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 ?

[Triple Word Score]

Bump. I think you make a lot of sense.

[Wing Chun]

Lets face it folks. There are two possible explanations for our inability thus far to find any evidence of WMD:

1) They are not in Iraq ( probably smuggled out ). This ties in with the testimony of a Syrian reporter who claims to have seen evidence of this and in fact pinpoints the exact locations in Syria where they might be hidden.

or;

2) Saddam might have spent them when he gassed the Kurds and does not have them anymore ( a lot might have been destroyed by the first group of UN inspectors before they were kicked out ). He was either :

A) Made to believe by his underlings that he still has them.

B) Still believe that he has them but has not realy reconstituted them.

At any rate, it is looking like that we *OVERESTIMATED* his power. The way I see it, our intelligence really leaves a lot to be desired and Saddam is more bark than bite and never was much danger to the USA. Everyone, Clinton, Congress (both Dems and GOP ), and Bush were led to believe that Saddam was this big menace to the world. On the scale of things, he really looks like a local, regional thug. The most honest reason to depose him was to prevent further genocide on his people.

[mewzilla]

What kind of conventional shell carries a liquid load?

[Binghamton_native]

Suppose that we are keeping a lid on WMD findings for now so that the Democrats can have enough rope to hang themselves. The Bush administration has shown a past pattern of letting the Dems paint themselves into a corner and then demolishing them. Take for example the Dems whining about a secret government facility right after 9-11, and then being embarassed by a news release that their leadership had been given an inspection of the facility.

[Trust but Verify]

What you are saying is that the Bush Administration is covering up evidence of WMD discoveries to 'protect' the psyches of Iraqis? Nonsense. IF they had any concrete proof of chem/bio warfare agents, whether in chem/bio warheads or otherwise, they would be shouting it from the rooftops. It would be the biggest possible STFU to dems and all the anit-war losers.

[Trust but Verify]

There you go again, making perfect sense in all your posts.

[Trust but Verify]

I'm not at all surprised we are finding chem/bio warheads all over the place. I'd be more surprised if we didn't. That doesn't mean the 'payloads' never existed, but that they are either hidden or destroyed or simply degraded.

[Wing Chun]

That would of course be my personal hope.

However, every single so called "smoking gun" we might have found have come up as not worthy of news.

Remember the following anti-climactic reports ? All shelved for some unknown reasons :

* Nuclear centrifuge found buried in a scientist's backyard
* Vans that harbored Biological weapons lab
* Documents that allegedly linked Abu Nidal to the training of at least 2 9/11 terrorists ( including Muhammad Atta himself )

* Geiger counters that allegedly went to the end of the scale when huntng for WMD in an underground warehouse

* Yellowcake material found shipped to Holland allegedly coming from Iraq.

* And now this so called Chemical weapon tipped shell....

How many more false leads are we to have ?

If as you said, Bush is using this as a tactic until it may be announced at the most opportune time, then Madeline Albright would seem to be at least justified in her suspicion when she loudly said ( off mike of course ), that Bush was hiding something until the best time ( in her case, the arrest of Osama Bin Ladin himself ).

[mewzilla]

That's what I'm thinking. And it seems to me I recall reading that bio/chem weapons aren't usually loaded until right before they're fired. If so, I'd be surprised if we found them already loaded since Saddamn and/or his army doesn't appear to have been willing to use them after all.

[Destructor]

I'm beginning to smell a rat! Every time potential WMDs are found they always turn out to be clean. The rolling germ labs that were captured were clean. Yet we've had an entire Iraqi village come down with radiation sickness, and we've found centrifudge tubes for building a nuke!

Signs would seem to point to WMDs, but everything keeps coming up clean. Can you say shenanigans?

[Trust but Verify]

Please explain why it is more in the Bush Administrations interest to keep coming up empty handed on WMD than to actually be able to say, "Here they are, just like we said."

[Destructor]

Excuse me, did I blame it on the Bush Administration? Did I even mention the Bush Administration at all!?! What''d you do-- pull that one out of your ass? Don't put words in my mouth!

[NutCrackerBoy]

There were scientists working in weapons programs, there were tons of dual-use facilities, there are papers documenting these things.

The ability of Saddam to imminently attack our interests was not the reason, but it is the only reason that near-pacifists accept. The UN matters, politically, a great deal. Genocide, torture, and egregious rights violations cut no tender at the UN whatever.

Despite that tilt in priorities, the WMD reason was important. The obviously avid interest of Saddam and other rogues in the region to acquire the deadliest of weapons, plus the high capabilities of terrorist networks forced the West (minus a few dishonorable Western nations) to go ahead and eliminate Saddam. This at the very least created a powerful deterrent against rogue nations WMD acquisition.

That is good news. The endless hand-wringing over no tipped warheads found is proof of the unbalanced tilt toward post-modern journalism.

[Trust but Verify]

Who do you think is in charge in Iraq? If WMD's were found, do you think the President wouldn't know about them? Would he go along with the 'shenanigans' being committed? You didn't say Bush is involved, but the implication is there, and I asked you for an explanation. I'll ask again. What is your theory? If you just want to go off on someone, don't bother with a response.

[JasonC]

It is tinfoil speculation, not just idle speculation. If Rumsfeld knew of credible finds of WMD he would announce them to everybody and go on all the Sunday talk shows and shout it from the rooftops. He does not lie about such things. It would be politically useful, it would validate the original mission, it would be a success, it would give him another opportunity to deliver his standard lecture on the long term threat of terrorists getting WMD. He'd grab it, in a heartbeat. Speculation otherwise is silly.

No, they haven't found them because they aren't there. Either Saddam got rid of them out of fear of invasion, but was not able to convince us of the fact (remember his December document dump?) - or he shipped them out to Syria before and during the war.

I consider the first perfectly plausible. Why wasn't he able to document it to our satisfaction, if it was so? Because Iraq was a highly disfunctional place, where yes men gave assurances to higher ups out of fear of the wood chippers. Perhaps they just had prefunctory CYA documentation, meant only for internal purposes, but nothing thorough.

Why wouldn't he allow inspection of "presidential sites" before the war? Because he was paranoid and thought the CIA would plant bugs all over them. It is a perfectly plausible explanation. On this theory, he tried to say "yes" and we wouldn't take it for an answer because he had lied so many times there was no reason to believe him.

I consider it plausible despite his own desire for WMD because they particular types he actually had - mostly chemicals - do not really store well to begin with. He kept the dual use production capacity to make more. He had empty warheads, bombs, and shells. All he had to do to reconstitute his chem arsenal was turn the plants back on and spend a few months filling them up again. So why keep it around for the US to use, when he can go without temporarily and get the arsenal back when he wants it, "just in time" inventory style? Perfectly believable.

The alternative is that he sold it to the Syrians and shipped it out during the long diplomatic run up. Expecting to go into hiding if he lost, drive the US out with paid guerilla actions or just outlast us, and somehow come back. But billionaires do not typically count on courses of action that leave them living in holes and deprived of access to wealth and power.

If he did this, he was probably surprised at actually being attacked. Perhaps he moved the stuff to Syria to avoid the inspectators finding it, thinking thereby he'd avoid the war altogether. Then get them back when it all blew over. That would be a plausible bit of overconfidence for a man like him.

[justa-hairyape]

What you are saying is that the Bush Administration is covering up evidence of WMD discoveries to 'protect' the psyches of Iraqis?

We are fully commited to rebuilding Iraq. And we want it done as quickly as possible. The main reason is to counter Iran. With a weak Iraq, if Iran gets Islamic nukes from Pakistan, the whole region may get lite up with the US miltary in the center. Why should Bush et. al. care if the Democrats gain political points with "no WMD' rants. They are fast gaining third party status and are fast becomming irrelevant.

Nonsense. IF they had any concrete proof of chem/bio warfare agents, whether in chem/bio warheads or otherwise, they would be shouting it from the rooftops. It would be the biggest possible STFU to dems and all the anit-war losers.

The dems are irrelevant now. The 'psyches' of Iraq citizens are more relavent strategically then the 'psyches' of the internal dimwits. In other words, we are in a serious war with a serious enemy. Our very survival depends on winning this war. Its not Vietnam. The protestors are nothing more then couch potato entertainment.

Hopefully the above makes my opinion of the situation clear.

[justa-hairyape]

It is tinfoil speculation, not just idle speculation. If Rumsfeld knew of credible finds of WMD he would announce them to everybody and go on all the Sunday talk shows and shout it from the rooftops.

We are in a war for our very survival. Long term thinking or strategic thinking is more important then scoring points in some stupid political election cycle.

It would be politically useful, it would validate the original mission, it would be a success, it would give him another opportunity to deliver his standard lecture on the long term threat of terrorists getting WMD.

We are not fighting this war to improve Rumsfield take on the lecture circuit. We are fighting this Decades long war for our very survival. Rumsfield and many americans would take a 'bullet' to help this fight.

No, they haven't found them because they aren't there. Either Saddam got rid of them out of fear of invasion, but was not able to convince us of the fact (remember his December document dump?) - or he shipped them out to Syria before and during the war.

Finding the enemies armed WMD's during a conflict and during the following guerilla war are discoveries that are best kept top secret. I am just speculating here because I am not privy to ANY top secret war issues.

The rest of your post was idle speculation that every free individual is free to do whether wearing tinfoil or government issued blinders.

[JasonC]

Horsefeathers. You are spreading baseless conspiracy nonsense that says all our leaders are liars. Then you want them to be lying because they are so patriotic. Transparently, you are simply flummoxed that the WMDs haven't been found. So are they. They expected to find them, and if they had they'd have said so, but they haven't.

The Dems are spreading the cockamamy notion that they were lying beforehand and knew they weren't there, when they wouldn't have claimed such things if they didn't believe them. You are spreading the equally cockamamy notion that they are lying now. They aren't lying. They weren't before. They thought they'd find WMDs, but they haven't.

Since they can be made rather simply it is quite possible Saddam was satisfied to have the means to make them when he wanted them in readiness. It is also possible he sent them out of the country. But the adminstration wasn't making it up when they said they thought he had them, they did think so. And they aren't making it up now when they say they haven't found any, they haven't. The rest is tinfoil.

[justa-hairyape]

You are spreading baseless conspiracy nonsense that says all our leaders are liars. Then you want them to be lying because they are so patriotic.

Listen to anything coming out of the mouths of any of the leading Democratic candidates for commander in chief. They all are lying right now. Politicians are liars. They have to lie to get elected. Thats basic politics 101. The non-elected leaders lie for national security reasons. We are in the middle of a war. The first casualty of war is the truth. Thats basic war 101.

Transparently, you are simply flummoxed that the WMDs haven't been found. So are they. They expected to find them, and if they had they'd have said so, but they haven't.

Actually, what puzzles me is the following. If the finding of WMD's are SO important to our leaders, why not just manufacture some evidence ? It could be done so easily and the leftist loonies are all gonna scream planted WMD whether true or not. So why have they not been falsely planted yet ? Thats what is truelly puzzling and it leads credence to the theory that we dont want them found right now. Unless of course you think truth is a virtue to have when fighting an enemy that calls you the 'Great Satan'.

You are spreading the equally cockamamy notion that they are lying now. They aren't lying. They weren't before. They thought they'd find WMDs, but they haven't.

Actually, its the LEFT that is insinuating Bush et. al. thought they would find WMD and thats why they went in. What actually happened was that the UN enforced resolutions had determined that Saddam could not provide adequate documentation/evidence for destroying the WMD he admitting having. Some of these WMD were actually found by the early UN inspectors which forced Saddam to admit he had a lot more of them. Eventually the US led coalition was tired of Saddams eventual kicking out of the UN inspectors and failure to provide evidence of having destroyed the WMD. Thus, the coalition went in to enforce Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions that were initially based on the cease fire agreements from Gulf War 1. Its the dimwits that have reduced that to a sound bite.

It is also possible he sent them out of the country. But the adminstration wasn't making it up when they said they thought he had them, they did think so. And they aren't making it up now when they say they haven't found any, they haven't. The rest is tinfoil.

The administration was free to 'think' whatever it wanted. Their thoughts were based on facts acquired from the UN itself. Saddam had failed to provide evidence of destroying all the thousands of units of WMD he had. So the prudent course of action was taken. We assumed he still had them and intended to use them like he had in the past. Ask the Kurds if we did the right thing ?

[JasonC]

You can't seem to separate the question whether we did the right thing - which of course we did - from whether we were wrong about WMDs. I've never said we went in because we thought we'd find WMD. We did think we'd find them. And we haven't.

There is such a thing as being surprised. Even our fearless leaders doing the right thing can be surprised. They thought they'd find WMDs - before the war, right after the war, a month after the war. Rumsfeld had a hundred press conferences on the subject. There was no ambiguity whatever.

You also can't seem to wrap your mind around the staggering concept that Rumsfeld in his official capacity tells the American people the truth about our major military operations, how they are going, what he expects, what their sons are being asked to risk their lives for.

The Dems can't wrap their minds around that idea either. Their excuse is they think Rumsfeld is an evil Martian or Nazi. Your is apparently that he is infallible, so if he expects something and it doesn't happen it must actually have happened but he's just covering it up. That they haven't faked evidence of WMD is not evidence that they really found some but can't tell anyone about it. It is, transparently and common-sensically, evidence that they don't lie about the matter.

Remove the tinfoil. The Dems are whacko to think the adminstration had to know beforehand and just lied. They didn't know beforehand, they thought beforehand. They didn't find WMDs, because they aren't there (anymore - Saddam got rid of what he had at some point between 1991 and now - perhaps relatively early in favor of just in time dual use facilities, perhaps relatively late parking stuff in Syria).

They did not consciously lie, they were honestly mistaken, when they said they were confident they would find WMDs. They aren't lying now, they are honestly telling us they have looked but have not found. It is not the end of the world to admit they were honestly mistaken. It is simply a fact. There is nothing to be ashamed of about it. Everybody on earth can see it is so, by now.

[Destructor]

There you go again trying to put words in my mouth! You went into this accusing me of bad-mouthing the Bush Administration-- when I never even mentioned the Bush Administration! Now, you're upset at getting an angry response? Deal with it, punk!

Did it ever occur to you that our coalition partners, or the Iraqis themselves could be responsible for the continued failure to find the WMDs? I guess not! You're to busy rooting out Bush bashing (where none exists) to consider any other possibilities!

[familyofman]

"Remove the tinfoil. The Dems are whacko to think the adminstration had to know beforehand and just lied. They didn't know beforehand, they thought beforehand. They didn't find WMDs, because they aren't there (anymore - Saddam got rid of what he had at some point between 1991 and now - perhaps relatively early in favor of just in time dual use facilities, perhaps relatively late parking stuff in Syria).

They did not consciously lie, they were honestly mistaken, when they said they were confident they would find WMDs. They aren't lying now, they are honestly telling us they have looked but have not found. It is not the end of the world to admit they were honestly mistaken. It is simply a fact. There is nothing to be ashamed of about it. Everybody on earth can see it is so, by now."

Very nicely stated. Know the truth & it will set you free. Trying to explain the WMD situation as other than: we thought they had them, but we can't find them is speculation & spin.

[Trust but Verify]

You sound a lot like Howard Dean.

I merely pointed out that it would be unlikely the US (read: Bush Admin)would cover up any real evidence of WMD discoveries, when the finding and reporting of such would buttress the stated reason for taking action against Iraq and vindicate Bush.

And name calling is so unbecoming. I mean, calling a 40-something wife and mother of two a 'punk'?

[Destructor]

Sorry, for the name calling. It infuriates me to no end when fellow freepers go on the attack by putting words in my mouth! I don't get that very often. Usually on the pro-pot threads.

I agree with you on the point that the Bush Administration wouldn't sabotage itself with any shenanigans in the hunt for WMDs. That's why I didn't say that it was the Bush Adminsitration that was doing the shenanigans.I think it's a real odd coincidence that the Iraqi Cols. keep leading us to the Caches of WMDs that don't amount to anything. It's like somebody is toying with us.

In this case, it was a coalition partner that found a cache that (coincidently) didn't amount to anything. In another instance, some weapons were turned over to a coalition partner that "has a unit that specializes in Chemical Warfare." Coincidently, the weapons weren't chemical weapons-- in spite of the fact that the artillery rounds bore the color code designation of chemical weapons! I just think it's real fishy!

This may sound like some tin foil conspiracy theory, but it really has me wondering.