Joechilli
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2012
- Messages
- 459
- Reaction score
- 174
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It ends up there were WMD's but the MSM and liberals decided that mustard and sarin gas didn't count.
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official SaysBy Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
>" WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.
"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."
Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."
The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.
Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.
There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.
Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning. "< -> Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Ground Intelligence Center
But that's just the crap we sold him and 500 munitions isn't alot given the bulk orders he made during the 80's gassing of civilians. Wouldn't have been easier just to show the American public the WMD receipts/IOUs than come up with such shoddy intel?
It ends up there were WMD's but the MSM and liberals decided that mustard and sarin gas didn't count.
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official SaysBy Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
>" WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.
"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."
Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."
The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.
Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.
There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.
Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning. "< -> Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Ground Intelligence Center
In January 2005, the group announced the conclusion of its search. The ISG stated that while it had, "not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003," they acknowledged "the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
It ends up there were WMD's but the MSM and liberals decided that mustard and sarin gas didn't count.
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official SaysBy Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
>" WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.
"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."
Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."
The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.
Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.
There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.
Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning. "< -> Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Ground Intelligence Center
Has that secret evidence eluded us up until now? Don't count on it. Unanimous votes in the UN security council about the weapons. Come on even our enemies thought he had them. Bill Clinton even thought so. Drop the subject because you can't win on it.
It ends up there were WMD's but the MSM and liberals decided that mustard and sarin gas didn't count.
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official SaysBy Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
>" WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.
"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."
Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."
The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.
Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.
There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.
Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning. "< -> Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Ground Intelligence Center
So a military run newspaper justifies the war.. what a shocker! Not exactly brilliant moral making material if they came out and said.. "oh yea your buddy who got his head blown off beside you.. basically died due to a lie".
"The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."
Badly corroded? Could not be used?, hardly the spell bound WMD 30 minute Armageddon strike purported just before the invasion is it?
Let us also not forget the backhanded duplicity of giving the Dictator the WMD's in the first place.
I'm sure that we both agree that under certain conditions, an M-60 machine gun is a weapon of mass destruction.
What Bush & Co offered really were simply weapons of mass distraction. And they worked great! :lol:
Courtesy of NeoCon Rupert Murdoch who also runs Fox News
Who exactly came up with the term "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) ?
Before 9/11 in the military community it was always NBC (nuclear, biological, nuclear.)
I guess any thing that can kill more than one person could be called a WMD. But we have to ask a white beard scratching liberal how many lives would have to be killed befolre that weapopn meets their deffinition as being a WMD, they are the ones who decide now days.
A biological weapon like anthrax, mustard gas or sarin cause no destruction except to living things. A nuclear detonation would cause a lot of destruction. After that weapon the 16 " guns on a Iowa class battleship would be the most destructive weapon their is. Just one salvo from the 16" gun battery on an Iowa would level a 1/4 square mile of any city.
Eric Holder's Department of Justice announced they were going to prosecute an American who supposedly fired a RPG in Syria. The DOJ has classified the RPG as a WMD saying since it could be used to shoot down a civilian aircraft with 200 souls on board, it meets the definition as a WMD. I suppose a Boeing 737 is also a WMD because they were used as a weapon to kill 3,000 people on 9/11.
Who coined the phrase WMD ? Was it just a propaganda phrase to influence and scare people to further an agenda ?
If Bush and Blair lied about WMD, then they must have had some ulterior motive to invade IRaq. What was it?
It's not a newspaper, it's the news service for the Defense Department where newspapers get their news from.
And that is some how better?
Joechill, you should do a little research. Does the New York Times and the NYT reporter Judith Miller stimulate your outer brain cells ?
In fact if you dig back further during the Clinton administration you would probably find both the New York Times and Washington Post telling us that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and there needs to be a regime change. It was President Clinton who called for regime change in Iraq and signed in to law the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. It was President Bush in 2003 who carried out that law five years later that Clinton signed in to law.
>" For the past few days I’ve been spotlighting the high media crimes and misdemeanors committed in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, almost exactly ten years ago, featuring “treasured” journos such as David Brooks and Bob Woodward or even newspapers as a whole (The Washington Post). But it’s The New York Times and Judith Miller, among others, who will truly live in infamy—partly because of the paper’s outsized (perceived) influence.
It’s instructive to review what happened when the paper belatedly owned up to (some) of its misdeeds, in May 2004, more than a year after its misconduct. Jack Shafer famously called it a “mini-culpa.” Bill Keller had replaced Howell Raines as executive editor but Judy Miller was still on board. Jill Abramson now has the top job and Keller writes a column. Michael Gordon is still a star reporter at the paper. Miller, naturally, toils at Fox News. Go here to see what Keller wrote two years ago when he tried to explain why he had been a “reluctant hawk” on Iraq.
The following is excerpted from my book, which was published last week in an updated, expanded e-book edition, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits—and the Media—Failed on Iraq.
After months of criticism of The New York Times’s coverage of WMDS and the run-up to the war in Iraq—mainly directed at star reporter Judith Miller (left)—the paper’s editors, in an extraordinary note to readers this morning, finally tackled the subject, acknowledging it was “past time” they do so. While it does not, in some ways, go nearly far enough, and is buried on Page A10, this low-key but scathing self-rebuke is nothing less than a primer on how not to do journalism, particularly if you are an enormously influential newspaper with a costly invasion of another nation at stake. "< continue -> When the 'NYT' Offered a Weak 'Mini-Culpa' for Hyping Iraq WMD | The Nation
Unanimous votes in the UN security council about the weapons.
In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.
On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Do you have a link to another pop song to support these claims?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?