'No blister agent' in Iraq shells

BBC Breaking News ^ | January 18, 2004 | BBC News

[Right_Handed_Writer]

One of these times....

[aristotleman]

I'm beginning to think, since many of these "findings" are made by foreign troops, that field tests are negative to begin with, and that our "allies" are trying to make the US look bad.

The assumption that the WMDs are currently in Syria should be pushed more and investigated. Question is, how did that happen under our noses?

If the Kay report ends up short of something sensational, the impact on the overall war on terror will be very disastrous. Is the intelligence inept? There is so much at stake here. We really need satellite photos of suspicious movements from Iraq to Syria.

[IoCaster]

"It is not clear why initial tests first showed..."

This has happened too many times for mere coincidence. From the first days of the war to this latest episode.

WTF is going on?

[nevergore]

Uhhh...they were filled with liquid....

Other than WMD, no other field artillery rounds are filled with liquid other than chemical warheads....

Unless Saddam was to unleash the dreaded "Evian" warhead....

The report either initial or subsequent must be disinformation.

NeverGore

[trebb]

Well . . . what was in them?

[MosesKnows]

WTF is going on?

Isn't it obvious by now WTF is going on?

[Rokke]

Field tests are designed to lean toward indicating a positive. This is for the sake of the soldiers in the field as it is better to lean in the direction of precaution. As for what was in those shells...they were most likely either smoke or willy pete rounds. The chemicals can liquify over time.

[RJCogburn]

Really a non issue, IMO.

A few shells with old blistering agents is hardly the threat to this country that GWB painted before the war.

How could we know where and what Saddam had before the war, with enough precision for Powell to be specific on those matters at the UN, and then loose them all?

If we had the ability to find and identify them then, how could we not have that same ability, at all, thereafter?

[Sofa King]

This seem a bit suspicious to me. I'm starting to wonder if this is the result of an anti-war faction in the foreign troops. IIRC, it wasn't just 'initial tests' that showed a blistering agent.

[Ben Hecks]

"Other than WMD, no other field artillery rounds are filled with liquid other than chemical warheads...."

Probably insecticide. ; >)

[steplock]

I'm wondering WHY they are insisting on hiding these discoveries.

I can see not letting out discoveries of germ warfare so they won;t scare the ignorant people of the world, but it has been a known fact that iraq had the berve gas, mustard gas, etc so it does no harm in releasing those discoveries.

Unless.....

was this a DIS-associated Press (or reuters) release?

[steve50]

This has happened too many times for mere coincidence. From the first days of the war to this latest episode. WTF is going on?

Orwell called it prolefeed.

[steplock]

THe ORIGINAL story back on 15 Jan 2004 was a DIS-Associated press release!

I thought it had that putrid smell about it!

"Tests of Iraq mortar shells find no blister agent"
By Matthew Rosenberg
The Associated Press
January 15, 2004

[expat_panama]

"unleash the dreaded "Evian" warhead...."

Oh My STARS AND GARTERS!   The unbiased BBC has proven once and for all that the Americans are hot-headed cowboys and that Blair is a poodle.   (Shouldn't this be posted under 'breaking news'?)

/sarcasm

It seems like everyday I'm amazed all over again at how so many actually believe the garbage coming out of the BBC, the NYT, and of course that famous FOX competitor "ABCNNBCBS".  Doesn't anyone care about the violations of the UN resolutions?  How Iraqi yellow-cake in Amsterdam?

Sheesh!

[MizSterious]

Good question. Here are some more:

1. Why would something that's totally innocent be so carefully hidden?

2. If there were no chemicals in the shells, why were they constructed to hold them? What would be the point, if not to deliver chemicals?

3. What was the liquid?

4. What tripped the alarms on the initial tests? Are our tests so shoddy that even water will test positive for chemicals?

[e_engineer]

Well . . . what was in them?

They were "clean up shells" that are commonly used after a battle to clean up a messy battlefield. They were probably filled with something like this:

[freedumb2003]

Uhhh...they were filled with liquid.... <

Close-up cross-section of Queen Anne Shell

[bushfamfan]

So apparently this one ended up being nothing either. But I find it interesting they went to all the trouble to bury them, like they buried the jets, trucks, etc. The regime found all the time in the world to bury that stuff, I believe some WMD may still be buried in Iraq. I think the case that Iraq shipped much of its WMD to Syria is very credible. The Israeli intel was warning us before the war, during the last case for 'inspections' that they wouldn't find any because Iraq was shipping to Syria. Iraq had so much warning before us going to war with them that it is apparent they planned for this in an attempt to malign the US in regards to Iraq and WMD. What is the deal with our spy satellites? I've read that Russia, France, etc. gave Iraq the times when our satellites would be overhead. The regime and its thugs were clever in their hiding and denials of these WMD, but it defies logic when they had chemical suits at the ready, wouldn't allow UN inspections, go to the trouble to bury weaponry, destroyed documents, scrub down trailers, kill scientists, etc. that something is going on and I hope they figure it out. The US erred in allowing Russia, France and the rest of that regime's allies in holding us up in taking action therefore allowing Iraq time to create this situation with the WMD.

[TankerKC]

WTF is going on?

Initial field tests are notoriously inaccurate.

[templar]

1. Why would something that's totally innocent be so carefully hidden?

Hidden or disposed of? We have a problem in the US in finding (and trying to destroy) old stuff we buried long ago to dispose of it.

If there were no chemicals in the shells, why were they constructed to hold them? What would be the point, if not to deliver chemicals?

These were obviously left over from the Iran war. No one has ever suggested that they didn't have this stuff in the distant past. Again, was this just a conveint method of disposal? For that matter, were these just old training rounds from the Iran war?