PDA

View Full Version : A lie is a lie, part 2


the Talking Can
04-12-2006, 05:37 AM
Mostly old news. Unless you're one of the "The President is not responsible for what his government does or says" types. And for the slow: "despite evidence to the contrary" is a polite way of calling a lie a lie.

Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; Page A01

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war.

...A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

..."There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: "the biggest sand toilets in the world."

...Throughout the summer and fall of 2003, the trailers became simply "mobile biological laboratories" in speeches and press statements by administration officials. In late June, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell declared that the "confidence level is increasing" that the trailers were intended for biowarfare. In September, Vice President Cheney pronounced the trailers to be "mobile biological facilities," and said they could have been used to produce anthrax or smallpox.

...The task fell to the "Jefferson Project," a DIA-led initiative made up of government and civilian technical experts who specialize in analyzing and countering biological threats.

..."Within the first four hours," said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, "it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs."

News of the team's early impressions leaped across the Atlantic well ahead of the technical report. Over the next two days, a stream of anxious e-mails and phone calls from Washington pressed for details and clarifications....


...Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.

"I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated," one member recalled. "It never happened. And I just had to live with it."[/B]


long article, here's a sign-in from bugmenot if you want it

Username registrationblows@mytrashmail.com
Password mypass

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html?sub=AR)

Chiefs Express
04-12-2006, 05:46 AM
:rolleyes:

Radar Chief
04-12-2006, 07:29 AM
Guess one old article deserves another.

Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered
Post-Invasion Cache Could Have Been For Use in Weapons
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A18
BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.
Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.
Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been "coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.
Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.
Military officials did not immediately identify either the precursors or the agent they could have produced. "We don't want to speculate on any possibilities until our analysis is complete," Col. Henry Franke, a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer, was quoted as saying in a military statement.
Investigators still were trying to determine who had assembled the alleged lab and whether the expertise came from foreign insurgents or former members of Hussein's security apparatus, the military said.
"They're looking into it," Boylan said. "They've got to go through it -- there's a lot of stuff there." He added that there was no indication that U.S. forces would be ordered to carry chemical warfare gear, such as gas masks and chemical suits, as they did during the invasion and the months immediately afterward.
U.S. military photos of the alleged lab showed a bare concrete-walled room scattered with stacks of plastic containers, coiled tubing, hoses and a stand holding a large metal device that looked like a distillery. Black rubber boots lay among the gear.
The suspected chemical weapons lab was the biggest found so far in Iraq, Boylan said. A lab discovered last year in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah contained a how-to book on chemical weapons and an unspecified amount of chemicals.
Chemical weapons are divided into the categories of "persistent" agents, which wreak damage for hours, such as blistering agents or the oily VX nerve agent, and "nonpersistent" ones, which dissipate quickly, such as chlorine gas or sarin nerve gas.
Iraqi forces under Hussein used chemical agents both on enemy forces in the 1980s war with Iran and on Iraqi Kurdish villagers in 1988. Traces of a variety of killing agents -- mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX -- were detected by investigators after the 1988 attack.
No chemical weapons are known to have been used so far in Iraq's insurgency. Al Qaeda announced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States that it was looking into acquiring biological, radiological and chemical weapons. The next year, CNN obtained and aired al Qaeda videotapes showing the killings of three dogs with what were believed to be nerve agents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

Radar Chief
04-12-2006, 07:42 AM
Here’s more of the same from a blog I found with hyperlinked references to Charles Duelfer’s ISG report to Congress.
Warning, links contain more than the 10 second sound bite “No WMD’s found in Iraq” ideologues whanna read. ;)

August 13, 2005
Will Discovery of Mosul Chem Weapons Factory Reopen Debate Over Saddam's WMD? (UPDATED 8-14)
I know it's too early to go out on a limb, but the discovery of a chemical weapons factory in Mosul with 1,500 gallons of chemicals (updated Washington Post link, free registration) might reignite the debate over whether Saddam Hussein possessed a storehouse of chemical weapons ready for use in war. (UPDATE 8-14: DOD press release states, "Early results suggest that some chemicals are accelerants used in explosive devices.") Mosul was Saddam's backyard - his sons were killed there - and the story reports that the military is trying to determine "whether the expertise came from foreign fighters or members of Saddam Hussein's former security apparatus." Although the operation is apparently new and did not exist before the U.S. liberation, I personally find it very hard to believe that those who built the factory were rookies. After all, let's recall the testimony about Saddam's chemical weapons program by Charles Duelfer, leader of the Iraq Survey Group, before Congress on March 30, 2004:
"The ISG has developed new information regarding Iraq’s dual-use facilities and ongoing research suitable for a capability to produce biological or chemical agents on short notice. Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities.
For example, the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Center has equipment suitable for the production of biological agents. While it conducts civilian research, ISG has also determined that it was conducting research that would be important for a biological weapons program. For example, we are continuing to examine research on Bacillus thuringiensis that was conducted until March 2003. This material is a commercial biopesticide, but it also can be used as a surrogate for the anthrax bacterium for production and weapons development purposes. Work continued on single cell proteins at Tuwaitha as well. Single cell protein research previously had been used as the cover activity for BW production at al-Hakam. We are now focusing on what such activities meant.
With respect to chemical production, Iraq was working up to March 2003 to construct new facilities for the production of chemicals. There were plans under the direction of a leading nuclear scientist/WMD program manager to construct plants capable of making a variety of chemicals and producing a year’s supply of any chemical in a month. This was a crash program. Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered “dual use.” One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX. Iraq had plans before OIF for large-scale production of this chemical. Again, what do these activities mean?"

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/08/will_discovery_.html

banyon
04-12-2006, 09:27 AM
Guess one old article deserves another.

U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.
Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad. Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been "coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said. Boylan said the suspected lab

Wow, Radar, there are a lot of qualifiers there.

"Lingering Hazards" eh? I think that's how the Radon in your basement is classified too.

If this had turned out to have been legit, then surely the right-wing noise machine would've been trying to jam it down our throats.

Whatever it is, if anything, it certainly didn't represent an immediate and substantial threat to the continental U.S.

memyselfI
04-12-2006, 09:46 AM
TC,

only the diehard Bushbots are still believing the CIC when he says was telling the truth and doing so for the country's good. Sheesh, DUHbya could ADMIT to lying and the Bushbots would say he's been brainwashed or that it's an imposter and the real W has been stashed away somewhere, ala 'Dave.' :rolleyes: :shake:

Radar Chief
04-12-2006, 09:59 AM
Wow, Radar, there are a lot of qualifiers there.

:LOL: You’re try’n hard to find some squiggle room here.

"Lingering Hazards" eh? I think that's how the Radon in your basement is classified too.

“Lingering” refers to “persistent” agents that remain in an area for extended periods of time, vs. “non-persistent” agents that disperse with few harmful particles remaining afterward.
I think you are correct on the “Radon” thing though, in that even after removed there will be harmful particles that remain until decontamination, scrub’n from top to bottom.
So, you’re onto the idea of what “lingering hazard” means, even if you did try to use it as a deflection. :thumb:
Just fyi, but the majority of chemical weapons are “persistant” and wouldn’t be nearly as effective if they weren’t, so “lingering hazard” is actually kind of a redundant statement.

If this had turned out to have been legit, then surely the right-wing noise machine would've been trying to jam it down our throats.

The ole, “I haven’t heard of it so it must not be true” argument? ROFL
I’d think a more compelling argument would be, “why haven’t we heard of this”, but whatever.

Whatever it is, if anything, it certainly didn't represent an immediate and substantial threat to the continental U.S.

This isn’t a “shifting rational” for gripe’n is it? ;)

Radar Chief
04-12-2006, 10:04 AM
TC,

only the diehard Bushbots are still believing the CIC when he says was telling the truth and doing so for the country's good. Sheesh, DUHbya could ADMIT to lying and the Bushbots would say he's been brainwashed or that it's an imposter and the real W has been stashed away somewhere, ala 'Dave.' :rolleyes: :shake:

And you Michael Moore Sack Riders could be told directly by Saddam that he actually did have WMDs and you’d still try and cry that “DUHbya lied”. ROFL

patteeu
04-12-2006, 11:07 AM
I can't count on the Chiefs to make the playoffs every year. I can't count on Katie Horner's weather predictions to come true. I can't count on ChiefsPlanet being up and running. But one thing I can count on is that when the Talking Can calls something a lie, he's either confused or lying himself.

Conveniently left out of tTC's quotes from the article:

"Whether the information was offered to others in the political realm I cannot say," said the DIA official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

The technical team's findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies' public statements on the trailers. A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production."

Not only is it pathetic that you've shifted from allegations of lies leading us into war toward allegations of inconsistent statements long after the invasion, but it's also an incredible reach to hold the President accountable for this mere field report when the final report didn't come out for weeks after the President's comments and the intelligence agencies continued to express confidence in the substance of the statement made by the President.

The bottom line on this story is that the administration investigated the issue and appropriately reported the results of the investigation. They didn't plant WMD. They didn't fabricate evidence. They didn't coverup the results of the investigation. For the most part, they let the investigation reach it's conclusion and then released the results. When they did make preliminary statements, those statements reflected the state-of-the-art thinking of the expert advisors in Washington. The fact that one contrarian opinion here or there that turned out to be right in the end wasn't immediately recognized as correct amid all the other conflicting assessments isn't an indictment of the President.

But Kay said he was not apprised of the technical team's findings until late 2003, near the end of his time as the group's leader.

For God's sake, David Kay, the guy in charge of searching for WMD wasn't even made aware of the technical team's findings until late 2003. And the Talking Can wants to hold the President responsible for those findings in his comments on May 29, 2003 (just 2 days after the team transmitted it's field report and 3 weeks prior to the team issuing a final report)?

You need better material, the Talking Can. You're making this too easy.

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 04:09 PM
TC,

the real W has been stashed away somewhere, ala 'Dave.' :rolleyes: :shake:


Hey what you saying here? I want it known now and for all to know. I am not the POTUS and I in no way have taken over the body of W and am not running the government. Really I'm not! you have to stop these rumors immediately!

Dave

ROFL