U.S. Tests Show No Traces of WMD in Iraqi Shells

NewsMax ^ | 1/18/04 | Limbacher

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

A fourth round of tests conducted on mortar shells found in Iraq 10 days ago by Danish troops has determined that they did not contain chemical weapons, contradicting field tests by British and Danish experts last week.

The results of the latest evaluation by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho were announced Sunday by the Danish Army Operational Command.

The results mirrored findings late last week by a U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group, which was dispatched to the site in Basra after the British and Danish tests indicated that the shells contained a form of mustard gas.

The Danish troops initially found 36 shells, exposed by rain, in the ground outside a village near Qurnah on Friday. They were leaking a liquid deemed suspicious, since mortars usually contain solid explosives.

"This was a stash. They were stacked and ordered and wrapped in plastic," Danish spokesman Capt. Kim Vibe Michelsen told the Associated Press.

Michelsen said the 120 mm shells "don't look like any known" mortars in the Iraqi arsenal.

Villagers in Qurnah told the Danish troops that they had found about 400 or more shells some years ago and threw them in the Tigris River.

The area was the scene of intense fighting during the Iran-Iraq war. The villagers told the Danes that one 1984 battle fought there lasted seven days.

When local residents retuned to Qurnah after the battle, all their cattle were dead and the area was littered with human bodies, Michelsen said he was told. None of the dead bore gunshot wounds, but all were bleeding from the mouth and nose - symptoms consistent with the use of mustard gas.

Some villagers also complained that they were coughing blood for some time afterward, and local livestock continued to sicken and bleed from the mouth.

"This is a clear indication of chemical weapons use," Michelsen told the AP.

The Danish Army Operational Command said it would try to determine the nature of the liquid that was in the Iraqi shells, why it tested positive for mustard gas and whether there was any link to past chemical weapons use in the area.

[Destro]

oh well.

[ConservativeLawyer]

I wonder what the liquid was that they were leaking.

[RandallFlagg]

But....

WHADDDABOUT the chembioweps that they intercepted being smuggled outta Iraq into Kuwait back in October?

WHADDABOUT the "Insecticide" in the warheads we found in March?

Too many unanswered questions lately. Am I the only one who remembers these things?
(I know others here do, too.)

[Richard Axtell]

This is one too many. How many different occasions have we seen a similar setup? Someone, an Iraqi, leads soldiers or investigators to a cache of weapons, that at first appear to be anything but conventional munitions. What kind of shell OTHER than a chemical round would be filled with liquid? What are these, maple syrup rounds, in case Saddam makes some 105mm pancakes? Is there such a thing as liquid explosive, or could some kind of standard ordinance explosive turn into a liquid, from age or some other reason? I don't know if you wonder like I do, but it is almost as if those technicians and officials specifically those who "test" these suspected weapons, don't want to find any WMDs. One too many times, a find that seemingly couldn't be anything but a form of WMD, is given the REJECT stamp. What is going on here?

[John H K]

contradicting field tests by British and Danish experts last week.

It's unclear how "expert" those experts were.

Frankly, whether bioweapons or chems, unless it's a test in a fully outfitted lab by either a PhD biologist or a PhD chemist, it's questionable whether it can be considered an "expert" test.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Something doesn't make sense, all the early tests of anything that's found shows positive, then afterward further testing it's said to be all negative. I'm wondering are the people testing trying to screw Bush on this.

[John H K]

What is going on is chemical weapon field tests are designed for a false positive bias.

[Triple Word Score]

I'm wondering this too, especially since the field tests are actually pretty darn accurate.

[Richard Axtell]

"What is going on is chemical weapon field tests are designed for a false positive bias"

Ok, lets go with that. Why? These were coalition troops, Danish, that found these shells, reportedly. I've heard that some of the European units, for instance the Czechs, include chemical weapons disposal experts. Why does a FALSE positive help, other than just promote extreme caution? Did I answer my own question? Still, what liquid was that, and no, I don't believe that there ARE insecticide rounds.

[John H K]

WHADDDABOUT the chembioweps that they intercepted being smuggled outta Iraq into Kuwait back in October?

The SOLE source for that was some Kuwaiti government functionary, and frankly, like most Arab news sources, the Kuwaitis seem a bit "goofy." They're the ones that kept claiming the Iraqis were firing SCUDs, but none of the missles Iraq fired at Kuwait in the war were actual SCUDs, for example. Also, I believe that report was translated and passed among a series of Arab newspapers before it was in English in the western media.

Basically, I consider that one basically mythical. One of those flukey things that pop up devoid of actual truth.

WHADDABOUT the "Insecticide" in the warheads we found in March?

I THINK you're confusing two of the early reports.

The very FIRST, much ballyhooed in the media and on FR "find" was basically a farm shed with some old rusty drums of insecticide lying around or very shallowly partially buried. Of course, they gave a positive to all the field tests, but turned out to be pesticides.

There was some very tenuous report of some reporter claiming to overhear on a radio one unit talking about another unit finding some warheads with chems in them immediately after. That one basically disappeared and was dubious to begin with.

[FairOpinion]

And what about the mustard gas and cyanide they found in the Euphrates river in high concentrations?

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


And what about this?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/07/1049567603880.html

Sarin test sparks evacuation of compound
April 7 2003, 1:07 PM

Albu Muhawish: US soldiers evacuated an Iraqi military compound early today after tests by a mobile laboratory detected the presence of sarin, a powerful nerve agent.

[ImphClinton]

I would rather get a false positive than a false negative.

I really doubt the test are all that accurate. So far they have not pr oven to be so.

The weapons are either deep underground in Syria or both.

[John H K]

The result from a false negative can be death or injury.

The result from a false positive, at worst, is embarassment.

One thing to keep in mind is that I'm sure Iraqi farmers were using various chemicals on their farms, and you'll eventually end up with low levels of various nasty chemicals running off (towards the river, and that's where these shells were found.)

[John H K]

One problem is that when some sort of claim is debunked the major media doesn't report it or do any followup. This was especially true during the war as they're not going to spend 10 minutes fully explaining why their chem weapons claim from the night before didn't pan out, when they need those 10 minutes to show bombs blowing up in Baghdad.

The various articles describing in detail the debunking of THIS claim is actually unusual; there's little enough going on in the world that they have the time and desire to cover it.

[John H K]

Finding cyanide and mustard agents in the rivers would have simply been an indication that the Iraqis had disposed of a lot of chemical weapons in such a way they could never be used.

[OneTimeLurker]

Rusty water?

[justa-hairyape]

Its looking more and more like the WMD findings are being dismissed or covered up. There are a lot of valid reasons to do this. But first, it is somewhat ludicrous to think that NO WMD have been found yet in Iraq. Saddam had thousands of chem and bio warheads. He could not produce adequate proof of having disposed of them. To think that Saddam could have effectively destroyed all the thousands of WMD warheads is a bit of a stretch. And if he did effectively destroy them, he would have been able to document them. The only logical counter to this is that Saddam destroyed all of them, but did not want to appear weak to his neighbors. This however does not explain why his internal documentation of the WMD destruction was also destroyed.

So why is the US government covering up all the WMD findings ? We are getting a new one every few weeks. Why is the US government quick to claim that a catastrophe within our own country was definitly not terrorism, while also admitting they do not know how it happened at that time ?

Its obvious why they would be quick to dismis terrorism within the US. They want to appear as if they are doing there job and they dont want to panick people. Fine with me as long as the terrorist incidents are as minor as the terrorist attack on the El Al terminal at LAX.

So why dismiss so many potential WMD findings in a country that had thousands of warheads ? It obviouslly helps the internal moral of the Iraqi citizens to think that there wont be random terrorism with some of the older WMD shells left over from Saddam. Since the US is now in the business of rebuilding Iraq, we want a stable climate. No WMD findings also helps with the US military moral.

The problem with this however is that when a WMD attack occurs by Terrorist or Saddam loyalists, the US is going to be blamed for not having found the WMD by the Iraqis themselves. So the cat should be let out of the bag, regardless if it would also help the dimwits dump the Dean. Unless of course, we have located all the WMD, but judging by the shear numbers of WMD Saddam admitted having, that seems unlikely.

At any rate, just some idle speculation.

[JasonC]

Mustard is broken down by contact with water. These were probably old Iran war era mustard rounds that have long since broken down. If the initial test looked e.g. for trace chlorine or for sulphides, it might pick up breakdown residue. Testing for actual mustard would show none present, because there is none left. The most likely explanation. Nobody disputes Iraq used tons of mustard against Iran.

[VRWC_minion]

Is there some international law that would give the UN jurisdiction if chemical weapons were found ?