there is no attack, than they have the "threat of terrorism is exaggerated" card. Note the news media, never talks about what happened on 9-11 -- they may mention "9-11", but no pictures, no reminders -- while they spent an entire month putting Abu Ghraib pictures on front pages.

I think if there was more support for the war at home, we would already have invaded Iran or Syria or both, since those countries are the ones who are sending the foreign fighters and funding the Iraqi "insurgency". That would have put an end to the Iraqi "resistance" in short order.


10 posted on 05/29/2004 10:40:39 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"Iraq developed a crude type of binary munition, whereby the final mixing of the two precursors to the agent was done inside the munition just before delivery." Someone actually had to physically pour the components of the Sarin (or other type of G-series nerve agent) into the shells before they could be fired.

Nope- the precursors are loaded when the shell is manufactured- firing the shell, and the resultant spin imparted by the rifling causes a wall between the two containers to rupture, and mixes the prescursors.

Also, I suspect it was a 155mm artillery round, not a mortar round.

Much as I support the war, and think we need to stay the course...I don't think this proves there are stockpiles of WMD sitting around in Iraq. They may have been moved to syria, who knows. But I don't think a single round makes our case. For one thing, why use a single round? Why not use a truck load?

I still think we were right to go in, and I beleive SH would have restarted/ramped up his production had sanctions been lifted, but I don't think this is the smoking gun we're looking for.

11 posted on 05/29/2004 10:42:21 PM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d

How do you know we didn't find tons of the two materials, which only become sarin, when mixed, and therefore also "didn't count".

And how much smallpox or anthrax do you think would count as WMD? A vial you can put in your pocked could kill thousands even millions, as it spreads.

WMD is not classified as WMD, only if you have tons of something.

What we found was not some lab protype, but an operational shell. Clearly if there is one, there are more, we just don't know where.


12 posted on 05/29/2004 10:47:01 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE; Mrs Zip

ping


13 posted on 05/29/2004 10:49:16 PM PDT by zip (Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough became truth to 42% of americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d

What about the high concentrations of mustard gas and cyanide we found in the Euphrates? There is plenty of evidence, but because we didn't find 10 tons of each fully mixed WMD properly labeled in 6 inch letters, nothing seems to count. As we see, they didn't need actual sarin, only the precursors, which people also won't accept as proof -- or rather the media doesn't.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-04-iraq-white-vials_x.htm

Marines reportedly find cyanide, mustard agents in Euphrates
From staff and wire reports

Marine units testing drinking water found cyanide and mustard agents in the Euphrates River, MSNBC reported, as concerns mounted that Iraq would resort to chemical weapons as coalition troops closed on Baghdad.


14 posted on 05/29/2004 10:52:55 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

bump


15 posted on 05/29/2004 11:02:31 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

There you have it.


16 posted on 05/29/2004 11:04:15 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (Save Terri Schiavo!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Print later.


17 posted on 05/29/2004 11:05:33 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies: foreign and domestic RATmedia agree Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Thanks for posting this;I've bookmarked it.

Lots and LOTS of lethal weapons, in this article,to use against the idiots,who are still screaming about "no WMDS". :-)

18 posted on 05/29/2004 11:09:16 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: firstiamaussoldier

It has already been verified by a full lab...that was posted last week. This is most definitely the real deal and the analysis here screams to be front page news


19 posted on 05/29/2004 11:09:24 PM PDT by jnarcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

No one seems to remember any longer the stockpiles of chemical suits and gas masks which were found in hospitals and schools during the march to Baghdad. Why else were they there except to guard the Iraqi army against the WMD to be unleased upon us? I thank psy-ops for deterring these weapons being released to harm our troops.


20 posted on 05/29/2004 11:18:07 PM PDT by ZOTnot (I'll take the side of Israel. Woe to its enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

No one seems to remember any longer the stockpiles of chemical suits and gas masks which were found in hospitals and schools during the march to Baghdad. Why else were they there except to guard the Iraqi army against the WMD to be unleased upon us? I thank psy-ops for deterring these weapons being released to harm our troops.


21 posted on 05/29/2004 11:18:09 PM PDT by ZOTnot (I'll take the side of Israel. Woe to its enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Wife comes home to see her democratic husband in bed with another woman. Women gets up and walks out and husband says, "What woman?"
Democrats just lie and hope and pretend every one else is stupid.
I just don't understand how anyone could be a democrat.


22 posted on 05/29/2004 11:26:30 PM PDT by genghis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

bump


23 posted on 05/29/2004 11:45:41 PM PDT by lowbridge ("You are an American. You are my brother. I would die for you." -Kurdish Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grim
Am I the only one that thinks that 790 tons is a LOT of sarin?
No, you aren't. How much did the Aum cult in Japan use in the subway attack? Less than a gallon? More than a gallon? How many gallons make up a ton, anyway?
24 posted on 05/30/2004 12:26:33 AM PDT by cgk (Social Security: America's only legal Pyramid Scheme.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cgk
How many gallons make up a ton, anyway?

One gallon = 8.33 lbs
one ton = 240 gallons
790 tons = 189,675 gallons.

It takes less than a drop of sarin to kill a person. Saddam must have had big plans.

25 posted on 05/30/2004 3:01:32 AM PDT by Grim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d
Nope- the precursors are loaded when the shell is manufactured- firing the shell, and the resultant spin imparted by the rifling causes a wall between the two containers to rupture, and mixes the prescursors.

What you are describing is one type of shell - the type that went off the other day. What they are describing is a cruder type of shell that the Iraqis had been making previously.

26 posted on 05/30/2004 5:16:41 AM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
How do you know we didn't find tons of the two materials, which only become sarin, when mixed, and therefore also "didn't count".

Did we? Cites?

27 posted on 05/30/2004 6:40:08 AM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
There is plenty of evidence, but because we didn't find 10 tons of each fully mixed WMD properly labeled in 6 inch letters, nothing seems to count.

Evidence for what? The point was not that Iraq had chemical weapons at one time, or that there were odds and ends lying around, the point was they were thought to still have a militarily significant amount that was already weaponised.

It's the distinction between having steel bar stock, charcoal, sulfur, and potassium nitrate, or having rifles and rounds (well, black powder round anyway. and yes, you'd need a priming compound, etc.) Who knows- we may still find such a stockpile- but I doubt it, and I doubt any troops will be killed or injured by them either. And frankly, I think that's a good thing.

I'm not suggesting the WMD claims were lies- I think they were honest estimates...that turned out not to be accurate.

28 posted on 05/30/2004 6:47:24 AM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
There is only one shell, not a stockpile, so it doesn't mean anything

The assumption requires us to assume that Sadaam's regime would make just one such shell, as a custom job, rather than a whole production run of thousands. A single shell has no strategic importance, a thousand are of very strategic importance

29 posted on 05/30/2004 7:37:14 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Really worth repeating over and over.It shows the bias of the meadia.

Note the news media, never talks about what happened on 9-11 -- they may mention "9-11", but no pictures, no reminders -- while they spent an entire month putting Abu Ghraib pictures on front pages.

30 posted on 05/30/2004 7:46:40 AM PDT by zip (Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough became truth to 42% of americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I have a feeling we already know where they got the shells. It's just a matter of time before we round them all up and get them to a safe place.


31 posted on 05/30/2004 8:02:13 AM PDT by McGavin999 (If Kerry can't deal with the "Republican Attack Machine" how is he going to deal with Al Qaeda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

" Do they have any clue as to what danger we are in?"


I just came out of the Yahoo political chat room. Trust me....they don't. They really do NOT.


32 posted on 05/30/2004 12:19:32 PM PDT by Ozarkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d

"Also, I suspect it was a 155mm artillery round, not a mortar round."

It is not mentioned here, but discussed on FR earlier, it was an unmarked shell, not different in appearance than the regular 155mm artillery rounds. Thus any quantity of these could be amoungst the vast quantites of ordinary munitions, in plain sight of any weapons inspectors. In fact, it is possible that Sadaam's stratagy called for a mix of sarin and regular shells in any artillery action.


33 posted on 05/30/2004 1:14:56 PM PDT by Western Phil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

BTTT for this news.


34 posted on 05/30/2004 1:25:15 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Western Phil
it was an unmarked shell, not different in appearance than the regular 155mm artillery rounds.

Nope. a shell without markings would be different than "regular 155mm artillery rounds"- they all have markings on them, so you can tell them appart- HE, AP WP, ILLM, etc.

Thus any quantity of these could be amoungst the vast quantites of ordinary munitions, in plain sight of any weapons inspectors.

It's possible that Blix & co. were such complete phuqwits that they would not notice a completely unmarked round. Possible, but not likely. Had they been that stupid, they probably wouldn't have been able to dress themselves.

In fact, it is possible that Sadaam's stratagy called for a mix of sarin and regular shells in any artillery action.

In which case....what? he's following exactly the same doctrine that anybody using gas rounds would use? don't understand the point of that sentence.

35 posted on 05/30/2004 6:32:53 PM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ZOTnot

> Why else were they there except to guard the Iraqi army against the WMD to be unleased upon us?
Have you heard of civillian defence? Any hospital, school or similar institution should have a shelter and a stockpile of gas masks. In your country, I suppose, too.

What for? To protect the patiens and pupils from a gas attack. By whom? Well, by the Americans, for example. Or by the Iranians.

Soldiers have their masks with them. In the event of a gas attack, there are only seconds to put a mask on, and no time to look for the nearest school.


36 posted on 01/09/2006 11:55:13 PM PST by A Russian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

> Note the news media, never talks about what happened on
> 9-11 -- they may mention "9-11", but no pictures, no
> reminders
I'll tell you why there are no pictures and no reminders. Because they don't add up to the official version of that story. It's safer only to mention it, without getting into detail.

P.S. And 09/11 is not related to Saddam


37 posted on 01/10/2006 3:41:15 AM PST by A Russian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson