Search for smoking gun draws a blank

[kiwimac]

US and Britain's case for war undermined by special forces' failure to find illegal arms at 10 suspected sites

Nicholas Watt
Monday March 31, 2003
The Guardian

Britain and the United States suffered a fresh blow last night when their main justification for war was undermined by reports that special forces have failed to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
As Tony Blair launched a charm offensive to persuade the Arab world to understand his decision to go to war, senior officials in Washington said that intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction at 10 sites had proved to be unfounded.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that tests had proved negative at all "urgent" sites in the western desert. "All the searches have turned up negative," a staff officer told thenewspaper. "The munitions that have been found have all been conventional."

Special operations forces from the US, Britain and Australia are understood to have seized the sites which were believed by US central command to house chemical warheads, Scud missiles and eight-wheeled transporter-erector launchers, known as TELs.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, attempted to play down the findings. He told ABC's This Week that banned weapons were not in areas controlled by allied forces.

"We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that," he said.

But the failure to uncover weapons at sites identified by intelligence will be a severe blow to Tony Blair and George Bush, who attacked Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein has the weapons.

The prime minister cited Iraq's banned weapons yesterday when attempting to win over the Arab world. Declaring that "history will judge" him to be right, he told several Arab newspapers that failure to take action against President Saddam would allow him to "pass on these weapons to extremist terrorist groups".

His remarks came as US officials admitted that they were facing intense pressure to prove the Anglo-American claims about Iraq's stockpile. John Wolf, the assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation, said that Colin Powell was desperate to find a "smoking gun".

Mr Wolf told the Washington Post: "Very clearly, we need to find this stuff or people are going to be asking questions."

The failure to locate any proscribed weapons at sites highlighted by US intelligence will come as some relief to Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, who dismissed American intelligence in the run-up to the war.

Mr Blix is now said to be involved in another battle with Washington, which is poaching his staff to set up its own inspectorate in Iraq.

Frustrated by the failure of the UN to find banned weapons, Washington is negotiating contracts with private companies to carry out the inspections. This is likely to dismay the prime minister, who is understood to have urged President Bush in private to allow the UN inspectors to resume work in Iraq.

US officials told the Washington Post that an "international entity" would be allowed to verify the discovery of any banned weapons. But the crucial inspection work would be carried out by the US.

This has infuriated Mr Blix, who is understood to have lost up to five of his staff to the US team. Mr Blix underlined his anger by telling the paper that three of his staff have asked for his advice about the poaching operation, even though he said he had "not heard one word from Washington".

He added: "They are free as individuals. If they want to terminate their contracts anyone can do that ... But they would not be allowed to reveal anything that they have done here."

Critics of the US are also likely to seize on the disclosure that a company with close links to the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, is likely to profit from the destruction of any banned weapons.

A subsidiary of Halliburton, of which Mr Cheney was the chairman until he joined the Bush team, is in the running to destroy them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,926171,00.html

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50833#post50833)
kiwimac:

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, attempted to play down the findings. He told ABC's This Week that banned weapons were not in areas controlled by allied forces.

"We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that," he said.
:rofl: Wouldn't it have been simpler just to say "somewhere in Iraq" or even "somewhere in the Middle East?" Seems to me that's a lot fewer words!

*ponders: east, west, north and south of Tikrit and Baghdad ... yep, that narrows it down!.*

Do you all hear that sound? That is the sound of a Presidential and Prime Ministerial reelection being flushed down the toilet!

[spl_cadet]

Reports that they haven't been found? Reports from whom exactly?

[Ryokan]

I will reserve my judgement until after we take Baghdad.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 07:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50933#post50933)
spl_cadet:

Reports that they haven't been found? Reports from whom exactly?
Have you heard any reports that they have, other than premature reports that later had to be retracted?

[Rubia Warren]

I doubt they'll be found. They're probably out of the country or something. We're only, what, 2 weeks into the war? Give it time. And if none are found, they're in Syria, or something. Yeah... yeah, that's it. That's my story! Covers all bases, huh? *wink* at Eirann (btw- hey, where have you been hiding lately?)

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51131#post51131)
La Rubia:

*wink* at Eirann (btw- hey, where have you been hiding lately?)
Here, and the Current Events forum at TOL.

[Pilgrim]

Yes it deos seem a bit of a bad blow for Bush and Rummy. Two weeks into the war and no chemical blow out or WMD used or even sited.

But I'm sure they will find some, even if they are not there.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fox News 4/2/03:

Large vats of Chicken Soup have been reported to have been seen by unnamed "intelligence" officials. "These vats have one purpose and one purpose only. Its how Iraq will deal with the biological weapons they will unleash on Coalition Troops. The chicken soup will be eaten by the Iraqi's so they don't feel as bad."

This is the critical smoking gun the Busch Administration has been looking for. "I told ya. I told ya they had weapons of mass-destruction. Would anyone listen to me and stop mis-under-estimated me?"

This report is 100% true because Fox reported it.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 10:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51128#post51128)
Eireann:
Have you heard any reports that they have, other than premature reports that later had to be retracted?

Why don't you try addressing my point? It's my guess for one thing that our spec ops troops are a bit too involved in the war to be looking for chemical sites right now.

[Pilgrim]

:rofl:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 02:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51181#post51181)
spl_cadet:



Why don't you try addressing my point? It's my guess for one thing that our spec ops troops are a bit too involved in the war to be looking for chemical sites right now.
According to some of the reports I've heard (of course, we are talking about biased media on all sides, so who knows how accurate any of the reports are), the spec ops people aren't over there to be forward fighting units. Their primary purpose is to locate chemical weapons sites.

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 04:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51237#post51237)
Eireann:


According to some of the reports I've heard (of course, we are talking about biased media on all sides, so who knows how accurate any of the reports are), the spec ops people aren't over there to be forward fighting units. There primary purpose is to locate chemical weapons sites.

As opposed to HERE purpose?
:ahem:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51239#post51239)
Pilgrim:



As opposed to HERE purpose?
:ahem:
Oops! Hey, even former English majors typo from time to time.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 01:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51237#post51237)
Eireann:
According to some of the reports I've heard (of course, we are talking about biased media on all sides, so who knows how accurate any of the reports are), the spec ops people aren't over there to be forward fighting units. Their primary purpose is to locate chemical weapons sites.

The purpose of special operations forces (SEALs, Green Berets, Delta Force, Rangers, Marine Force Recon, and Air Force Pararescue and Combat Controllers) is to go behind enemy lines, conduct asymmetrical warfare, seize key points (such as bridges or airfields), and precision strikes (such as the removal of a Fedayeen unit). It isn't to inspect sites. The same goes for the Special Air Services of our allies. What's probably happened/happening is that the military will secure the country and then look for the WMDs. Special forces use in this role will pretty much be limited to securing the area or keeping it under surveillence to make sure that they don't move away.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51304#post51304)
spl_cadet:

The purpose of special operations forces (SEALs, Green Berets, Delta Force, Rangers, Marine Force Recon, and Air Force Pararescue and Combat Controllers) is to go behind enemy lines, conduct asymmetrical warfare, seize key points (such as bridges or airfields), and precision strikes (such as the removal of a Fedayeen unit). It isn't to inspect sites.
According to Bernard Trainor, one of the retired Generals that is working as a correspondent in the warroom, that is exactly what they are assigned to do this time -- to follow up on intelligence information, locate suspected chemical and wmd sites and either secure them or take them out.

[spl_cadet]

And just where would he be getting his info seeing as how he is retired?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51442#post51442)
spl_cadet:

And just where would he be getting his info seeing as how he is retired?
Well, considering that he's working in the warroom at Central Command ...

[spl_cadet]

As a correspondent (aka reporter). I repeat, what are the sources that he got that from?

[kiwimac]

Cadet,

Generals are never out of the loop!

I have worked with a number & simply retiring does not makes you outside of the intel loop.

Kiwimac

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 07:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51160#post51160)
Pilgrim:

Yes it deos seem a bit of a bad blow for Bush and Rummy. Two weeks into the war and no chemical blow out or WMD used or even sited.

But I'm sure they will find some, even if they are not there.

Really? Then what are they waiting for?

[wienerdog]

I've been hearing since January that Saddam may have moved many of his WMDs to Syria or another country. I also remember about this time they were paying some attention to two Iraqi ships that have been sailing the world for a few months without any apparent purpose. However, I will also wait to pass judgment until Baghdad is taken.

In the meantime, from www.andrewsullivan.com


WHAT WE NOW KNOW: We're an amnesiac short-attention span culture. Only three weeks ago, we were in the middle of a debate about war; now we're in the middle of the war. In the frenetic news cycles, we scarcely find time to relate what we now know to what we once argued. But we need to make time. Here's a short list of what we know now about Saddam, two weeks after the outbreak of war: that he runs a more horrifying police-state than some of us imagined; that he uses terroristic measures to maintain his rule; has close contact with other terrorist groups whom he has invited into his country in his defense; invokes Islamic justifications for his despotism far more often than any secular justifications; is capable of actions very few other human beings are capable of; and will not give up an ounce of real power even at the point of an actually loaded gun. In other words, the prudential justification for the war is now far stronger than it was only a couple of weeks ago: no one can plausibly now argue that this monstrous regime would have voluntarily disarmed itself at the polite and constantly negotiable behest of a mild-mannered Swede. Inspections would never have worked, if by "worked," we actually mean succeeded in disarming Saddam. But more importantly, the moral justification for war has been deepened. More Americans today can absorb the true horror of murderous totalitarian rule, by watching its hatchet men defend themselves by all means necessary - using women and childern as shields, murdering POWs, deploying suicide bombers, and the like. Ending that kind of evil anywhere any time is always a good thing. You can argue the costs but you can't argue the moral good of it. We will save many lives; we are rescuing many people who are oppressed in ways those who constantly talk about "oppression" do not really know or understand. These are good things to know. They are vital things to remember.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

I notice there's not a single thing that Sullivan mentioned that "we now know" about Saddam Hussein that we didn't 5 years ago, or 10 years ago, or before the first gulf war. In other words, we don't know a darned new thing!

[wienerdog]

I don't think that's true, Eireann. Maybe we knew he was bad before, but now we know he was really, really bad. The point being...


...the prudential justification for the war is now far stronger than it was only a couple of weeks ago: no one can plausibly now argue that this monstrous regime would have voluntarily disarmed itself at the polite and constantly negotiable behest of a mild-mannered Swede. Inspections would never have worked, if by "worked," we actually mean succeeded in disarming Saddam.

[kiwimac]

Only problem is ... that's exactly what appears to have happened.

Kiwimac

[$cirisme]

Yesterday @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Eireann:

According to Bernard Trainor, one of the retired Generals that is working as a correspondent in the warroom, that is exactly what they are assigned to do this time -- to follow up on intelligence information, locate suspected chemical and wmd sites and either secure them or take them out.

I doubt it. I'm sure they are there taking sites covertly, but they aren't out there opening up cans sayting, "Hey! I wonder if these are chemical weapons?" :ahem:

Besides, a good friend of mine is a retired Air Force general, and he thinks we're gonna find the weapons in Syria. :idea:

We shall see... :smile:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
cirisme:

I doubt it. I'm sure they are there taking sites covertly, but they aren't out there opening up cans sayting, "Hey! I wonder if these are chemical weapons?" :ahem:

Hey, don't tell it to me, tell it to Bernard. He's the one who said it. Besides, he didn't say they are just randomly looking under ever rock for chemical weapons. He said they are following up on intelligence reports that are directing them to several different suspected sites. At any rate, the point is that according to Gen. Trainor, the primary purpose right now for the spec ops troops is not the everyday fighting of the war (that's what the regular troops are there for), but to ferret out suspected chemical weapons sites.

[flipper]

Weinerdog:

All true, but that smacks of moving the goalposts, somewhat.

After all, the main and publicly stated volition for this war was to remove WMDs from Saddam Hussein. If said WMDs do not turn up, then the stated goal of this war could be said to have been a failure and (in a terrible way) vindicates the monstrous Hussein regime. The uncertainty of where these weapons are will then become a major policy driving force.

If these weapons are used to hammer Baghdad by the Iraqis, then the West has again failed in its stated goal to protect the Iraqi people.

And if they are used 6 months or a year from now in a Kuwaiti, European, or American city, then the mission to prevent terrorism will suffer a terrible blow.

I hope they turn something up in the coming months, I really do. No wonder they are searching so frantically for "Chemical Ali".

This war was a big gamble and there are too many people waiting to capitalize on perceived failures of the US for failure to be an acceptable option.

[Ryokan]

We MAY have found some of them.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_iraq_chemical_2

[NSMinistries]

Positive Test (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp)

[GrayPilgrim]

I just heard on MSNBC that Marines found cyanide and mustard agents in the Euphrates River.

As an aside that is nasty stuff with lingering affects, my grandfather was poiseded by water contamination during WWI and spent the rest of his life suffering (he died in 1961 (14 years before I was born).

GP

[spl_cadet]

Do you have a link?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
NSMinistries:

Positive Test (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp)

Let's not take this too seriously. After all, isn't MSNBC a puppet organization headed by Rush Limbaugh?
Aren't they desperate for ratings against the Right Wing Propaganda Network (FOX)?

Seriously, though, it's interesting. Let's see what happens.
[edit to add]
Maybe it's time to close this thread? :wink:

We can start a new one along the lines of "smoking guns turning up in Iraq" or the like.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 11:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
spl_cadet:

Do you have a link?

I initially saw the report on MSNBC, then while at lunch CNN reported it as "unconfrimed" so we will wait. Although they did report finding stuff at some training facility in western Iraq and showed video.

GP

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
NSMinistries:

Positive Test (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp)
If that does prove true, it still isn't a "smoking gun," because the camp they are talking about is in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, the enemies of Saddam Hussein. They're searching for a smoking gun in the hands of Saddam, not in the hands of his enemies who just happen to be inside his borders.

[Pilgrim]

You have a point there.

[Ryokan]

Not really. They were in Kurdish territory to fight the Kurds. Saddam let them in to do that. My enemies enemy is my friend, you know.

[Rusty T]

Skynews story about mustard gas in Euphrates (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1086347,00.html)

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Ryokan:

Not really. They were in Kurdish territory to fight the Kurds. Saddam let them in to do that. My enemies enemy is my friend, you know.

Perhaps this link will lend some helpful context to our friends Pilgrim and Eireann.
http://www.post-gazette.com/world/20030216ansar0216p4.asp

tizzidale:
"Skynews story about mustard gas in Euphrates"

Thanks, tizzidale.
This story should be easy to verify if it's true.
Perhaps it indictates that the Iraqis are trying to "hide" chemical agents in unorthodox (that is, unsuccessful) ways.
Mustard gas requires the combination of two agents, iirc. The river contaminant might be one of both of the constituents.

[Patroclus]

Here is a story from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2917531.stm). Nothing conclusive, but this is the most up-to-date.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Patroclus:

Here is a story from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2917531.stm). Nothing conclusive, but this is the most up-to-date.

Here's one of the most significant lines from that story, imo:

Investigating teams have so far only managed to reach fewer than 1% of all the suspect sites they are interested in, a British military source told the BBC.

[Patroclus]

Investigating teams have so far only managed to reach fewer than 1% of all the suspect sites they are interested in, a British military source told the BBC.

Yeah, I found that rather telling as well.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 02:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Ryokan:

Not really. They were in Kurdish territory to fight the Kurds. Saddam let them in to do that. My enemies enemy is my friend, you know.
Why would he let his own enemy Al Qaeda in to do that when he could just as easily have allowed in his ally MEK to do that? He has employed the MEK to fight the Kurds, he has never, to knowledge, employed Al Qaeda. No, sorry, I just don't buy that Saddam let them in there to fight the Kurds. For one thing, if the camp has been there for several years (as was alleged today on MSNBC), then why haven't they fought the Kurds? I think it is much more likely that they chose Iraq as a place to set up a camp because it's the last place people would look, knowing that Saddam and Al Qaeda are enemies. And they chose to set it up in Kurdish territory because that would afford them some measure of protection from Iraqi patrols, protection they wouldn't have had in other parts of Iraq.

My theory: Al Qaeda set up in Kurdish territory to evade both the eyes of the world and Iraq. They didn't initiate hostilities against either the Kurds or Iraqis because that would have negated their invisibility. The Kurds didn't initiate hostilities against them because of one of at least three reasons I can think of:

1) they weren't prepared to make an enemy of Al Qaeda unaided. If they made an enemy of Al Qaeda at that time, they couldn't count on the aid of Iraq, they couldn't count on the aid of other Arab states who would fear opening hostilities against a possibly still heavily-equipped Iraq, and they couldn't count on the aid of the US until after 9/11 (and after 9/11, the US was preoccupied elsewhere).

2) they didn't know it was there.

3) they considered them tentative and temporary allies, opting for the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea. Then when the US finally invaded Iraq, the best way for the Kurds, hereditary enemies of our ally Turkey, to get in our good graces would be to turn against the Al Qaeda in their midst.

If any of those scenarios is true, then it would suggest the camp was not tied to either the Kurds or Saddam, but was automomous. Just conjecture, though.

[GrayPilgrim]

What about the contamination in the Euphrates?

As an aside I had lunch with a Marine whose specialty is NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) Warfare. Hesaid ear;ier reports of the general instability of some of the se agents is not completely true he said that all you have to do is mix in the right ingredient and they will have a prolonged effect. Guess what that magic ingredient is....Petroleum, hmm how could Saddam get any of that :huh:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
GrayPilgrim:

What about the contamination in the Euphrates?

As an aside I had lunch with a Marine whose specialty is NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) Warfare. Hesaid ear;ier reports of the general instability of some of the se agents is not completely true he said that all you have to do is mix in the right ingredient and they will have a prolonged effect. Guess what that magic ingredient is....Petroleum, hmm how could Saddam get any of that :huh:
Pat Buchanan and the other guy who broadcasts with him (his name eludes me for the moment) were interviewing some "experts", one of whom said that the cyanide isn't very damning, because it is a natural byproduct of mining, and there are mining operations all along the Euphrates river. The mustard gas is another story. He posited that it could simply be that some Iraqis may have stumbled across a couple barrels of mustard and said, to use the expert's words, "Hey, let's dump this stuff in the river and get the heck outta here." He posited that scenario to explain why it ended up in the river, but it is just one man's conjecture. It may be damning evidence, it may not be.

[kiwimac]

Yeah,

We have had a real problem in NZ over the years with Cyanide leaching from mine tailings and / or leaks from the tailings liquid waste settling ponds. Its a darn nuisance! And other than lots of time most of the methods for dealing with the problem seem just as disruptive of the environment.

Kiwimac

[GrayPilgrim]

Thing is they had been testing the water daily and only recently noticed the addition of these two chemicals in the water, according tot he MSNBC piece I saw.

GP

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
GrayPilgrim:

Thing is they had been testing the water daily and only recently noticed the addition of these two chemicals in the water, according tot he MSNBC piece I saw.

GP
The MSNBC report I saw said they have detected these agents in the water several times, but it was the concentration this time that raised alarms, as if the dumping site was nearby so that the chemicals had not had time to diffuse, raising speculation that it was a deliberate attempt to poison US troops along the river. Some analysts have rejected that supposition, though, because poisoning the river would be a largely ineffective gesture due to how quickly those chemicals would break down and diffuse to harmless levels.

[flipper]

NSMinistries:


...The territory of northern Iraq where the traces of ricin were detected is not under the control of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Don't get too excited yet.

[Pilgrim]

So now they have found about a dozen barrles that may be checmicals for weapons or may be pesticide. At any rate, they are not "weaponable" chemicals the army says. That is, they are not in the form of anykind of deliverable munition. Time will tell.