Posted on 05/17/2004 8:20:19 PM PDT by yatros from flatwater
FORMER chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said that a shell containing sarin nerve gas used in an attack in Iraq was most likely a stray weapon possibly from the first Gulf War.
The US-led coalition used that claim to justify the invasion even though UN inspectors failed to make any significant finds before the war.
The former Swedish foreign minister said the 155-mm shell used to attack a US military convoy Monday could have been part of a group of old, unused shells that were simply debris leftover from the war in 1991, adding the weapon could have been scavenged from a dump.
"It doesn't sound absurd at all. There can be debris from the past and that's a very different thing from having stockpiles and supplies," he said.
"Whether this may indicate something more ... I think we need to know more about it."
Saddam's regime was told to destroy any weapons of mass destruction under UN resolutions passed after the 1991 war. Blix reiterated that his inspectors found no such weapons in the run-up to the invasion.
"We found a dozen warheads that were intended for chemical weapons and they were empty," he said.
His inspectors also found four other shells that were designed to carry chemical weapons, including the sarin used in the attack Monday, but they were also empty.
US Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said in Baghdad that two soldiers were treated for minor exposure to sarin, but no serious injuries were reported. He said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive didn't know it contained the nerve agent.
Blix, former director of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, has sharply criticized the US and Britain for invading Iraq without UN approval. He retired last year and currently heads a new Stockholm-based independent commission on weapons of mass destruction.
Blix said today that the discovery of the nerve agent was not a sign that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.
blix is not evidence of intelligent life-The Capt.
Face it, Bush needs more than one Sarin shell and sixteen empty shell casings to convince the American people that the Iraq War was necessary or wise. According to Rasmussen, only 45% of Americans think we are winning war on terror. Not good for Bush's reelection prospects.
Technically he's right - it isn't a sign, it's rock solid evidence. A sign would just suggest that it's possible. This proves it.
No wonder he couldn't find anything - he wasn't looking for it.
Baloney. Let's be truthful. We could find a cache of 50 of those binary sarin bombs, in perfect condition, alongside a working 155mm cannon, in one of Saddam's weapons depots, and the left would insist they don't constitute evidence that Saddam had LARGE caches of WMD. Or that Bush planted them. Or that the weapons were imported from real terrorist supporting countries (though according to the left there ARE none but the US and Israel) because the imperialist Bush unilaterally toppled Nice, grandfatherly Saddam in order to steal his oil.
"Blix said today that the discovery of the nerve agent was not a sign that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war last year."
Hey Blix, if there weren't any WMD's there to begin with as per your anal assertions, then just HOW did the artillery shell make an appearance as an IED anyway?
Are you seriously saying that the event never happened, that it's impossible because the shells don't exist?
By the way Blixie, the shell's green band markings were removed, so that it looked like any other 155mm artillery shell..
Your butt sniffing inspectors were snookered, and you can't admit it, can you?
Ever wish one would?
Even if it was left over from the Iran-Iraq war was it not suppose to have been disposed of? This is what everybody was claiming that Saddam was keeping around because he would not account for the destruction of those weapons. We said he had those weapons and that he was probably making more because he had the knowledge. I guess we were right on point one, and we have found evidence through documentation that we were right on point two.
The only question....why are the Republicans not daily pounding those facts over the airways despite what the media wants to report. Republican congressman gets asked question on his stance on taxes, changes subject (like all dem politicians do) to the subject he wants hounded home to the public. Democrats have talking points we should too.
At least President Bush has been to Iraq.
Blix's statements not evidence of intelligence: CurlyBill
First rule of being a liberal: there are no rules (in other words, the goalposts always move)
Second rule of being a liberal: NEVER admit you were wrong
Blix has been there a number of times as well. As I recall he had to go over and meet with Saddam on at least one occasion. So what is the beef?
I have always wondered why Scott Ritter was SO SURE there were no WMD -- really, how would he know since he had not been in Iraq as an inspector for several years. Nobody, even a jerk like Ritter, would announce to the world with such absolute certainty unless . . . he was involved in assisting to hide the weapons in a place where he was sure they would never be found.
you're right. I'll shut-up now
you're right. I'll shut-up now
He wasn't blind. he was busy visiting with saddamn having lush meals. Watching porn, and filling his suit cse with money. it would be veeerrrry interesting to do an audit of his finances.
"If you were on parole for possession, and the authorities found your bong smoking in the middle of the street and two young men sitting around it with a contact high, would the judge dismiss your parole revocation based on your plea of shoddy record keeping by your housekeeper?""Face it, Bush needs more than one Sarin shell and sixteen empty shell casings to convince the American people that the Iraq War was necessary or wise. According to Rasmussen, only 45% of Americans think we are winning war on terror. Not good for Bush's reelection prospects"
Why even float the canard, boo-bird? Face it, if Bush can't convince the American public to draw the line in the sand there instead of here, the election will be fairly meaningless anyway. But he'll win, and by a substantial margin -- it is John Kerry after all, boo-bird.
Hey blix, just 'cause you have a mouth and open it does not mean that you will ever say anything intelligent!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.