Posted on 05/20/2004 11:47:27 AM PDT by Steven W.
First, the shell was announced by BG Kimmitt, the CPA military spokesman, and he was reporting an announcement by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). During the press conference, he said ... that the round was an old binary shell, and described its function - two components contained within the shell that are mixed by the action of firing the shell, and that since the shell wasn't fired, but used in an IED, the mixing was not complete, only a small amount of sarin was produced, and a couple of soldiers (EOD) were affected. Field testing showed sarin, and not said by BG Kimmitt but later reported, higher level testing confirmed it.
This is a significant announcement, yes, because it is a chemical round, but more importantly, because of the technology it uses. That is the use of cells or canisters of separate components that mix in flight to create the sarin. This is big news because the Iraqis were not known to have this technology prior to the Gulf War. Yes, they had sarin. And yes, they did use binary chemicals (and a note, here, on something I missed before - the Iraqis never declared binary artillery shells, but UNSCOM did find some in 1996), but as this interview with Scott Ritter - yes, that Scott Ritter - conducted in 2000 shows that the technology was crude - it was not "mix in flight":
BRG: They were also using very crude binary munitions.
Ritter: They called them “binary,” but what that meant was that they had a warhead full of isopropyl alcohol and at the last second they mixed in the difluor. [32]
BRG: “Mix-in-flight.”
Ritter: It’s not even “mix-in-flight.” They mix it before they launch. [33] At the Muthana State Establishment, which was responsible for developing Iraq’s chemical weapons, whenever they would mix these things Iraqi workers would get up there and then pour the agent in and stir the Sarin by hand in the warhead. Invariably there’s an accident and you’ve got guys writhing, convulsing and dying because of the nerve agent. The Iraqis killed more of their own people loading the chemical agent into the warhead than they did with the warheads themselves.
The Iraqis didn't use binary because it was safer, obviously. They did it because of shelf life. As I understand it, Iraq had a problem with their production that made their sarin ineffective after 3 weeks. So they used this crude binary so it wouldn't sit and degrade. If this was a unitary sarin round from pre-Gulf War days, it wouldn't have had any effect on the soldiers.
In short, this type of artillery shell is one that the Iraqis never declared, and the UN inspection teams on the ground never discovered. It introduces something entirely new into the WMD story of Iraq. Here is the nub - this type of weapon has never been found in or attributed to Iraq before, where did this one come from? This isn't quite an airplane in King Tut's tomb, but it is highly significant. Was it produced in Iraq right under the noses of the inspection regime? Was it purchased from outside in violation of UN sanctions? Did it come in from some outside country after the fall of Hussein? I don't know the answer to those questions, but whatever the answer, it changes the narrative of the WMD story in Iraq.
Or it should. While this has gotten a lot of notice in the blogosphere, there is nothing moving in the mainstream media. Why is that? Some of the reason is that the mainstream media quite obviously are uninterested in changing the narrative. That the LA Times fabricates the assignment of the production of this weapon to the 1980's is a sign of that - BG Kimmitt never said it, yet the LA Times writes that he did. This is having the desired effect, in the comments over at Washington Monthly's blog (Kevin Drum's deal), some one writes "General Kimmitt claimed that the ordinance was of Gulf War vintage, meaning that the bomb had to be at least 13 years old." No, he didn't say that at all about the ordnance (ahem). So how did that notion get in this guy's head? I'm guessing from reading a story in the LA Times or the like that has decided not to spin this one, but to simply print untruths. Noone ever goes back to check the primary sources, right?
(Excerpt) Read more at overpressure.com ...
You have trouble with Scott Ritter AKA Saddam's personal child-sex-blackmailed excuse maker specifying, before we went in, that the variety found in 1996 were NOT of the same type deployed against our troops recently?
Good find. I don't surf the blogs (maybe I should start) so I hadn't heard of this.
that is very interesting because - you're right - it appears our intelligence was beyond where the UN (and even Scott Ritter admits to the world) was factually.
I heard Biden on Fox saying that everyone knew Iraq had WMD, knew they had the ability to produce them, but they weren't weaponzied. He blamed Cheney and Rumsfield's belief in the guy they just arrested in Iraq (name?) for leading the President into the war. I think the new mantra is going to be "OK, so they had WMD, but they weren't weaponized." Whatever the heck that means. The four airliners they hijacked on 9/11 weren't weaponized either--until they were flown into buildings.
How much you want to bet this gets NO national media attention?
"I heard Biden on Fox saying that everyone knew Iraq had WMD, knew they had the ability to produce them, but they weren't weaponzied."
OMG, that's just so twisted and dishonest.
I think, if one of the recently banned's rants were translated correctly, that the guy you're looking for a name on is Chalabi.
Spot on about the airliners.
How could a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" not be "weaponized?" Biden's remark is an oxymoron.
Dunno.
It's intellectual dishonesty of the type that gave us "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is', is" and "No controlling legal authority".
Biden has to ignore the fact that international agreement and consensus since pretty much WWI states that Sarin is a WMD.
It's internationally stated an ddefined as such.
So Biden has to be either insane, stupid, or simply ignoring fact to fit an agenda.
Egads, so immediately you can tell who's using HTML, the spelling chicken or not.
"Weaponized" is military-speak for possessing the raw materials by which WMD could be produced, but lacking a delivery means (bomb, artillery shell, missile warhead). Clearly the 155mm shell says that Biden doesn't know whereof he speaks. When Kerry, Clinton, Gore, et al were speaking of Saddam's WMD (pre-GWB), they were clearly referring to "weaponized" WMD.
you are right - Slow Joe Biden is treading water and showing that the extensive brain surgery he underwent a few years back did not go far enough.
Hugh just covered this on his show ...
I do have some questions that I hope can be answered here:
Over the past year, I've periodically heard about these HUGE ammo dumps in Iraq the size of a small county or so, that would take a VERY long time to sift through.
Now:
1) Could someone ballpark how far along are we in looking through them (e.g., 20%, 50%, 80%)?
2) Are we sure that we know about all these dumps, or could there be more yet to be found, in spite of their size? (Never mind all that desert that could have something buried in it like the Mig jets, not to mention Syria Public/Clandestine Storage Co.)
3) How thorough is this inspection regime, i.e., do they automatically dismiss an artillery shell as "conventional" if they don't see the "green band" or some other obvious external indicator of a non-conventional round? Or are they taking them apart one by one? If it's the latter, wouldn't that take YEARS even under the best of circumstances (i.e., as many personnel as they want working 24/7)?
4) Is David Kay really in the same league with Blix? He sounds relatively even-handed to me (said Iraq was still dangerous due to the technology available to terrorists 'wandering through') and he is the guy who found stuff back in '98, isn't he?
We need answers to these questions NOW. Or at least I do...
BTTT
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.