Troops Found 5k Chemical Weapons In Iraq From 2004 To 2011

[BFritz21]

This article says that U.S. troops found nearly 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2011.

A military friend of mine posted that on Facebook, but it's typical that it didn't and won't get much media coverage because it doesn't fit the media's narrative that the war was bogus.

Quote:American troops found nearly 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2011, but their discoveries were kept secret by the U.S. government, the New York Times reports.

According to the 10,000-word, eight-part interactive report ("The Secret Casualties of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons") by C.J. Chivers published on the paper's website late Tuesday, at least 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to nerve or mustard agents in Iraq after 2003.

On at least six occasions, American troops and American-trained Iraqi troops were wounded by the abandoned munitions, but news of the encounters was neither shared publicly nor widely circulated among the troops, the victims told the Times. Others said they were told to be vague or deceptive about what they found.

"'Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” Jarrod Lampier, a retired Army major, said of the 2006 discovery of 2,400 nerve-agent rockets at a former Republican Guard compound, the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war.

The paper also published heavily redacted intelligence documents it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Among the reasons for the secrecy? "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale," Chivers writes. "After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, [President George W.] Bush insisted that [Iraqi leader Saddam] Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims."

The discovery of pre-Gulf War chemical weapons — most of them "filthy, rusty or corroded" — did not fit the narrative.

“They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

“I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’” Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant, told the paper. “There were plenty.”

The troops began encountering the munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs.

The paper recounted a harrowing 2004 discovery in Baghdad by two explosives-disposal technicians in detail. Staff Sgt. James F. Burns and Pfc. Michael S. Yandell were transporting what they thought was the remains of a makeshift bomb back to the base when they began experiencing symptoms of sarin gas exposure:

Sergeant Burns noticed a bitter smell and thought, he said later, that “it was rotten vegetables.”

Then he felt the onset of a headache. He told Private Yandell, who was driving, that he did not feel right.

Nauseated and disoriented, Private Yandell had quietly been struggling to drive. His vision was blurring. His head pounded. “I feel like crap, too,” he replied.

Dread passed over Sergeant Burns. Maybe, he wondered aloud, they had picked up a nerve agent shell.

The chemical shell Sergeant Burns and Pfc. Michael S. Yandell found that day was on the highway to Baghdad’s international airport, called "Death Street" at the time because of frequent insurgent attacks.

Neither man remembers the drive’s last minutes. At the base entrance, they did not clear the ammunition from their rifles and pistols — forgetting habits and rules.

As they arrived at their building, Sergeant Burns was sure. In the back of the truck, the shell had leaked liquid. Illumination rounds, he knew, do not do that.













“They put a gag order on all of us — the security detail, us, the clinic, everyone,” Burns said. “We were briefed to tell family members that we were exposed to ‘industrial chemicals,’ because our case was classified top secret.”

The paper also reported that as a result of the secrecy, military doctors were not prepared to treat the soldiers exposed to chemicals, preventing troops "from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds."

Rear Adm. John Kirby, spokesman for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, declined to address specific incidents detailed in the Times investigation but said that the military’s health care system and awards practices were under review.

“The secretary believes all service members deserve the best medical and administrative support possible,” Kirby said. “He is, of course, concerned by any indication or allegation they have not received such support. His expectation is that leaders at all levels will strive to correct errors made, when and where they are made.”

The news of abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq comes as a U.S.-led coalition continues drone strikes on Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. While there is no evidence of munitions falling into the hands of the terror group, the possibility is nonetheless "worrisome," Chivers writes.

What I don't get is that the article makes it sound like they found WMD, but then it says that they were pre-1991, outdated, rusty, and all that, but then, in the very next sentence, you have the former Army sergeant saying that there were plenty of chemical weapons and then the story about the two troops exposed to the sarin gas.

Is it just the liberal media saying that there were WMD while also trying to sound like there weren't?

Why isn't this getting more coverage if there were WMD?

[jj22]

I know Bush took a lot of heat for the WMD stance, but I personally think there is truth there, but I always felt those weapons were shipped out (this article disproves that tho) and most recently argued the chemical weapons Syria used was from Iraq (since no one could figure out how they got them). That's my own personal opinion tho. I believe this guy.

I don't remember how the media reported on it (Fox compared to others), but I think they all claim it was a lie now. Even Trump.

[BmorePat87]

Yea, I remember this story from 5 years ago...

Old, unusable weapons from before Desert Storm that the government hid because it didn't fit the narrative that Saddam had WMDs.

[fredtoast]

(03-06-2019, 05:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: This article says that U.S. troops found nearly 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2011.

A military friend of mine posted that on Facebook, but it's typical that it didn't and won't get much media coverage because it doesn't fit the media's narrative that the war was bogus.

Actually that is exactly what it does



"Among the reasons for the secrecy? "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale," Chivers writes. "After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, [President George W.] Bush insisted that [Iraqi leader Saddam] Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims."

The discovery of pre-Gulf War chemical weapons — most of them "filthy, rusty or corroded" — did not fit the narrative.

“They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

[Beaker]

What's never been up for debate is that Saddam did use chemical weapons against his own people. So he did indeed have WMDs. That doesn't mean he had an underground weapons program running at the time, but he did possess them.

[BFritz21]

(03-06-2019, 06:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually that is exactly what it does



"Among the reasons for the secrecy? "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale," Chivers writes. "After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, [President George W.] Bush insisted that [Iraqi leader Saddam] Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims."

The discovery of pre-Gulf War chemical weapons — most of them "filthy, rusty or corroded" — did not fit the narrative.

“They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

Actually, it plays both sides.

That's why I said it's confusing.

Quote:“I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’” Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant, told the paper. “There were plenty.”

[Benton]

(03-06-2019, 10:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Actually, it plays both sides.

The Iraq invasion was to A- settle an old fight and B- serve as a base of operations for a fight with the Sunnis and C- benefit a handful of companies that have bankrolled and done work for a number of political families.

It had nothing to do with Iraq being a threat to the US, because it wasn't. Unfortunately, our "ally" Saudi Arabia appears to have been involved, but instead of exploring that, we attacked Iraq and overthrew the government, which caused much of the military leadership to mostly defect to terror groups to maintain their status and to try and combat Saudi-backed agents.

The only "both sides" here is the fact that many in our government are bowing to the Saudis.

[GMDino]

(03-06-2019, 06:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually that is exactly what it does



"Among the reasons for the secrecy? "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale," Chivers writes. "After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, [President George W.] Bush insisted that [Iraqi leader Saddam] Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims."

The discovery of pre-Gulf War chemical weapons — most of them "filthy, rusty or corroded" — did not fit the narrative.

“They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

Didn't the come from the US to begin with?

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 05:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: This article says that U.S. troops found nearly 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2011.

A military friend of mine posted that on Facebook, but it's typical that it didn't and won't get much media coverage because it doesn't fit the media's narrative that the war was bogus.

What I don't get is that the article makes it sound like they found WMD, but then it says that they were pre-1991, outdated, rusty, and all that, but then, in the very next sentence, you have the former Army sergeant saying that there were plenty of chemical weapons and then the story about the two troops exposed to the sarin gas.

Is it just the liberal media saying that there were WMD while also trying to sound like there weren't?

Why isn't this getting more coverage if there were WMD?

Such old news.  How is it that you have forgotten this? 
This link is from 2014  https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq
This too: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/
This too: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq

The sites in question were documented in 1991 and sealed.  Everyone (in leadership and the UN) knew about these weapons. They were not the reason the U.S. went to war. The Bush administration was claiming Iraq had started up a nuclear program, for which it had purchased yellowcake and aluminum tubes, and had mobile labs producing fresh biological weapons.  All a Cheney-Wolfowitz hoax.

Mustard gas shells and the like found in your article were unstable and unusable, well over a decade old. What is the half life of Sarin?
It is because of the degraded state of containers that U.S. troops were exposed to some chemicals.

The accurate reporting of the "liberal media" has laid out all these issues plainly before.

The sources above, from 2014, criticize how the Right wing media keep resuscitating the issue anew as "WMDs Found"--as if Bush were right all along. 

One last point--even if it Saddam had active biological weapons or nuclear program, it is not clear that should have been grounds for war.  So even finding evidence of that (which no one ever has) would not in itself be a vindication of the greatest foreign policy error since Johnson landed a division of Marines at Da Nang.  

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 05:53 PM)jj22 Wrote: I know Bush took a lot of heat for the WMD stance, but I personally think there is truth there, but I always felt those weapons were shipped out (this article disproves that tho) and most recently argued the chemical weapons Syria used was from Iraq (since no one could figure out how they got them). That's my own personal opinion tho. I believe this guy.

I don't remember how the media reported on it (Fox compared to others), but I think they all claim it was a lie now. Even Trump.

That was the Fox/Hannity line. 

Instead of using WMDs to defend himself, Saddam gave them to his mortal enemy, Assad in Syria. Of COURSE he would do that!

Makes much better drama than the boring old narrative he was not producing new weapons.   

There is no reputable evidence that chemical weapons used in Syria have come from Iraq, at least if we are talking about those deployed by Assad. it is certainly possible that ISIS and like groups may have found and attempted to use some old mustard gas shells.

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2019, 05:09 PM)Dill Wrote: The sites in question were documented in 1991 and sealed.  Everyone (in leadership and the UN) knew about these weapons. They were not the reason the U.S. went to war. The Bush administration was claiming Iraq had started up a nuclear program, for which it had purchased yellowcake and aluminum tubes, and had mobile labs producing fresh biological weapons.  All a Cheney-Wolfowitz hoax.

The sad part is that there were many of these weapon stockpiles that were being monitored by the UN weapons inspectors, but the weapons inspectors all withdrew when they were notified of the upcoming invasion.  Many of the weapons disappeared before our troops, er, excuse me, UN troops could retake control of those areas.

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2019, 05:15 PM)Dill Wrote: Instead of using WMDs to defend himself, Saddam gave them to his mortal enemy, Assad in Syria. Of COURSE he would do that!

No matter where they claim they went it makes no sense to have weapons and not used them to try and protect your holdings, save your own life, or at least make the invading enemies pay some price.

[Dill]

(03-07-2019, 05:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The sad part is that there were many of these weapon stockpiles that were being monitored by the UN weapons inspectors, but the weapons inspectors all withdrew when they were notified of the upcoming invasion.  Many of the weapons disappeared before our troops, er, excuse me, UN troops could retake control of those areas.

LOL even worse, ammo dumps discovered by U.S. troops and bypassed in the rush to Baghdad turned up empty weeks later, when the U.S. went back to secure them. Hundreds of thousands of 155 rounds--the prime material of IEDs--disappeared and redeployed in roadside bombings.

Those old chemical weapons were as much a danger to anyone who tried to move, store and use them, as they were to the U.S. troops. 

[Dill]

(03-07-2019, 05:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No matter where they claim they went it makes no sense to have weapons and not used them to try and protect your holdings, save your own life, or at least make the invading enemies pay some price.

That's my thinking.

We are worried that Saddam is going to use weapons on the U.S. or give them to terrorists, when he won't even use them to defend himself when his regime and life are on the line? 

It's like you buy a self-defense pistol and someone threatens your life so you retaliate by giving your weapon to someone who threatened your life 10 years before.   That'll teach'em not to mess with you!!!

MILLIONS of Hannity listeners eat this stuff up, if appears to exonerate Bush.