Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pre-1991 Iraqi weapons said a threat to US troops (Rumsfeld)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:06 PM
Original message
Pre-1991 Iraqi weapons said a threat to US troops (Rumsfeld)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22434436.htm

Pre-1991 Iraqi weapons said a threat to US troops


WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - Abandoned Iraqi chemical weapons dating from before the 1991 Gulf War could pose a deadly new threat to American forces if they fell into the hands of insurgents, U.S. officials warned on Thursday.

But intelligence officials denied Republican suggestions that 500 chemical munitions found since May 2004 are the elusive weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration used to justify the 2003 Iraq invasion.

"They are dangerous, and anyone ... in that country would be concerned if they got into the wrong hands," asserted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "It's dangerous to our forces and it's a concern."

...

Rep. Jane Harman of California, senior Democrat on the House intelligence panel, charged that the Army report was selectively declassified for partisan Republican purposes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Water is dangerous also. Better guard that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'll volunteer to deal with the water
You can clean up the old chemical munitions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. No thank you. Got an interesting email from family in Normandy last wk
Out for evening walk and saw one of the farming neighbors had a pile of metal stuff by their rock barn. Closer inspection showed that it was old munitions, some unexploded, from D-day/liberation times. The town made the farmers call the authorities to get it out safely. They plowed it up from a new spot in their field and were just piling it up.

Anyways, yes, old munitions are dangerous and it is good to keep them safe, but this find still doesn't do it for "we had to invade because they had WMDs" is what I meant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
26. Media play
So how successful will they be hwile constantly repeating "finding WMD's" that all the other "small details" will be forgotten and esepcially no notice will be taken of this as a deceptive ploy to garner popular support. They themselves qualify the stories- eventually, but they get away with the underlying impression crap. This is so easy because the Dems do not and/or cannot immediately turn this against them as they should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. rumsfeld threat to US troops - too bad dems dont say that eh?
when more yanks die in Iraq than people at on 9/11 we can then call the republicans the biggest threat to american security.

gee, we could call them that NOW, and on DU we do, but nobody in congress is calling them that as far as I have heard.

Msongs

can you sing?
www.msongs.com/vocalistwanted.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. That thought has occured to me too
what's the current score ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. This has to be the most transparent bullshit pump-up of
nothing since the UN speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. Really? Then WHY didn't he guard weapons sites secured by the UN?
-if he's so worried about our troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agio Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
30. Oh stop...
making sense, this is a war.

Your attempts to force such fallacious concepts as "reason" and "prudence" demonstrate you live in a pre-9/11 mindset.

/snark (duh)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. Ohh... Rummie you Neonatzee crackpot... Really??
If these weapons R a threat to US troops like you spout, you, the traitorous Raygun envoy who sent them there, then why don't you bring the boys 'n girls home instead of letting them in harms way, you dumps**t??

Ah yes, we know, we know. Your stupid snowjob said they're just numbers and like all your little coward facsist trolls everywhere, we know you don't care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. The worst thing these ignorant morons could ever prove is that
Iraq had WMDeeeeeez for 10 or 20 years, and in spite of being sanctioned to hell and back, in spite of being continually bombed year after year, in spite of their family members being slaughtered on the highway of death after GWI, in spite of the fact that we supported them and then turned on them like a cur, in spite of all we helped the Iraqis to suffer,

THEY NEVER SENT ONE GOD DAMN WMD, MISSILE, SACK OF HORSE SHIT OR ONE STINKING BULLET OVER HERE. The Saudis on the other hand are a completely different story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
10. I suppose Rumsfeld should know . . .
Wasn't he the one who sold these weapons to Saddam to use in his war against Iran in the first place?

But as far as how "dangerous" these old canisters are, I suppose they could give you a nasty cut that might go septic. But as far as their being a threat to the safety and security of the United States, you'd have to be smoking something moughty powerful work up the level of paranoia needed to believe that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. didn't Rummazz sell them these weapons under Daddy Bush's
watchful eye?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. According to Timmerman, Germany sold the chemical weapons plants
France, handled the nuclear technology, and the US sold ballistic missile technology (as well as some anthrax).

Much of the West is implicated in the illegal arming of Iraq.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. Here's some VERY REVEALING facts about Chem Weapons sales by the US >>>>>>
Edited on Fri Jun-23-06 09:09 AM by Roland99
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. <1>

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. <1> & <15>

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. <19>

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. <2>

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. <10>

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. <3>

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. <7>


March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. <17>

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. <1>

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. <8>

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. <7>

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. <6> & <13>




References:
Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. Made this its own thread in GD...figured it was worthy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. ***Some detail behind some of the companies that sold chemicals to Iraq***
I was looking for this article and found it:

Who Armed Iraq?

By Paul Rockwell, AlterNet. Posted March 6, 2003.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15322/

According to the December declaration, treated with much derision from the Bush administration, U.S. and Western companies played a key role in building Hussein's war machine. The 1,200-page document contains a list of Western corporations and countries -- as well as individuals -- that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades.

Embarrassed, no doubt, by revelations of their own complicity in Mideast arms proliferation, the U.S.-led Security Council censored the entire dossier, deleting more than 100 names of companies and groups that profited from Iraq's crimes and aggression. The censorship came too late, however. The long list -- including names of large U.S. corporations -- Dupont, Hewlett-Packard, and Honeywell -- was leaked to a German daily, Die Tageszeitung. Despite the Security Council coverup, the truth came out.

...

Alcolac International, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. A Tennessee manufacturer contributed large amounts of a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in Gulf War diseases.

Phyllis Bennis, author of "Before and After," notes that "the highest quality seed-stock for anthrax germs (along with those of botulism, E. coli, and a host of other deadly diseases) were shipped to Iraq by U.S. companies, legally, under an official U.S. Department of Commerce license throughout the 1980s." A Senate Banking subcommittee report in 1994 confirmed that shipments of biological germ stock continued well into 1989.

According to Judith Miller in "Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War," Iraq purchased its seed stock -- its "starter germs" -- from "The American Type Culture Collection," a supply company in a Washington, D.C., suburb.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. they'd better don their nbc suits then
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. All of the conventional artillery and missile warheads
pose a grave threat to the troops. Where was the Marquis de Rumsfeld when all of the ammo dumps needed securing.

US troops killed by chemical munitions=0

US troops killed by artillery shells made into IEDs= Too Many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
15. Those shells couldn't be fired.
The whole idea is ludicrous. A can of drano would pose a greater threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. The insurgents already tried it.
There was a report a while back that insurgents had attempted to use an old chemical munitions round in an IED and it was ineffective because the contents had degraded to the point of being worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. An expert who knows on Olberman
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677

A munitions expert fully explains on Keith Olberman's show the uslessness of these defunct shells left over from the pre-90's Gulf war. Worth watching.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Veronica.Franco Donating Member (752 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Norman Schwarzkopf ... the voice of reason ... Jan. 2003 ...
Desert Caution

Once 'Stormin' Norman,' Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page C01

TAMPA--Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance.

The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.

And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In fact, the hero of the last Gulf War sounds surprisingly like the man on the street when he discusses his ambivalence about the Bush administration's hawkish stance on ousting Saddam Hussein. He worries about the Iraqi leader, but would like to see some persuasive evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons programs.

snip ...

He hasn't seen that yet, and so -- in sharp contrast to the Bush administration -- he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive the timetable: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52450-2003Jan27¬Found=true

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Don't miss The Dark Side video re.leadup to Iraq
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=12433

For those who haven't seen the video. Don't miss it and spread the word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
17. Rumspuke should know, he sold those to them. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. No kiddin'. Check the receipts! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
22. The problem with old weapons isn't getting them to explode
The problem is to get them to explode when you want them to. If the Iraqi resistance got their hands on these, the most likely outcome would be a lot of dead members of the resistance. The Iraqis are smarter then that.

You can't bury modern weapons systems in the ground for 15 yrs and expect them to work properly after you dig them up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
23. IEDs, bullets, disease, heat, RPGs, knives, etc. are dangerous, too.
Guess we better get out of there before our troops encounter any type of danger!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
25. yeah, it might give our troops a rash
pathetic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
27. Rumsfeld a fucking liar (TOJ)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
28. Are These The Same Weapons.....
Edited on Fri Jun-23-06 09:59 AM by butlerd
Are these the same "weapons" that we didn't bother to try to secure during the initial invasion while we were...ahem.....preoccupied with ensuring the security of the oil fields and ministry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Yes
v
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. I Thought So, Thanks!
Well, I guess then Bush & Rummy don't have anybody but themselves to blame for creating more danger for our troops over there. I'm sure some kind of admission of responsibility and/or "mea culpa" will be forthcoming. Stay tuned. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teknomanzer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. These are weapons left over...
from the Iran - Iraq war The 500 or so shells and cannisters have been discovered a few at a time over the last three years, and are not large caches of weapons. Nor are they the weapons the Administration claimed Saddam had. Most were found buried on the Iraq - Iran border, and were probably long forgotten.

Though the chemicals are degraded they can pose a real danger to those who discover them, but as military weapons they are beyond useless, and would probably be an equal threat to anyone trying to use them for that purpose.

This is just Santorum trying desperately to save his own ass with insane bullshit. It pathetic really. The guy even looks like a complete dork. I guess it was nice of Rumsfeld to play along without actually saying "Yes, the are THE WMD." He artfully exaggerated without lying...

I know I wouldn't want to play around with an 18 year old shell with mustard gas remnants in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
32. A threat, but not WMD
Little Ricky lied and got slapped down for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC