U.N. Team Still Looks for Iraq's WMD

The Washington Post ^ | 6/2/2007 | Colum Lynch

[HawaiianGecko]

UNITED NATIONS -- More than four years after the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations is spending millions of dollars in Iraqi oil money to continue the hunt for Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
...
...
"Look, Iraq is not Denmark," he said. "They've made botulin, anthrax, VX, sarin; they've made the whole spectrum of horrifying items, and they've used them. We don't know how things are going to develop in the region, and we want to be sure there are some controls."
...
...
The United States and Britain have recently mounted a concerted push to shut down the commission. Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, introduced a resolution last month that would end the inspections. "The U.S. position for years with UNMOVIC has been 'Been there, done that,' " said a senior U.S. official who monitors the commission, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

[HawaiianGecko]

Since the Bush administration is claiming no WMDs exist in Iraq, just watch the crazy liberal left start saying they exist.

[Diogenesis]

========= Chemical Warhead found in Kirkuk =============

Chemical warhead found at an Iraqi air base, marked with a green band,
the symbol for chemical weaponry. Trace amounts of a nerve agent were found
at two spots along the ~meter-long warhead. These amounts are consistent with
leakage from the chemically armed weapon. A 13-foot missile was found next to it.

---

========= Halabja =========

Dead children, previously playing in Halabja
Victims of Saddams' WMD in March 1988.

---

Also found in Iraq:

* A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service
that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials
working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home,
one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

* New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF),
and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

* Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in
resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

* A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission
that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

* Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles,
a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists
have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

* Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -
well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed
Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology
related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles,
and other prohibited military equipment.

---

Still missing based on the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council in January 1999,
when the UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they had been unable to account for:

• up to 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agents, including 1.5 tons of VX nerve agent;

• up to 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, including approximately 300 tons which,
in the Iraqi chemical warfare program, were unique to the production of VX;

• growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce
over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admitted to UN inspectors to having manufactured);

• over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents;

• 20 al-Hussein missles with a range of 650 km, in violation
of UN Security Council Resolution 687 (Iraq had told UNSCOM that it filled these warheads with anthrax and botulinum);

• 2,850 tons of mustard gas, 210 tons of tabun, and 795 tons of sarin and cyclosarin;

• development of the Al-Samoud short-range missle (which had the capability to fly beyond the 150 km allowed by UN resolutions)

========= Chemicals and Weapons found in Fallujah =============

[Vanbasten]

“The commission’s prewar assessment — that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Baghdad had resumed production of weapons of mass destruction — flatly contradicted U.S. assertions at the time and has long since been vindicated.”

Idiots from the Post. Of course there was insufficient evidence. It was a secret program. That’s why your own inspectors were denied access to certain areas of Iraq, and that’s why Saddam didn’t allow inspectors back in to avoid war.

Bush is hiding a worse secret. He telegraphed the assault on Iraq, and failed to make securing the weapons a priority. If the liberals were smart they’d be pounding that point, but thankfully they’re not.

[gov_bean_ counter]

I am not sure this issue was ever settled...
http://www.mfso.org/article.php?id=212

FWIW all civilians must take the anthrax vaccination prior to Iraq deployment. Initially it was voluntary. Hmm...

[JB in Whitefish]

“”It doesn’t exactly trip off the tongue,” Ross said, “but it’s my piece of history, and I’m clinging to it.” “

And, I well up with PRIDE knowing I’ve done my own little bit once upon a time to assist the U.S. Government in helping to create these technologies and endanger the world. So WHAT if 3,000+ of my cohorts have died in the process thus far.

It was for “NATIONAL SECURITY”....!!!

[gratifying that]

http://www1.va.gov/SHAD/

Or, if you want the REAL story:

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14556

~~~~~~~~

NO worries, however. Any criticisms you can lay at my feet have already pretty much been covered by my being 100% service connected disabled as a result of SHAD....and the 35 years of sleepless nights have taken up the slack.

Have a nice day.

[Tommyjo]

Diogenesis,

Why are you still peddling that ‘green banded’ warhead?

Just because it is green doesn’t mean that it is chemical.

The warhead tested positive via the initial monitor readings. Lots of ICAM readings were spurious and this resulted in dodgy claims. Remember the claimed chemical mortars found near Basra? Those warheads at Kirkuk were the same with the ISG checking them out and finding NO chemical readings. The intitial ICAM readings were spurious.

Just because it has a green band does not make it a chemical warhead. You are relying on spurious information.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/13/sprj.irq.kirkuk.warhead/

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/13/se.01.html

“COSTELLO: This chemical warhead that they found in Kirkuk, do you have any more information on that, so we can update our viewers?

KOCH: Still don’t have a final reading on it. The plan right now was for a chemical weapons evaluation team to come in and check out that warhead very carefully, because when the teams came upon it in Kirkuk, they performed tests in the field. The first test was positive for the presence of some sort of a chemical nerve agent, and then the second test was negative, Carol. So they’re still waiting for that team to come in and do a final and definitive test.

COSTELLO: Understand. We’ll get back to you — Kathleen Koch reporting live from the Pentagon this morning”

Also your last image. Why are you posting images of mortar shells and grenades? Can you explain. None of those mortars are chemical. Why are you still posting complete non-sense images and misleading people?

[Diogenesis]

"Why are you still peddling that ‘green banded’ warhead? Just because it is green doesn’t mean that it is chemical."

Give the basis for your claim that green band does not mean it may involve chemical/bio weapons.

Just because one was found either not loaded,
or below the sensitivity of a test, does not mean
the broad generalization you claim.

[drzz]

UNSCOM Richard Spertzel :

(http://drzz.over-blog.org/article-5190467.html)

HAVE WAR CRITICS EVEN READ THE DUELFER REPORT?
by Richard O. Spertzel
Wall Street Journal
October 14, 2004
After the release of the Iraq Survey Group’s Duelfer report, the headlines blazed “No WMD Found.” Most stories continued by saying that Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to the U.S. and thus the U.S. was wrong to eliminate that threat. This reflects the notion that Iraq was only a threat if it had military munitions filled with WMD. The claim “Iraq was not an imminent threat” was also expounded by pundits that seemingly crawled out of the woodwork as well as those opposed to President Bush. But have these individuals read carefully the report before engaging in such anti-Bush rhetoric?

* * *
While no facilities were found producing chemical or biological agents on a large scale, many clandestine laboratories operating under the Iraqi Intelligence Services were found to be engaged in small-scale production of chemical nerve agents, sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, ricin, aflatoxin, and other unspecified biological agents. These laboratories were also evaluating whether various poisons would change the texture, smell or appearance of foodstuffs. These aspects of the ISG report have been ignored by the pundits and press. Did these constitute an imminent threat? Perhaps it depends how you define “threat.”

The chemical section reports that the M16 Directorate “had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe.” Are we to believe this plan existed because they liked us? Or did they wish to do us harm? The major threat posed by Iraq, in my opinion, was the support it gave to terrorists in general, and its own terrorist activity.

The ISG was also told that “ricin was being developed into stable liquid to deliver as an aerosol” in various munitions. Such development was not just for assassination. If Iraq was successful in developing an aerosolizable ricin, it made a significant step forward. The development had to be for terrorist delivery. Even on a small scale this must be considered as a WMD.

Biological agents, delivered on a small scale (terrorist delivery) can maim or kill a large number of people. The Iraqi Intelligence organizations had a history of conducting tests on humans with chemical and biological substances that went beyond assassination studies. While many of these were in the 1970s and 1980s, multiple documents and testimony indicate that such testing continued through the 1990s and into the next millennium, perhaps as late as 2002. Do we wait until such weapons are used against our domestic population before we act? Is that the way that some people wish to have the U.S. protected from terrorist activity?

It is asserted that Iraq was not supporting terrorists. Really? Documentation indicates that Iraq was training non-Iraqis at Salman Pak in terrorist techniques, including assassination and suicide bombing. In addition to Iraqis, trainees included Palestinians, Yemenis, Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and Sudanese.

As for the U.N. inspection system preventing such R&D, why did Iraq not declare these clandestine laboratories to Unscom and Unmovic and why did these inspection agencies not discover these laboratories? Might it have been that there were multiple informants working inside Unscom and Unmovic that kept the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed as to what sites were to be inspected? Information collected by ISG indicates that this was the case. In late 2002 and early 2003, equipment and materials were removed from several sites 24 hours before U.N. inspections. Such informants were said to be active since 1993. Ergo, no surprise inspections.

Furthermore, sanctions were rapidly eroding. Unscom was aware of this erosion but not to the degree that apparently developed post 1998. The accounts of bribery of officials from several countries that were pushing for lifting or weakening sanctions are legend and have been extensively reported this past week. Inspections can not be effective without the full support of the U.N. Security Council. Such full support did not exist from late 1996 onward. Perhaps, now we know why. Iraq exploited the power of wealth in the form of oil to buy influence in the Security Council and within governments throughout the World. This has now been well documented.

Was Iraq an imminent threat? With the regime’s intention and the activity of its intelligence organizations, and with the proven futility of uncovering its clandestine laboratory operations by the U.N. inspectors, it is hard to draw any other conclusion. Regretfully, terrorism is the wave of the future. The report by Charles Duelfer is unclassified and makes very interesting reading for those who really want to know. For those with a closed mind, it will be a waste of time.

Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, just returned from Iraq, where he has been a member of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG).

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/8195

[Tommyjo]

Of course it does. It was the same when you posted images of SA-3s being transported throught Baghdad. The munitions were NOT chemical warheads. You are relying on the fact that the media went for the ‘green band’. Just as the mortar shells gave false readings from ICAM equipment the warheads at Kirkuk also gave the same. The ISG cleared the warheads and the mortars. You are still peddling inaccurate and misleading information. The warhead was NOT chemical and the mortars were NOT chemical. Why are you still peddling and misleading people with the information?

[Diogenesis]

Tommyjo, YOU were asked for a basis for your claim.

You have not responded except to threaten me
as you have in the past including by FReepmail.

Who do YOU peddle this for?
Who do you work for? what is your background?
and what is your agenda?

Why does a single check rule out chemical weapons?
(you have failed to answer that, too)

Back up your information, and explain your threats.

[Tommyjo]

Diogenesis,

I have no agenda. I served 22 years in the military and retired this year.

The ISG checked out those munitions that you posted images of. The initial testing of those munitions gave false readings. The same with the mortars discovered in Basra. Spurious readings gave rise to concern. Later testing of the munitions by the ISG found no trace of chemicals or any other WMD. The same when the US. Marines found a cache of artillery shells that gave initial spurious readings.

If you examine your posts over the years you will see that you jumped on every single media release of those spurious readings. I see absolutely no posting of the follow ups that showed that no chemical muntions were found in the case of the mortars or the warhead at Kirkuk when the ISG conducted detailed examinations.

For President Bush or Prime Minister Blair to stand up a cache of weapons ready munitions would have to have been found. Even over-running a SCUD launcher unit would have been substantial proof - None were found and None were launched by the Iraqi’s during 2003. What would have been positive proof is over-running a cache of ready to use and primed chemical shells for say 155mm howitzers.

You have consistently posted images ranging from Syrian tube-launched rocket launchers and images of SA-2 moving through Baghdad. Why? It was the same for French made Roland SAMs discovered by Polish units. You posted claims that they were from 2003 when in fact the Polish unit snipped off the manufacturers date tags before destroying them. All the Rolands discovered by the Coaliton were all found to be from 1980’s sales.

You still haven’t explained why you are posting images of mortars and grenades? (Your last photo) You are misleading individuals with utter non-sense. It was the same when you posted a missile being transported throught Baghdad caught on video. Claims on Freepers of “Hans Bix - You missed this one” when it was an SA-2 Guideline surface to air missile.

Do you not think if primed chemical munition was found at Kirkuk then President Bush and Prime Minister Blair would have gone immediately public to tell the world? The ISG re-checked those initial spurious readings. They did the same with the mortars found in Basra. Detailed analysis and lab testing found that the initial readings were spurious. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[Tommyjo]

To further highlight your inaccurate image postings

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/Cache22004-11-22.jpg

The link to your image of showing mortar shells and grenades. Why you are posting this image I have no idea.

Examine the captions to the CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS CACHE found in late 2004.

Copy and paste the links and read the captions for yourself

http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=4046

"November 22, 2004

A sample of one of the largest weapons caches found in northern Iraq."

http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=4047

"November 22, 2004

"Weapons in this guarded pile are a sample of those in uncovered Nov. 22 in one the largest weapons caches ever found in northern Iraq."

Not one link or reference to WMD in those official U.S. Army images.

Please explain your use of this image in reference to WMD?

[Diogenesis]

"I have no agenda. I served 22 years in the military and retired this year.

Friend, we all salute you, thank you, and wish you good health.

"The ISG checked out those munitions that you posted images of. The initial testing of those munitions gave false readings.
The same with the mortars discovered in Basra. Spurious readings gave rise to concern. Later testing of the munitions by the ISG found no trace of chemicals or any other WMD. The same when the US. Marines found a cache of artillery shells that gave initial spurious readings.
If you examine your posts over the years you will see that you jumped on every single media release of those spurious readings.
I see absolutely no posting of the follow ups that showed that no chemical muntions were found in the case of the mortars or the warhead at Kirkuk when the ISG conducted detailed examinations.

There are two issues here. One is, what does 'spurious' mean?
What constitutes a reading which gives a sensitive enough reading, with some accuracy and good precision,
to protect our brave soldiers and Marines, and those who valiently accompany them.
In that regard: How many tests were done? What is biological/chemical fall off time for sensistivity of the tests?
What are the etiologies of both false positive AND false negative results?
So let's begin with what YOU mean by 'spurious'? Second, do you still purport that 'spurious' readings rule out chemical/ and bioweapons?
How does that reconcile with: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

"For President Bush or Prime Minister Blair to stand up a cache of weapons ready munitions would have to have been found.
Even over-running a SCUD launcher unit would have been substantial proof - None were found and None were launched by the Iraqi’s during 2003.
What would have been positive proof is over-running a cache of ready to use and primed chemical shells for say 155mm howitzers.
You have consistently posted images ranging from Syrian tube-launched rocket launchers and images of SA-2 moving through Baghdad. Why?

Several reasons, FRiend.
First, because they were part of an image set involving perhaps ten thousand images in
two wars in the War on Terror that showed the valiant efforts of Americans (and others)
liberating two countries. And, if in the ten thousand images, I got two or even twenty
wrongly labeled, so what? Did I not ask FReepers to correct my errors? Second, because the images were labeled as I presented
with the exception that I removed the attacks on America, and correctly
lauded the great wonderful Americans such as yourself who were at point
in the War on Terror. Third, because there is not available better evidence that can be examined
forensically in hand to better protect our people. Do you know of any? Your point with respect to the inadvertent post of the mortar shells and grenades was already
noted, so you did not need to post #12.

"Do you not think if primed chemical munition was found at Kirkuk then President Bush
and Prime Minister Blair would have gone immediately public to tell the world?

I can think of reasons for them using their judgment either way.

"The ISG re-checked those initial spurious readings. They did the same with the mortars found in Basra.
Detailed analysis and lab testing found that the initial readings were spurious.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?"

We await your precise substantive definition of 'spurious' and why "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
when American troops are at risk, and in an environment where there were actual WMD already
used, and evidence of not fully securing sites by the Liberating Troops.

[Diogenesis]

You must have missed my request for you to please
give “the basis for your claim that green band
does not mean it may involve chemical/bio weapons”
or such with capability, from your list of logos/symbols
by country and terrorist group at hand. Tnx.

[Tommyjo]

ICAM and other initial survey monitors are always give false and spurious readings. Read the links. The same went for the mortar shells found in Basra. A reading on the survey meter does not mean that there is a presence of a chemical munition. Spurious and false readings do occur an on a regular basis. The troops on the ground were simply erring on caution and waiting for indepth analysis by the ISG. The ISG conducted their indepth analysis and none of those initial readings were subsequently backed up. It was simply another case of the ICAM equipment giving false readings.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/12/sprj.irq.chemical/

“The warhead tested at one bar on a six-bar scale, which would be consistent with leakage from a chemically armed weapon, military sources said.

But two subsequent ICAM tests showed zero on the scale, contradicting the earlier tests.

A soldier who performed the second pair of tests told CNN that little should be gathered from the findings, because no definitive answers would emerge until chemical experts arrive at the base and break into the warhead itself.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3407853.stm

“Field tests conducted by British and Danish inspectors indicated that the shells - found on 9 January - contained traces of blister gases - including mustard gas compounds.

But further tests by the Iraq Survey Group in South Iraq and the US Department of Energy’s National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho proved these results were incorrect.

“The results show the shells from the Danish area did not contain chemical warfare agents,” the Danish Army Operational Command confirmed on Sunday.

Testing kits used on the shells would be sent to Denmark for analysis, the statement added.”

It was also the same for the 278 artillery shells that gave spurious and false meter readings. The ISG investigated and found that the shell were not a chemical stock.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1087317,00.html

“CHEMICAL SHELLS FOUND’

US Marines have discovered 278 artillery shells carrying a substance that tested positive

as a blistering agent, senior officers have said.

Major Stephen Armes, of the Marines 1st Battalion, 5th Regiment, said the shells were found

in trailers parked in a schoolyard.

Three were mounted on launchers, he said.

But the battalion commander said more tests were required before any conclusions could be

drawn.”

What you have to understand is that the monitors are not 100% reliable. They can give very, very low indication readings. This is what happened in these cases. The troops took no chances and even very low bogus and spurious readings were passed up the chain for the ISG to give a thorough and more accurate check. The resulting ISG checks found no WMDs present on the munitions.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? It isn’t some conspiracy theory. During Desert Storm initial warning monitor field alarms were always giving false/bogus readings. What you have to realise is that you might test a munition 5 times and once in that test it registers a low reading. Even that low false reading was enough for the troops to call in the ISG. It doesn’t mean that there was actually any chemicals present, but just a bogus initial reading with troops erring on caution.

[Diogenesis]

What you have to understand is that the monitors are not 100% reliable.

But I do. I also understand the more important issues involve sensitivity, accuracy and precision
and quality assurance issues, as I posted.

You have ignored the relevant questions which where posted
so perhaps it is hard for you to answer these questions.

What is biological/chemical fall off time for sensistivity of the tests? And the interval between
initial testing and later follow through

What are the etiologies of both false positive AND false negative results?

What about "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
So with that, do you think the WMD were moved?

What is “the basis for your claim that green band
does not mean it may involve chemical/bio weapons”
or such with capability, from your list of logos/symbols
by country and terrorist group at hand?

[Tommyjo]

Simple stuff Diogenesis. Think about it? Do you not think that those ‘WMD finds’ ‘Basra mortars’ ‘Kirkuk warhead’ etc would have appeared in the ISG reports?

The ISG inspected the ‘Kirkuk warhead’ - no chemicals traces found.

The ISG inspected the ‘Basra mortars’ - no chemicals traces found.

It isn’t a conspiracy theory. The initial meter readings were false indications of a chemical presence. Even some to the reports highlight the fact that further testing produced zero readings. To err on caution they called in the ISG to conduct indepth testing. Their findings were that the munitions were clean and the ICAM initial readings were false readings.

It isn’t really hard to follow. Let me know when you find the ‘Kirkuk chemical warhead’ find in the ISG reports?

It was a non-event. What you are doing is still peddling stories and images that even the ISG checked out and classified as a non chemical find.

[Diogenesis]

FRiend, you say the same things over and over,
but never answer the questions.

Do you think there were WMD moved to Syria or Bekka
or elsewhere from Iraq, Tommyjo?

[Cementjungle]

United Nations is spending millions of dollars in Iraqi oil money to continue the hunt for Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction

Now I understand why we haven't "found" them yet. They UN took bribes to overlook the WMD's and now they're still making millions to "find" them again?! Sheesh...who's bright idea was that?

[Tommyjo]

You seem to be steering away from the facts. I am challenging your presentation of images. Images that are totally misleading. You seem to have a consistent habit of presenting these images and making fantastic claims. You still present the ‘Kirkuk warhead’ as a chemical munition when it was not. Why do you still present the image? It is totally misleading when the warhead was found NOT to be even remotely chemical or WMD involved.

Iraq never had a consistent marking of chemical munitions. This was found out during Desert Storm by Coalition forces and by UNSCOM. There was never a standard marking system. The munition was checked and found NOT to be a chemical Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You present images of mortars and grenades from a conventional cache in a post that you claim to be ‘chemical finds’. Why? It is totally misleading and inaccurate.

Your posting of inaccurate and misleading images on Freepers is well known. It started with the SA-2 SAM being transported through Baghdad and continued with an image of a Syrian multi rocket launcher which you claimed to be Iraqi and sent to Syria. Why?

It is the misleading images that I am taking you to task on.

For example in 2004 you posted this image with the caption

‘Iraqi missiles given to, and now located in, Syria:’

http://www.debka.com/photos/232.jpg

Completely inaccurate and totally misleading. Why you post them I don’t know?