Skip to comments.Fearing Saddam, anthrax scientist kept her secret - and chanced war
Posted on 03/28/2005 11:11:20 AM PST by areafiftyone
Fearing Saddam, anthrax scientist kept her secret - and chanced warLAST UPDATE: 3/28/2005 12:36:24 PM
In early 2003, as war fever built in Washington, an Iraqi scientist faced a fateful choice.
FNC = all tabloid, all the time.
Thanks for posting the thread. I'm trying to remember the people who were interested in anthrax stories.
Oh you are welcome. I practically have to dig with a shovel to get stories on Iraq in the MSM that aren't about how many soldiers died or how many peaceniks protested the war. - Thank god I have my other sources.
12 years ago?
ya right, story seems like bs
Especially if they deposited it in a flaming paper bag, rang the doorbell, and ran.
Yea that was about the time the Weapons inspectors were in Iraq. Bubba was in office having fun in the Lincoln Bedroom at that time.
And now that soldiers are safer and things seem to have calmed down considerably over there, it isn't interesting to even the liberal media.
It used to just be Chicago and NYC that had the mantra "if it isn't bleeding and burning, it isn't news". Now it's all the cable outlets.
Now wonder people don't understand the issues half the time; they can't get the facts from their old sources.
Was there anywhere in Iraq not within sight of one of these palaces?
The only time the liberal media perks up about Iraq is if there is a bombing and a bunch of soldiers get killed.
Oh brother, what an ignorant statement!
I'm trying to remember that freeper's nic, badabing or something. Shermy or genefromjersey might be able to ping him here :)
so where's the other 1800 gallons of anthrax the UN experts believe were produced, and how is it "activated" and "deactivated?"
It seems that if she kept it a secret, then that would prove exactly the opposite. And it was Saddam's motives and actions that were under suspicion, not the Iraqi people.
The Iraqis got rid of the anthrax because they felt it might be harmful to bunny rabbits.
While I don't dispute this particular woman's account, there is so much confusion, deceit and uncertanty involved that I don't completely buy it as conclusive either. This could easily be "I am Spartacus, I destroyed the WMD" "No, I am Spartacus, I destroyed the WMD"
I guess you haven't noticed that some people you know quite well on this forum make the exact same statement. I don't think you'd be calling them ignorant.
And surely you've noticed now that Iraq is a safer place, we don't hear about it more than a few minutes every couple of hours.
It's Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, etc.
I'm going through my notes and don't see any for anthrax. Hopefully they'll see this and show up.
Shouldn't we be able to find the spot where this stuff was (supposedly) dumped and test the soil there? Maybe she can pin down the location a little bit.
So Saddam still thought he had anthrax. But we were wrong to take him out? What if he actually HAD the weapons that he thought he had? What a crock.
I try to keep up at least an informed civilian's understanding of these weapons, and "chemically deactivated" is a new concept for me.
Does anyone know how that works?
Is the substance then 100% inert?
If the anthrax is totally neutralized as a weapon, why would Saddam have cared?
Can the neutralized anthrax even be identified after dumping?
The whole concept is confusing.
2) I can guarantee my comment would be the same for many others.
The "all tabloid" comment is just pure nonsense.
My daughter is a Army Combat Medic in Mosul. She told me she was working in the ER of the surgical hospital the day a bomber killed over a 100 Iraqis at a Mosque. All day long injured citizens and Iraqi servicemen came through the ER in bllody taters. There was a tv on the wall tuned to fox news---while they rushed about caring for the injured Fox spent hour after hour covering Michael Jackson being late for court, the after effects and health care professionals discussing his condition. Every once in a while the crawl at the bottom of the screen mentioned the 100 dead in Mosul. Fox lost a lot of fans in that hospital that day. The media are the most dysfuntional segment of an increasingly dysfuntional society.
I couldn't agree with you more. I thought Fox was better than that.
My stepson had a similar situation when he was in Jordan and Iraq. They couldn't get appropriate info from the tv so we sent him articles from FR.
His buddies would wake him up to have him log on and get our e-mails for their Daily Intel Briefing.
Wonder who gave those Iraqi orders... They couldn't have come without the knowledge and approval (or direction) of Hussein, could they? If that's correct, why would she be so reluctant to inform Saddam that the orders had been carried out? Something fishy going on here... And, how do we know that all of the anthrax was "destroyed"? They can't say for certain how many thousands of teaspoonfuls were destroyed, and how many went into safekeeping somewhere, can they?
My husband came home and I was distracted and just hit send.
I meant to say I'll be thinking of your daughter and hoping she's safe. It must really upset our troops to be in such a situation and find FNC covering Jackson. I'm here safe and sound and it ticks me off. I'm interested in the Jackson case, but let's put it on Court TV where it belongs and have FNC report on it occasionally.
You are one of the pesky few who actually remembers details and reminds others.
it says it in this article: "The U.N. experts...found evidence indicating Iraq produced an additional, undeclared 1,800 gallons of anthrax. "
Something else pecular: "In early 2003, chief inspector Hans Blix put the seeming discrepancy high on his list of Iraq's "unresolved disarmament issues," ... .
This is not the way I understood the reports from MSM.
I was not challenging you, but giving you a compliment.
exactly my thoughts, I thought the problem with anthrax is that it doesn't degrade - perhaps there is a chemical forumulation that can deactivate it
I often wondered how much of this stuff was dumped in the Persian Gulf or at the bottom of the Tigres/Euprhates river....or buried all over the desert
after all they just found barrels of Nazi mustard gas in the North Sea last year......
i also recall from seeing documentaries and listening to David Kay and others on various occasions that certain stockpiles of biochemical weapons were found in Iraq throughout the 1990's but especially after the son in law Kamal squealed in 1995, and the UN Team destroyed those stockpiles in that 1995-1998 period before they were kicked out.......
what David Kay said was that Kamal didn't actually have that much specific information but that Iraq blinked, when Saddam found out the CIA had Kamal he assumed Kamal had fessed up to it all and so the Iraqis quickly moved all these WMD files to Kamal's farmhouse, lead the UN inspectors to the house (the inspectors said they could tell the files were just moved there, they would have been very dusty otherwise, it was way too neat) and Saddam tried to say that Kamal was a liar and he had been working on his own on WMD without Saddam's permission, like anyone was going to buy that....
and Kay said those files were very helpful and did lead to finding some stockpiles of some bio chem weapons.......
in fact I recall Kay saying that they got Dr. Germ to fess up to a few things after the Kamal situation......
And then, back in late 2001, there was that tabloid photo editor in Florida who was an avid outdoorsman, and contracted anthrax by drinking from a stream.
Rather than remaining ignorant or asking others to do your work for you, why didn't you just visit Google and find out.
The Decontamination of Anthrax and Other Biological Agents
It really is hit or miss, at the same time, I'm sure someone in Alaska could have been mauled by a Kodiak, or a little old lady fell down a stair and broke her hip in Iowa...
Besides...it's not to smart to just drink out of a stream...
Sorry. I was being sarcastic. I guess it wasn't obvious. When Bob Stevens, the first victim in the 2001 anthrax attacks, came down with anthrax, the feds pointed out that he was an avid outdoorsman, and claimed he probably contracted it from doing something like drinking out of a stream. When others were also infected, they had to drop that story.
No, not true at all. The facts are that Iraq failed to show proof that it had dismantled and destroyed all aspects of its WMD programs per its 1991 surrender agreement and various UN resolutions.
It was up to Hussein to demonstrate conclusively that he had complied; he didn't.
Moreover, besides the above WMD disclosure failure, Iraq was rewarding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with cash payments, firing at U.S. and British aircraft patroling the UN no-fly zones over North and South Iraq, building and importing missiles with illegal ranges per surrender treaties and UN resolutions, was harboring terrorists such as Abu Nidal (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml), was caught red-handed in the 1993 WTC attack, and in general was destablizing the Middle-East.
And those are FACTS, contrary to what "speculation" the uneducated TV rubes tried to report above.
No prob..I got what you were getting at, I'm only saying that they are using fear to up their ratings...
I'm reading this book right now:
Fear Less: Real Truth About Risk, Safety, and Security in a Time of Terrorism
and I want to check out this book by the same author...
The Gift of Fear
I got my copy for $1 in the discount bin...Amazon is making some serious coin off the book.
Yes, and her hubbie was none other than the Iraqi Oil Minister...
And isn't she a potential defendant in the upcoming war crimes trials?
And where is the anthrax coming from that is being used in the attacks here in the U.S.?
"Rather than remaining ignorant or asking others to do your work for you, why didn't you just visit Google and find out."
maybe you ought to change your name to "angryguy"...or just "jerk."
The British-educated Taha, who ran the Hakam complex in the 1980s, told interrogators her staff carted off anthrax from Hakam in April 1991 and stored it in a bungalow near the presidential palace at Radwaniyah, 20 miles west of Baghdad, the U.S. teams report.
So what a Baathist "tells" someone becomes synonomous with "truth"? In what universe?
It's truth to the intellectually dishonest MSM, that's all.
Incidently, as for the 1,800 gallons of anthrax... um, that is exactly what the article was about! Taha says it was deactivated and dumped at Radwaniyah. Please reread the article.
there you go again, being quite pompous. First, I'm not ignorant...I am inexperienced in the matters of science and anthrax.
Secondly, regarding the 1800 gallons of anthrax, I know it was mentioned in the article. If YOU'D TAKE THE TIME TO REREAD MY PAST POSTS, you could educate yourself and not remain.....dare I say, ignorant?
There are three basic methods - somebody googled them up - heat, chemicals, and radiation. The difficulty is the the spore of Bacillus anthracis is remarkably tough, and the heat required to guarantee 100% destruction is blowtorch-level. You can get lower yields with lower heat but you wouldn't want to release that into the environment, which is one reason that method is so expensive.
They may well have made advances in chemical methods since I took my last path course, but at the time concentrated formalin was the method of choice (same for the Mycobacteria such as the tuberculosis and leprosy bacilli for a similar reason - they do not sporulate but have an amazingly impenetrable lipid coat). Nasty stuff, and also has its own difficulties being released into the environment.
As for radiation, it takes a lot and the yield isn't great. There are no ongoing chemical reactions inside the spores to affect, so the idea is sufficient point mutations within the organism's nucleic acids will keep it from properly replicating.
The issue on the UN's mind (and ours, and the ex-Soviet scientists with similar challenges) is that whatever method was used was either better than our own or it didn't work. I'm betting on the latter. It would have taken a major plant somewhere to use any of the three methods described above - we're talking about 10,000 liters of the stuff, after all. It would have been something he could have shown the inspectors, and in fact he was required to do precisely that.
In which case the dump site is a very dangerous area right now.
Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. If you lack knowledge about anthrax, then you are ignorant about anthrax.
fine. have at it, smart guy.
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.