Comments on: Iraq: WMDs and the War http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/ Harangues that just make sense Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:16:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: arb http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/#comment-4941 arb Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/#comment-4941 Welcome! I offer you this laurel, and hearty handshake. Looking forward to future posts. arb Welcome!

I offer you this laurel, and hearty handshake.

Looking forward to future posts.

arb

]]> By: Al http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/#comment-4942 Al Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/#comment-4942 We've made finding chemical WMD's pretty much a logical impossibility by the way we've termed things. 1) Piles of chemical rounds, both unitary and binary don't count if they're mostly empty or found in isolation (or both). The empty shells don't even rate newsworthyness. (There's a LOT of troops assigned to blowing up ammo dumps). 2) None of the 'old tech' chemical weapons count. So the unitary sarin/mustard etc just points to "Oh, he declared that. He hadn't gotten rid of it, but he had declared it -> doesn't count." 3) The 'new' chemical weapons are binary. Let's stick to sarin, which I know something about. The chemcials to make sarin are both pretty darn common in the US. One you are pretty much guaranteed to have if you have a house and use chemicals for your yardwork. The other is often in bathrooms or first aid kits. Neither is stunning. Both are 'dual use'. We've had several reports of buried chemicals. "Initial reports indicate this might be precursors..." a couple of days later the report is "Those chemicals we found turned out to be pesticides." The only way we'd find a 'chemical weapon stockpile' was if rounds containing both precursor A and precursor B were found in large numbers in one spot. Which... isn't how they're normally stored anyway. We’ve made finding chemical WMD’s pretty much a logical impossibility by the way we’ve termed things.

1) Piles of chemical rounds, both unitary and binary don’t count if they’re mostly empty or found in isolation (or both). The empty shells don’t even rate newsworthyness. (There’s a LOT of troops assigned to blowing up ammo dumps).

2) None of the ‘old tech’ chemical weapons count. So the unitary sarin/mustard etc just points to “Oh, he declared that. He hadn’t gotten rid of it, but he had declared it -> doesn’t count.”

3) The ‘new’ chemical weapons are binary. Let’s stick to sarin, which I know something about. The chemcials to make sarin are both pretty darn common in the US. One you are pretty much guaranteed to have if you have a house and use chemicals for your yardwork. The other is often in bathrooms or first aid kits. Neither is stunning. Both are ‘dual use’.

We’ve had several reports of buried chemicals. “Initial reports indicate this might be precursors…” a couple of days later the report is “Those chemicals we found turned out to be pesticides.”

The only way we’d find a ‘chemical weapon stockpile’ was if rounds containing both precursor A and precursor B were found in large numbers in one spot. Which… isn’t how they’re normally stored anyway.

]]> By: Claire http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/#comment-4943 Claire Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/#comment-4943 Pesticide plants do dual duty as facilities to manufacture chemical weapons. I know whereof I speak; as a chemist who works for a major chemical company who has a large segment in the agricultural chemicals market, I know how easy it is to convert. I also know about the required reporting that the government requires to ensure traceability of chemical weapons and their components within the U.S. - I do a lot of the paperwork for my company, and we are subject to unannounced government inspections at any time 24/7. We can't sell or ship certain chemicals to certain countries, under U.S. law. And all amounts of certain chemicals have to be accounted for, even production losses. No, you don't have chemical weapons just sitting around, assembled and ready to go. You have the components: empty shells, production facilities, stocks of precursors, all of which can be used for other purposes. As Saddam claimed. And as the international community willingly allowed itself to be persuaded to believe that only those alternate uses were intended, not chemical weapons. Because they wanted to believe. Because they did not want to deal with the alternative. Pesticide plants do dual duty as facilities to manufacture chemical weapons. I know whereof I speak; as a chemist who works for a major chemical company who has a large segment in the agricultural chemicals market, I know how easy it is to convert. I also know about the required reporting that the government requires to ensure traceability of chemical weapons and their components within the U.S. - I do a lot of the paperwork for my company, and we are subject to unannounced government inspections at any time 24/7. We can’t sell or ship certain chemicals to certain countries, under U.S. law. And all amounts of certain chemicals have to be accounted for, even production losses.

No, you don’t have chemical weapons just sitting around, assembled and ready to go. You have the components: empty shells, production facilities, stocks of precursors, all of which can be used for other purposes. As Saddam claimed. And as the international community willingly allowed itself to be persuaded to believe that only those alternate uses were intended, not chemical weapons. Because they wanted to believe. Because they did not want to deal with the alternative.

]]> By: Dave Sheridan http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/#comment-4944 Dave Sheridan Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/#comment-4944 It's easy to forget that, prior to 9/11, the sanctions regime was falling apart. France, Russia and China were advocating a total lifting. The U.S. and Britain were proposing "smart sanctions" which would have lifted the embargo on all civilian goods. Even domestic lobbyists, most notably the American Petroleum Institute were pushing for lifting sanctions. It’s easy to forget that, prior to 9/11, the sanctions regime was falling apart. France, Russia and China were advocating a total lifting. The U.S. and Britain were proposing “smart sanctions” which would have lifted the embargo on all civilian goods. Even domestic lobbyists, most notably the American Petroleum Institute were pushing for lifting sanctions.

]]> By: Just Some Poor Schmuck http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/#comment-4945 Just Some Poor Schmuck Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/09/30/iraq-wmds-and-the-war/#comment-4945 <strong>Advance or Retreat?</strong> On Patterico's Pontifications, a former foreign service officer looks at the intelligence and the situation between the U.S. and Iraq before the war. There were only two ways to go, advance or retreat. You know which President Bush chose.... Advance or Retreat?
On Patterico’s Pontifications, a former foreign service officer looks at the intelligence and the situation between the U.S. and Iraq before the war. There were only two ways to go, advance or retreat. You know which President Bush chose….

]]>