Skip to comments.In Search of Saddam Hussein's WMD: Saddam’s “Special Weapons” pt 4 of 5
Posted on 04/06/2006 1:04:07 PM PDT by Blackrain4xmas
Saddam's "Special Weapons" went by air to Syria, Belarus, and possibly Russia and Libya as well. They went by ground to Syria, and they went by sea to points unreported. The plan was called "Sarindar" ("Emergency Exit"), and it wasn't much different in general strategic terms from the American flight from South Vietnam. Just as U.S. embassy officials shredded and burned documents when Saigon fell, and again in Tehran, Kabul, and a dozen other fallen nations, the Russians and others did what they could to move, hide, and/or destroy their sensitive documents, equipment that they'd provided to Saddam's Regime, as well as (allegedly) his WMD and WMD equipment as well. "By air, by land, and by sea" That is the claim made by Gen. Sada, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Shaw, Gen. Ibrahim, Ariel Sharon, Israeli intelligence, and many more.
Clandestine movements by air and land have been discussed. The story of "Sarindar" by sea follows. Allegedly two Russian ships left the Umm Qasr port in the months before the war and went to the Indian Ocean. On board were supposedly some of Saddam's WMD chemical precursors. According to the "Sarindar" plan, they were to be taken to a deep part of the ocean and dumped.
It is completely impossible to fathom that Russian ships could enter the Persian Gulf, dock in Iraq, load up and pass through the Persian Gulf again, then into the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean all within 100 miles of 1 to3 entire American aircraft carrier battlegroups as well as two Marine Amphibious Assault task forces. There is no way that those two ships were not monitored by dozens-perhaps even hundreds-of American and Coalition warships.
What is known for certain is that just before the war, mainstream media reported that two Russian warships and a tanker were positioned off the Persian Gulf allegedly to monitor the situation. More likely they were there to ensure that none of the Coalition naval forces threatened to board the Russian ships. In fact, from March 20 onward the Coalition stopped and seized all ships bound for Iraq (often under the disguise of being part of the Oil-For-Food program). Those that were in fact found to be carrying humanitarian supplies had their cargos delivered by the US military instead. Others were seized, and their contents never revealed. Russian ships were apparently permitted to dock, load up with clandestine materials, and pass right through the U.S. Navy.
Now, opponents of the war often like to parse words and rhetorically argue that the war was about WMD and not WMD precursor chemicals. Compare Saddam to the late Timothy McVeigh. Both committed mass murder, both belonged in prison. Had Timothy McVeigh worked in the prison autoshop and been caught with a gallon of gasoline in his locker as well as a few pounds of fertilizer, would that have been a threat? Absolutely! He used those chemicals to make the bomb that used to commit mass murder, and similarly Saddam used different combinations of different chemicals to commit mass murder.
The Duelfer Report, after action reports from US Forces, and even mainstream media have all shown photos and video of the thousands and thousands of empty artillery shells positioned at chlorine plants, pesticide plants, and "former" chemical weapons manufacturing plants. While empty artillery shells are not an imminent threat, they could be filled in hours and turned into WMD. Most of Saddam's program had been redesigned to make fresh, potent chemical and biological weapons in hours in some cases, and so the issue becomes his intent.
Did he intend to make fresh WMD with chemical precursors-like those allegedly dumped by Russian ships? The Duelfer Report says absolutely yes, and it makes that claim based on interviews with regime leaders as well as Saddam and his history of doing so. Having said all that, some chemicals-like chlorine and concentrated pesticides-are dual use and do have non-military uses, but other chemicals do not. The ISG shows pictures of a large can of rare New Zealand opossum pesticide that is as almost as toxic as anthrax (true, no New Zealand opossums have been seen in Iraq so either the pesticide worked, or it was to be used as a weapon as the ISG report claims). Another example: SCUD missile fuel is unique to SCUD missiles. Even Hans Blix' UNMOVIC couldn't explain why Saddam's regime making SCUD missile fuel. When the war started, this chemical was gone. Perhaps deep-sixed in the Indian Ocean? Or was it poured into the Euphrates River like the massive amounts of cyanide and other toxins that US Marines discovered and CNN reported?
Missing also are the binary chemical agents that Saddam could only have used to combine and make fresh nerve agent before loading into empty artillery shells and rockets. Where are the large, illegal missiles Saddam was found to have by post-war investigations (at least 22 of these illegal missiles were fired at Coalition forces. None had chemical warheads, but post-war investigations did find that the missiles had been widened to fit SCUD warheads of which there remain several missing chemical warheads, and some had been illegally modified to carry cluster munitions as seen in the Duelfer Report).
By air, by land, and by sea, Saddam paid the Russians and Syrians to get rid of his illegal WMD, WMD equipment, documents, and people. That Saddam once had horrific weapons is not in debate. Many were destroyed or decayed, and the Duelfer Report lists them in great detail, but it also lists many Remaining Unresolved Disarmament Issues. For someone to claim that all of Saddam's weapons were destroyed and not moved out of Iraq in the 15-month "rush-to-war", then that someone must be able to present greater evidence of the destruction of those remaining Unresolved Disarmament Issues-evidence greater than the mounting pile that suggests they were removed from Iraq.
When someone claims that Saddam destroyed all his anthrax and other chemical and biological agents, and the war was one big "Bush lie" about WMD, they need only be asked to provide some evidence of its destruction: contaminated sand, witnesses, documentation, photos, any evidence. Fact is, for thousands of liters, there is no evidence of destruction by Saddam, but there is evidence it was moved. These terrible weapons do not simply vanish, and given that a tablespoon of some can kill hundreds of thousands. It seems to many that they should be accounted for rather than dismissed as magically destroyed to fit a political agenda. Can we really believe that no one in Iraq witnessed their destruction, or do these Remaining Unresolved Disarmament Issues demand resolution; proof of destruction?
Sam Pender is the author of several books on the Global War on Terror and the Iraq Wars in particular. His works include: Iraq's Smoking Gun, How Did It Come to This?, The Ignored War, America's War With Saddam, and Saddam's Ties to Al Queda.
Too bad Saddam didn't "Sarindar" when he had the chance.
And yet another link in the huge WMD chain of links for me to fight the useless idiots on the left.
Here's even more:
Reports on the thwarted WMD attack on Jordan.
Jordan attack and other links:
WMD Links and more evidence about WMDs
More WMD stuff:
Last UN Report on Iraq, including finding a number of 122mm Chemical Artillery Shells and R-400 Biological Weapon bombs filled with a liquid (after 12 YEARs of searching and "100% declarations" by Saddam's Iraq). It also details Iraqs Al-Sammoud missile program (range exceeds cease fire and UN mandates) and Iraq's lack of cooperation of substance. You can access all of the UN Records here too.
Or, how Former Sec of State Allbright was surprised no WMDs were found:
And probably best of all, articles from the former Romanian spy chief, Ion Mihai Pacepa, which details the Russian efforts to hide WMDs of client states. Do you have any idea how far this was buried in the internet? If I didn't know the author's name and nationality, I would have never found it.
WARNING TO TROLLS: The following link may be "too Jewish" for the national socialist left and their Stormfront allies:
And finally this:
"Moreover, the IIS paper targeted a number of French individuals that the Iraqi's thought had close relations to French President Chirac, including, according to the Iraqi assessment, the official spokesperson of President Chirac's re-election campaign, two reported "counselors" of President Chirac, and two well-known French businessmen. In May 2002, IIS correspondence addressed to Saddam stated that a MFA (quite possibly an IIS officer under diplomatic cover) met with French parliamentarian to discuss Iraq-Franco relations. The French politician assured the Iraqi that France would use its veto in the UNSC against any American decision to attack Iraq, according to the IIS memo.
From Baghdad's perspective, the MFA concluded that the primary motive for French continued support and cooperation with Iraq in the UN was economic. According to Tariq Aziz, French oil companies wanted to secure two large oil contracts; Russian companies not only wanted to secure (or lock in) oil contracts, but also sought other commercial contracts covering agricultural, electricity, machinery, food, and automobiles and trucks products. ...."
I think I remember three ships holding station in the Indian Ocean. I don't recall they were labeled Russian however.
Come on... BUSH LIED!!!
And I will tell you how.
Our government knew that Iraq had WMD. Colin Powell showed the UN where everything was. Satellite photos I believe. Everyone said Saddam had WMD. I also believe that our national intelligence isn't that stupid that it would lose hundreds of trucks that left Iraq for points unknown. I also don't believe that hundreds of trucks vanished from the face of this earth without a trace.
So what happened to the trucks? Exactly where conspiracy theorists say they are. They went back to points of origin, mainly Russia. Why?
Because the US, Russia, Europe, Asia and the rest of what can be called the civilized world cannot exist knowing that some crazies from the mid-east are running around this earth with weapons that can wipe civilization from the face of the planet. It is easier for someone to be embarrassed by it and take the blame then to have the world saying, "Where are the WMD? and Bin Laden saying, we have bio/chem and nuclear material." This would throw the world into economic and societal turmoil where no one wins, regardless of ideology.
Bush took the blame and in doing so he lied to us. However, given the alternative, I will accept it gratiously knowing that our President was watching out for our safety.
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.