Log in

View Full Version : Iraqi Chemicals Found


bigboy7787
09-01-2007, 04:44 AM
Dangerous Iraq chemicals found stored at U.N. in NY
Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:06 PM ET



UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - United Nations officials found vials of dangerous chemicals, which had been removed from Iraq a decade ago, in a U.N. building in New York, but U.N. officials said on Thursday there was no danger.
The FBI was called in to help remove the substances.
The material was phosgene, a chemical warfare agent, U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe told a news conference.
The inspections unit said in a statement that the chemicals had been found last Friday.
The Iraqi weapons inspectors came across the material as they were closing their offices, which are housed in a building near the U.N. headquarters in Manhattan, said Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman for the inspectors.
Phosgene was used extensively during World War I as a choking agent, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-08-30T170627Z_01_N30440927_RTRUKOC_0_US-UN-CHEMICALS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true

bigboy7787
09-01-2007, 04:47 AM
Many of you love to point and say Bush is a liar. This Proves that Iraq had WMDs at least at some point. If Saddam did not have them at the time of the invasion, he sure did do a great job of making the world think he had them.

Remember Kerry, Bill Clinton, Edwards, France, Blair, Russia all said Saddam had WMDs.

He probably moved them to Syria

mikizee
09-01-2007, 07:39 AM
You're really grasping at straws now, aren't you. Thats not even a news story. There is no news there.

Open your eyes man! The whole world can see how damaging, deceitful, corrupt and incompetent the Bush Administration has been, why can't you?

Tompz
09-01-2007, 11:13 AM
^word

kaiser soze
09-01-2007, 12:10 PM
There are probably dangerous chemicals underneath your sink, does this mean you have WMDs?

The story bush painted wasn't one of chemicals stored in the United States from decades ago but rather an imminent threat to the U.S. and allies.

Has any phosgene been found inside the border of Iraq?

bigboy7787
09-01-2007, 08:21 PM
NONE OF YOU HAVE PROVEN BUSH LIED


This goes right over your head. It's like it goes in one ear and out the other. (Maybe not you, but many liberals lkie you)

Clinton said Saddam had WMDs.

Gore, Kerry, Blair said he had WMDs.

If Saddam didn't have WMDs, he sure did a great job of making the entire world believe he did have them.

I believe the WMDs were moved to Syria. (might or might not be true)

Now before you go saying that Bush is corrupt, you must first prove that Bush LIED about WMD's in Iraq.

Do you understand the meaning of a lie? Please tell me you know what a lie is.




There are probably dangerous chemicals underneath your sink, does this mean you have WMDs?

The story bush painted wasn't one of chemicals stored in the United States from decades ago but rather an imminent threat to the U.S. and allies.

Has any phosgene been found inside the border of Iraq?

Bob
09-02-2007, 12:01 AM
shut up

The Notorious LOL
09-02-2007, 12:07 AM
This Proves that Iraq had WMDs at least at some point.

I dont recall that ever being debated.


"at some point"....wow. Bob is right, shut up.

Bob
09-02-2007, 12:16 AM
listen, you have the burden of proof here

NONE OF YOU HAVE PROVEN BUSH LIED


This goes right over your head. It's like it goes in one ear and out the other. (Maybe not you, but many liberals lkie you)

Clinton said Saddam had WMDs.

Gore, Kerry, Blair said he had WMDs.

when? don't just post links that may or may not indicate that these guys may or may not have said things that may or may not have indicated that they may or may not have believed that at some point, hussein may or may not have possessed weapons that may or may not have been capable of mass destruction. in your own words, in your own interpretation of the evidence (credible evidence), when have these people substantially claimed that hussein had WMD's, and in what period of time have they claimed that he had them? in your own words, don't just post links. i don't give a shit about links on their own.



If Saddam didn't have WMDs, he sure did a great job of making the entire world believe he did have them.

ok

I believe the WMDs were moved to Syria. (might or might not be true)

great

Now before you go saying that Bush is corrupt, you must first prove that Bush LIED about WMD's in Iraq.

what?

Do you understand the meaning of a lie? Please tell me you know what a lie is.

shut up

D_Raay
09-02-2007, 05:56 AM
Why even ask these questions if you are so sure you have it right?

Why lump us in with figureheads of the Democratic parties as if they are bastions of the "liberal" community and you are absolutely sure we have the exact same opinions and ideals as they do?

Do you even know that the same people who gave money to president dimwit also gave money to many of these same "liberals" you like to rail against and lump us into the same realm with? What does that tell you?

There are no sides in this, there is just the truth and the illusion of truth.

Carlos
09-02-2007, 07:41 AM
are you fucking stupid.. of course he had WMD at some point - we fucking sold it to him!! Just have to look at the receipt.

seriously I showed in your last inane thread how Bush has been proved a liar (maybe on a different subject.. but there is no doubt he is a lyer, anda bad one at that)..

but thanks for the amusement anyhow :D

mikizee
09-02-2007, 09:18 AM
this took me all of 25 seconds to find - complete with references

The Bush administration religiously chanted the contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as its basis for a war.

For example, in his address to the nation Bush said the intelligence “leaves no doubt that . . . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Vice President Cheney also was part of the chorus and declared that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

THE FACTS

The 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee report found that:

*
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
*
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq's acquisition of high-strength aluminum tubes was intended for an Iraqi nuclear program.
*
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" from Africa.
*
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that "Iraq has biological weapons.
*
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq possessed, or ever developed, mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.
*
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq "has chemical weapons" or "is expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons."
*
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq likely retained covert SCUD SRBMs.
*
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq and developed a program for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to deliver biological agents.

Similarly, the CIA’s Duelfer’s Report Iraq concluded that Iraq:

*
HAD NO WMD’s.
*
“had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions” ended
*
Iraq failed “to acquire long range Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.”
*
“Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.”
*
In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.”



This is consistent with pre-war findings:

Former Treasury Secretary O’Neil, who was a member of the National Security Council, indicated that “[i]n the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.”

In January 2004, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report on WMDS in Iraq concluded that the evidence prior to the war indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled and its chemical weapons had lost most of their lethality. In addition, the report concluded that the administration “systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs”.

This is consistent with other pre-war reports. For example, in September 2002, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency concluded “there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

Sources: Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD; Ruben Bannerjee – Al Jazeera 04.06.03, NOW Update 05.22.03, Scheer – AlterNet.org 06.10.03; WMD in Iraq – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 60 Minutes 01.11.14; Dreyfus & Vest – Mother Jones Jan-Feb 04; Suskind – The Price of Loyalty.

mikizee
09-02-2007, 09:21 AM
Here is more -

IRAQ AS IMMINENT THREAT

The Bush administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the US and its allies, although it would later claim:

On January 27, 2004, White House spokesman Scot McClellan claimed that the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. "the media have chose to use the word imminent" to describe the Iraqi threat. In a February 2004 speech at Georgetown University, CIA Director Tenet revealed that CIA "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.

In terms of the administration claims it never said or suggested an imminent threat, below are a sample of such comments:

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (09.19.02)

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." President Bush (09.26.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02)

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." President Bush (10.02.03)

"There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." President Bush (10.16.02)

"There is a real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in the form of Saddam Hussein." President Bush (10.28.02)

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." President Bush (11.23.02)

In January 2003, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, when asked “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests”; he replied “Well, of course he is.”

In February 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said “[t]his is about [an] imminent threat.”

In May 2003, Ari Fleisher was asked “Didn’t we go to war because we said WMD’s were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S?” He responded, “Absolutely.”


THE FACTS

The director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research stated that "Iraq possessed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States."

A January 2004 report by the Army War College concluded that Iraq was not an imminent threat and characterized the war as "an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deferred Iraq."

The Carnegie Endowment for Peace's report on WMD's in Iraq also concluded that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to the United States or to global security.

Sources: Daily Mis-Lead 02.05.04; Rivers-Pitt – Truthout.org 07.11.03, McGovern –AlterNet 06.30.03, NBC News 07.21.03, Krugman – New York Times 07.22.03; WMD in Iraq – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Bounding the Global War on Terror – Army War College.Daily Mis-Lead 01.28.04, CAP Daily Progress Report 01.29.04

mikizee
09-02-2007, 09:28 AM
just a bit more for the icing on the cake....

Poland’s President, a strong U.S. ally with 2,400 troops in Iraq, stated that Poland “was misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction.”

Former Treasury Secretary O’Neil, who was a member of the National Security Council, indicated that “[i]n the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.”

After ten-months of searching for WMDs, investigators have found no support for the claim that Iraq possessed nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. In January, the Bush administration quietly pulled its 400 man weapons inspection team out of Iraq “because its works was essentially done”.

David Kay, the chief weapons inspector, concluded “I don’t think they existed.” “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the [1991] Gulf War and I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the Nineties.”

This is consistent with David Kay’s interim report that concluded that Iraq’ capacity to produce new chemical munitions “was reduced - - if not entirely destroyed” during the 1990 Gulf War, 1998 bombings and 13 years of sanctions and inspections.

Even Donald Rumsfeld Defense Secretary Rumsfeld confirmed “I don’t think we’ll discover anything.”

In January 2004, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report on WMDS in Iraq concluded that the evidence prior to the war indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled and its chemical weapons had lost most of their lethality. In addition, the report concluded that the administration “systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs”.

This is consistent with other pre-war reports. For example, in September 2002, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency concluded “there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

A Canadian military analyst also disputes that chemical weapons are WMDs, explaining that “biological and chemical weapons are akin to weapons of mass terror. They are military ineffective.” The Carnegie report shared this view, explaining that the “conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose, distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war.”


University of Michigan disarmament expert noted that “[t]his could be the first war in history that was justified largely by an illusion.”


case fucking closed

Schmeltz
09-06-2007, 05:36 PM
Whoops! It was just Lime-away. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_re_us/un_chemical_agent)

Bob
09-06-2007, 05:41 PM
hahahahahahaha

afronaut
09-06-2007, 07:19 PM
wait, i thought it was common knowledge that saddam HAD wmds in the past. because, like, we gave them to him. boy, you must feel stupid right now. or at least you should.

QueenAdrock
09-07-2007, 04:04 PM
How the fuck did Gmsisko get back on these boards?

Go back to your meaningless job as an apartment guard, I'm sure all of your clients there will give a shit about your conservative propaganda. :rolleyes: