Iraq Had Secret Labs, Officer Says

Los Angeles Times ^ | June 8, 2003 | Bob Drogin

[Mister Magoo]

Iraq Had Secret Labs, Officer Says

Goal was to someday rebuild chemical and biological weapons, general alleges.

By Bob Drogin Times Staff Writer

June 8, 2003

BAGHDAD -- Saddam Hussein's intelligence services set up a network of clandestine cells and small laboratories after 1996 with the goal of someday rebuilding illicit chemical and biological weapons, according to a former senior Iraqi intelligence officer.

The officer, who held the rank of brigadier general, said each closely guarded weapons team had three or four scientists and other experts who were unknown to U.N. inspectors. He said they worked on computers and conducted crude experiments in bunkers and back rooms in safe houses around Baghdad.

[Uncle Hal]

How did the editors of the Times let this article get in the paper? Somebody must of slipped up.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this.

Backhoe for your indexing project.

[IonInsights]

OK, case settled. Why all the hub-bub?

[cardinal4]

The LA Times is priniting something adds creedence to the Bush admin??

[BlueNgold]

In the wake of the NYT scandals to sit on this kind of story and potential 'exclusive' would ruin them. This is a chance for them to gain some supremacy and add to credibility by publishing all credible stories.

[VOA]

Saddam Hussein's intelligence services set up a network of clandestine cells and small
laboratories after 1996 with the goal of someday rebuilding illicit chemical
and biological weapons, according to a former senior Iraqi intelligence officer.


"The only mistake I made was not having nuclear weapons before invading Kuwait."

---rough paraphrase attributed to Saddam after his army was expelled from Kuwait

[VOA]

The LA Times is priniting something adds creedence to the Bush admin??

I read the LA Times about three times a week (99% for opposition research).
They are a very mixed bag...lots of crap reporting (the pillage of the National
Iraqi Museum was still reported as fact a week after all the truth was out).

And then they print something like this.

It's like I say when I see an article like this: the experienced editors are
too stoned/drunk by 4PM Friday so that the junior editors (who've not yet gotten their
full training in journalistic mendacity) accidentally let the truth slip out.

[TomB]

More evidence to be ignored........

[demlosers]

The only mistake I made was not having nuclear weapons before invading Kuwait."

Although in many scenarios nuke weapons for the most part will keep an adversary at bay. However small nations have few nukes and crude designs with rudimentary delivery systems, they can be taken out if the adversary has good intelligence. If they do use nukes against a force with superior nuclear fire power, it’s the end of them.

[Eric Esot]

How did the editors of the Times let this article get in the paper? Somebody must of slipped up.

Guess they didn’t get that “Bush is an evil mastermind that fooled the entire world” memo from the DNC.

[moneyrunner]

”Although in many scenarios nuke weapons for the most part will keep an adversary at bay. However small nations have few nukes and crude designs with rudimentary delivery systems, they can be taken out if the adversary has good intelligence.”

But that’s the problem, isn’t it? We have had 12 years to create an intelligence capability to find out what, where and how Saddam created WMDs. Yet here we are. We don’t know where they are and what was done with them. What makes you think we have a better handle on the Korean weapons, or the Iranian weapons? Let’s say you get the word that Saddam II is going to launch his crude nuke at you with his rudimentary delivery system (say, a Toyota pickup). Knowing what we know now – quick – where do we aim?

”If they do use nukes against a force with superior nuclear fire power, it’s the end of them.”

Fine. But in the meantime how many thousand of your troops are fried? And what do you mean, “the end of them?” Genocide?

Armchair strategists! ((sound of disgust))

[paul51]

registered members only?

[Duan]

He said they worked on computers and conducted crude experiments in bunkers and back rooms in safe houses around Baghdad.

I wonder if he might give us an address of just one of these “labs”?

[demlosers]

Armchair strategists! ((sound of disgust))

Just a possible scenario; don't get your panties in a wad.

[Lady In Blue]

Bumping for later read. Thanks!

[edsheppa]

they can be taken out if the adversary has good intelligence.

Leaves us out then.

[moneyrunner]

"Just a possible scenario; don't get your panties in a wad."

Sorry. I thought about skipping the sarcasm. I should have.

The point I was trying to make is that the kind of intelligence that allows a country to go after the bad guys personally is usually found only in movies. Sort of like the Westerns when I was growing up where the good guy shot the gun out of the hand of the bad guy.

In real life, the good guys used shotguns with buckshot and not only didn't wait for the bad guy to draw, he had his gun cocked looking for a killing shot.

Love and peace.

[Paulus Invictus]

Had he had and used the weapons then, Baghdad and surroundings would now be hardened glass and other relics of the country and he would no longer exist (if he does now...)

[BilLies]

Checked LATimes, site ok. Saw it first in my ultra liberal newpaper Albany Times Union.
Why isn't Drudge listing this item?
Doesn't smell right.
How do we put this up to top the page?