Will US fabricate WMD evidence?

Al Jazeera ^ | 9 Apr 03 | Cilina Nasser

[SLB]

With the US-led war to change the government of Iraq all but over there is still little sign of the weapons of mass destruction for which this campaign was fought.

Daily reports of suspected finds have all so far turned out to be false alarms and the distinct lack of success that the United States could resort to fabricating evidence.

“The United States is now embarrassed because it could not confirm the presence of WMD in Iraq,” said Dr. Hassan Krayyim, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.

“The concern lies in the possibility that the United States would present false evidence to prove that its decision to go to war was right,“ he said.

Dr. Imad Jadd, international relations specialist at the Egypt-based Al-Ahram Centre for Studies, agreed. “What will stop the United States from bringing chemical weapons from outside Iraq and moving them into the country to prove their longstanding claims?” he said.

US soldiers dig in after a ground attack siren was raised in the Kuwait desert last month, prompting troops to don protective suits

“They can do it because they are the authority now that is conducting the search.”

Jadd called on the United Nations to send delegations to Iraq to monitor any finds of suspected chemical agents. “International inspectors should be present in Iraq,” he said. “They are the ones who should announce any findings,” he said.

He cautioned against allowing US-led forces to move suspected material found in Iraq to outside the country for testing. “When this happens, it means that the evidence is lost,” Jadd said. “They should leave the material in its place.”

A US military official said on Tuesday more testing and analysis was required before determining whether substances found at sites in central Iraq were banned chemical weapons agents.

"Initial reports were 'yes, it could potentially be'," said Brigadier General Vincent Brooks.

"We do not know enough at this point to say it should be discounted or that we have found some weapons of mass destruction for use."

That contradicted an earlier remark on Tuesday by a US military source near the predominantly Shia city of Karbala in Iraq who said tests indicated the substances were not chemical weapons agents. "The latest tests turned out negative," the source said.

In another incident, the US military investigated on Tuesday the possibility of the presence of mustard gas near the central city of Najaf after five soldiers developed what they thought were blisters while on duty there. However, it turned out that they were suffering from heat exhaustion, not exposure to chemical agents.

Last week, an initial report that claimed several bottles found in western Iraq may have contained chemical weapons appeared to be a case of one bottle labelled as a nerve agent that had been invented in the 1940s.

During an earlier phase of the war, US military officials claimed that President Saddam Hussein would use chemical weapons against the invading forces as soon as they cross the “red line” around Baghdad.

Until now he hasn’t. “Even if (Saddam Hussein) had chemical weapons, it was not logical for him to use them in the heart of the Iraqi capital, because Iraqi soldiers and residents would have been affected,” said Krayyim.

He pointed out that the use of such weapons would only be significant if they harm the enemy and not one’s forces. “That’s why the US troops all removed their suits. They were confident that they wouldn't be attacked by chemical weapons,” he said referring to the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) protective outerwear suits.

Shortly after US troops entered the Iraqi capital, they were ordered to take off their NBC suits. US troops wait in full NBC suits in Kuwait after a warning of a second scud missile attack from Iraq last month

Krayyim ruled out the possibility that Iraq would have used WMD even if it possesses such weapons. “Iraq does not have a political interest in that because the Iraqi government wants to quash the justification which the US used for waging its war,” he said.

In the meantime, US President George Bush has authorised the use of tear gas in Iraq, which could be a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention that states that “each state party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.”

“It won’t be the first violation that the United States commits If it uses tear gas,” Krayyim said. “They have also used cluster bombs in the war on Iraq.”

[Fee]

I think we have evidence that the Iraqis have chem weapons. I think the Bush administration is keeping info under wraps, because it gives clues where it could have been manufactured at. Until those locations are secured, we will remain mum. It also tempts the Democrat left to start screaming that Iraq does not have WMD and the war is a sham. Once their mantra reaches pitch level, the government will present the chem sites to the world. This is known as a political ambush.

[rj45mis]

Regardless of the truth, people will believe what they want, especially with world-wide media and the internet. Everyone reports, everyone decides......whatever they want.

Such is the way of life! Most people believe in their preconceptions with little regard for the facts

[Kozak]

Aholes. "Haven't found anything yet. Lets see we've been a little busy fighting eh? It's a country the size of California. What we'er looking for could be hiddern in a single warehouse, the bio stuff could be hidden in a storage locker. NOW we can REALLY look. If it's there we will find it.

[Renegade]

The question should be --" Will Al Jazeera fabricate the news of the fall of Baghdad?"

[kevao]

Will US fabricate WMD evidence?

Mark Furman alert.

[the Deejay]

"I think we have evidence that the Iraqis have chem weapons."

I've been thinking this, too. And I've thought for quite some time, President Bush has known for a long time that Saddam & Co. were behind Sept. 11th. It was just the things he wasn't saying 'outright' that I picked up on. Oh yea, I'm sure President Bush has heaps of information. We're just seeing a sampling of it.

[TopQuark]

Will US fabricate WMD evidence?

OF course not. In the end, whatever the route, the Arabs will claim that it was Mossad that twisted the arms of our president.

And Buchanan already said so openly.

It does not matter what we say and what we do: they will explain away our best and villify us for our mistakes. You can't win against prejudice. All you can do is subjugate it.

[okie01]

When I clicked on the headline -- "Will U.S. Fabricate WMD Evidence?" -- I mentally formed a multiple choice quiz.

What was the source of this headline:

a.) Al-Jazeera
b.) New York Times
c.) Democrat Underground

Personally, I was betting on b.).

[SLB]

Looks like I stirred the pot a little. I can't believe what these rag head reporters will resort to.

[Conspiracy Guy]

It will probably take longer than it took to take Bagdead. The WMD worriers will be declaring a quagmire. Care will have to be taken to keep the UN Infectors out.

[rj45mis]

as hard as we try to present our honest intentions to the arab world, they will never accept it. the arabs will be the ones to continue to foment hatred towards not only israel and the u.s. but fellow arab nations that don't toe the line with them. eventually we will have to confront this in a major military way

[katze]

You did. Now how about some info on a dead Saddam? I'm really curious why the Iraqis in Baghdad and Dearborn, MI are so jubilant, if they're not sure he's a goner.

[Brett66]

This reminds me of the other tin-foil crap that floats around the internet in regards to the Gulf-War. One accusation/lie that made the rounds was that the US blew all of the oil fields to make Saddam seem worse than he really was. I suspect it was created by another arabist propagandist.

[philetus]

Maybe Martha Stewart can whip one up out of yarn, old hubcaps, and model glue.

[geedee]

[Sloth]

Will US fabricate WMD evidence?

I certainly hope so. Making a chemical weapons attack on France & framing Al Qaeda for it would be even more fun.

[stuartcr]

Yeah, and now we got facts coming out our ears!

[Joy Angela]

God Bless the souls of all those
who suffered mutilation, torture and death
under the Hussein Regime.

May this day of Liberation
allow those who died in horror
to now rest in peace.

[Paul Ross]

Uh, we actually saw footage on FoxNews of the Chemical Weapons site where the 55-gallon drums were labeled 'Insecticide' where they had been concealed in a trench, covered by camouflage netting, guarded by a detachment of Iraqi Republican Guards, all of which was IN A MILITARY BASE! Must be damned important and critical insecticide... and why were there BM-21 rockets with chemical delivery warheads nearby? Naw, must be a coincidence....

[Tamzee]

There is an enormous lack of logic at the foundation of this article.

If the U.S. was at all likely to plant evidence such as that, it would have been easier and more effective to do so during the "inspections" just prior to Bush giving Saddam the 48 hour time limit. It would have diffused a great deal of the anti-war agitation, made it much more difficult for France/Germany to oppose us in the U.N. and also would have made it a little more difficult for the press to be so openly hostile if we did go to war.

Planting WMD evidence back then would only have required traces of anthrax, chemicals or incriminating ingredients to be sprinkled around some of the sites to be inspected.