Conspiracy to hide WMDs in Iraq

[Peephole]

I thought this was a pretty refreshing conspiracy theory:

Right-wing blogs discover massive conspiracy to hide WMDs in Iraq

Melanie Phillips is a British neoconservative who has devoted herself to warning England that Muslims are taking over and destroying its culture. Her book, oh-so-cleverly titled Londonistan, warns of "the collapse of traditional British identity and accommodation of a particularly virulent form of multiculturalism."

She has described James Baker and Jimmy Carter as "the kept creatures of the Arab world" who "are intent on smoothing the path to Israel's destruction." She thinks global warming is a "con-trick" because everything is "well within the normal cyclical fluctuations in temperature from century to century." And on and on and on. Needless to say, she is a deeply admired figure in the world of Fox News and right-wing blogs.

But all of that is rendered moderate, restrained, sober and even sane by a new article she wrote for the British magazine, The Spectator (headline: I Found Saddam's WMD Bunkers), which claims that: (a) WMDs really were found in Iraq after the invasion, (b) they were located in vast underground bunkers (c) which contained "nuclear, chemical and biological materials", but (d) the U.S., through negligence, failed to secure those sites and, as a result, (e) the WMDs were stolen by The Terrorists and/or Syrian agents, who now have them and are actively plotting (along with China, Russia and North Korea) to use them against the West, but --

(f) because the Bush administration is so embarrassed by their failure to prevent the theft of all these dastardly weapons, and because Democrats are embarrassed by this discovery because it proves that Saddam really did have WMDs all along, they have all jointly created a vast conspiracy where they conceal the discovery of WMDs in order to cover up for their negligence.

Full article here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/21/wmd_conspiracy/index.html

 

[Warge]

Iraq DID have WMDs (if artillery shells with mustard gas count) until after GW1, when they were obliged to destroy all that were left. It took time, but most of it were indeed destroyed, despite trying to cover it up. There have been single shells with mustard gas found after GW2, but I don't know the health of them - chemical weapons have a tendency to detoriate and loose their effect without maintenance.
That said, there have still not been any large amounts of WMDs found, despite the total domination of US and allied air surveillance and other means of detecting this kind of weapons.

The article is quite full of it, IMO...

 

[The Doc]

I've read that over 500+ (apparently 700+ as of 2007) weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since 2003.

Just do a Google search for "Iraq WMD 500 found" or similar.

The problem people have with this though, is that the source for this is a US senate intelligence report, and this appears to be the only source. People also complain that the weapons were not of operational quality and appear to be manufactured around 1991. Despite this, the weapons are still technically illegal and serve as proof that Saddam did not fully disarm.

 

[uk_dave]

I've read that over 500+ (apparently 700+ as of 2007) weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since 2003.

Just do a Google search for "Iraq WMD 500 found" or similar.

The problem people have with this though, is that the source for this is a US senate intelligence report, and this appears to be the only source.

Was that the ancient mustard gas artillery shells personally discovered by Santorum before the mid-terms, trumpeted by Sean Hannity as vindication of the Iraq War, and roundly ignored by everyone else because....well, everyone else already knew there were isolated pockets of ancient mustard gas artillary shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war?

 

[Hellbound]

It may be misrepresentation of some actual findings, as well. Or the people doing the finding (some of whom would be 18 year olds fresh out of training) misunderstanding what they saw.

A lot of things were found that were circumstancial or suggestive, but weakly so. For example, empty warheads designed for chemical dispersion, but that contained no chemicals (no any evidence they ever had). A lot of "dual-use" facilities were found, as well, but that's probably true here also (dual-use facilities are places that were not making chemical weapons, but would be easily shifted to that purpose...or could be used for it without modification). IIRC, a stash of precursor chemicals was found, as well (some of the chmicals that go into chemical weapons, but before they get mixed together).

But nothing that would stand up in a court case. However, I have heard a lot of people, even military people who were over there, mis-understand or mis-represent the various stories and rumors. That's probably where she got her info.

 

[The Doc]

Was that the ancient mustard gas artillery shells personally discovered by Santorum before the mid-terms, trumpeted by Sean Hannity as vindication of the Iraq War, and roundly ignored by everyone else because....well, everyone else already knew there were isolated pockets of ancient mustard gas artillary shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war?

Mustard gas and Sarin gas in artillery shells manufactured sometime after 1991. Was that alone justification for war? No. Was Saddam allowed to possess these weapons (regardless of their quality)? No.

ETA:
Just to add onto that. These weapons are obviously not the weapons we were told existed in Iraq. I'm not pretending they are for a second. What everyone needs to understand though, is that Saddam told us these weapons did not exist and that they had been destroyed. The weapons may have been dated and didn't show any evidence that Saddam had an active weapons program, but he was not allowed to possess these weapons as they were deemed illegal.

 

[Peephole]

Mustard gas and Sarin gas in artillery shells manufactured sometime after 1991. Was that alone justification for war? No. Was Saddam allowed to possess these weapons (regardless of their quality)? No.

ETA:
Just to add onto that. These weapons are obviously not the weapons we were told existed in Iraq. I'm not pretending they are for a second. What everyone needs to understand though, is that Saddam told us these weapons did not exist and that they had been destroyed. The weapons may have been dated and didn't show any evidence that Saddam had an active weapons program, but he was not allowed to possess these weapons as they were deemed illegal.

And are there any indications that the regime itself was aware of these weapons and prevented the inspectors from finding them?

 

[Peephole]

The article is quite full of it, IMO...

Yup, the political side of her theory is even more insane than what most 9/11 CTists propagate.

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

Mr Loftus goes further. Saddam’s nuclear research, scientists and equipment, he says, have all been relocated to Syria, where US satellite intelligence confirms that uranium centrifuges are now operating — in a country which is not supposed to have any nuclear programme. There is now a nuclear axis, he says, between Iran, Syria and North Korea — with Russia and China helping to build an Islamic bomb against the West. And of course, with assistance from American negligence.
‘Apparently Saddam had the last laugh and donated his secret stockpile to benefit Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. With a little technical advice from Beijing, Syria is now enriching the uranium, Iran is making the missiles, North Korea is testing the warheads, and the White House is hiding its head in the sand.’

 

[The Doc]

And are there any indications that the regime itself was aware of these weapons and prevented the inspectors from finding them?

Well there is simply no way of proving that and you know it. The simple fact is that Saddam specifically stated that all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had been destroyed. If he was unsure, he wouldn't have made the bold statement that all weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed.

500 of WMDs isn't a couple in a bunker in the middle of a desert dude. I find it hard to believe that Saddam could have lost over 500 WMDs and forgot about them when he said they were all destroyed.

 

[Peephole]

I've read that over 500+ (apparently 700+ as of 2007) weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since 2003.

Just do a Google search for "Iraq WMD 500 found" or similar.

Turns out that was just more BS from Santorum:

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html


But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991. Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

 

[The Doc]

Turns out that was just more BS from Santorum:

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html


But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991. Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

I'm guessing you missed my post:

ETA:
Just to add onto that. These weapons are obviously not the weapons we were told existed in Iraq. I'm not pretending they are for a second. What everyone needs to understand though, is that Saddam told us these weapons did not exist and that they had been destroyed. The weapons may have been dated and didn't show any evidence that Saddam had an active weapons program, but he was not allowed to possess these weapons as they were deemed illegal.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Well there is simply no way of proving that and you know it. The simple fact is that Saddam specifically stated that all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had been destroyed. If he was unsure, he wouldn't have made the bold statement that all weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed.

500 of WMDs isn't a couple in a bunker in the middle of a desert dude. I find it hard to believe that Saddam could have lost over 500 WMDs and forgot about them when he said they were all destroyed.

I am not sure, I would not put it past him to lie, but then again other governments lose people and weapons and other things all the time. I read something ones on issues America has had with nuclear weapons, and it included such acts as accidently dropping one (thankfully unarmed) out of a transport plane.

500 of any weapon isn't really that much when you consider what goes into a war. So, I think it quite possible that they were forgotten somewhere or sweap under a rug by some official.

I am not saying Sadam didn't know, but that the idea that they could not have been lost and forgotten may not be true.

 

[The Doc]

I am not sure, I would not put it past him to lie, but then again other governments lose people and weapons and other things all the time. I read something ones on issues America has had with nuclear weapons, and it included such acts as accidently dropping one (thankfully unarmed) out of a transport plane.

500 of any weapon isn't really that much when you consider what goes into a war. So, I think it quite possible that they were forgotten somewhere or sweap under a rug by some official.

I am not saying Sadam didn't know, but that the idea that they could not have been lost and forgotten may not be true.

I think a nuclear powered plane managed to go down at one point too lol. That and nuclear tipped missiles exploding on the launch pads and all that. Definitely a lot of potential for hazard.

 

[Peephole]

Well there is simply no way of proving that and you know it. The simple fact is that Saddam specifically stated that all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had been destroyed. If he was unsure, he wouldn't have made the bold statement that all weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed.

Come on, that's just resorting to silly semantics.

500 of WMDs isn't a couple in a bunker in the middle of a desert dude. I find it hard to believe that Saddam could have lost over 500 WMDs and forgot about them when he said they were all destroyed.

It seems to be the case according to the report Santorum cited:

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

It's possible of course he still lied about it but it looks rather unlikely.

 

[The Doc]

I fail to see how the Washington Post got "buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten" from. The declassified report they claim says this says nothing of the sort. Read it yourself if you'd like.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

You seem to think this one one discovery of weapons Peephole. That's not true.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

Please let me reaffirm that I do not believe there is a big conspiracy underway to hide weapons found in Iraq. I simply believe that approximately 500 degraded weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq that Saddam was illegally possessing. Regardless of whether he knew they were there or not - he was breaking international law. These were not the weapons of mass destruction that were talked about leading up to the Iraq war, and are not part of a new weapons program.

Anyways, I'm out for a few of hours.

 

[Peephole]

I fail to see how the Washington Post got "buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten" from. The declassified report they claim says this says nothing of the sort. Read it yourself if you'd like.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

You seem to think this one one discovery of weapons Peephole. That's not true.

Ah yes, you seem to be right. Too bad the full report wasn't released, that might have settled it.

Please let me reaffirm that I do not believe there is a big conspiracy underway to hide weapons found in Iraq. I simply believe that approximately 500 degraded weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq that Saddam was illegally possessing. Regardless of whether he knew they were there or not - he was breaking international law.

Well, the administration dude also had this to say:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

It might have been a violation yes but not a serious one. At least nothing really relevant to the whole Iraq war clusterf*ck.

Edit: Forgetting about chemical munitions isn't that unlikely apparently:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:zRDI1EvlvL4J:www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/jul00/story4.htm

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

" - with Russia and China helping to build an Islamic bomb against the West -"
Given the Russian's problems with Chechnya, I doubt they'd go anywhere near helping Islamic regimes build atomic weapons!
As for artillery or mortar rounds filled with chemical agents, the Iraqi army would have stockpiles of hundreds of thousands of conventional rounds. If they were at all careless or their quartermasters weren't diligent then "losing" a few hundred chemical rounds is quite possible. By now any rounds filled with mustard gas (which is actually a liquid) would be in a very dangerous state, as it corrodes the shell from the inside out.

 

[uk_dave]

I think it's highly likely that Saddam thought he had WMD and that his own people were too **** scared to tell him that they had in fact complied with the UN weapons inspectors.

This might explain why he was obstructive during the inspection process, and possibly why western intel was suggesting that wmd might still exist.

Of course, even with his weapons programs stopped there was no way of guaranteeing that he would not re-start them after the UN removed the heat.

But there is a great deal of spin and semantics being used in this debate.

Weapons (wmd) were found, and people such as Santorum and Fox news used this to justify the Iraq war.

That those weapons were unuseable, very old and probably long forgotten by the regime tends to be ignored by those who want to be able to say that saddam had wmd and was in violation of UN resolutions.

Saddam gave the US and UK the justification for war simply by being a pain in the arse about the weapons inspections. Seems to me, given the kind of regime in iraq at the time, it is plausible that saddam believed his precious wmd was still available and no one had the balls to tell him otherwise.

But that's just my....... theory. A conspiracy theory, if you want.

 

[Pardalis]

Seems to me, given the kind of regime in iraq at the time, it is plausible that saddam believed his precious wmd was still available and no one had the balls to tell him otherwise.

I bet he was told by his "Information" Minister, but he didn't believe him:

 

[uk_dave]

I bet he was told by his "Information" Minister, but he didn't believe him:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8886462ba4c777ed9.jpg

Well there you go

I recall seeing a documentary about saddams attempt to get a nuclear reactor. He managed to buy one from the french (of course ) but the isrealis damaged it before it was shipped to Iraq.

Apparently the Iraqi scientists were too afraid to tell saddam just how badly damaged it was and so allowed it to be shipped over knowing they had a hell of alot of work to do if it was going to be operational.

That kind of climate of fear does lead people to tell the tyrant what they think he wants to hear rather than the truth.