|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Why Did Iraq order nerve gas antidote...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Why Did Iraq order nerve gas antidote...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Stonewall |
U.S. officials: Iraq ordered nerve gas antidote
Wednesday, November 13, 2002 Posted: 7:01 AM EST (1201 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States was conferring with Turkey and other countries after learning that Iraq had ordered more than 1 million doses of atropine -- a drug used to counter the effects of nerve gas, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.
Atropine is commonly used by hospitals to treat heart conditions and other medical problems, but authorities said the number of doses ordered by Iraq drew suspicions.
Observers are concerned that Iraq may want the drug to provide protection for its forces against exposure to nerve agents.
Speaking after a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Secretary of State Colin Powell said it was not clear whether Baghdad had received any of the orders it placed for atropine. He said the United States was in touch with "any parties that might be a supplier."
A senior State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity said Iraq had requested 1.25 million doses of the drug and had contacted other countries to place orders.
The official said the United States found out about the order through the United Nations, when Iraq submitted the contracts to the world body.
Officials with the Turkish Ministry of Health and Turkish Union of Drug Manufacturers said there have been no exports of the treatment to Iraq. But another senior Turkish official said Turkish companies had received Iraqi orders for the antidote.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said he was unable to say whether the doses were delivered but that the United States was concerned about Iraq's attempt to procure such large quantities of the drug.
"Any Iraqi orders for more atropine than needed to meet normal humanitarian requirements would be of concern since that could indicate preparations to use chemical weapons by preparing to protect their own forces from the consequences of such use," Boucher said.
Bush administration officials said they were in touch with Turkish officials about the orders and were trying to determine whether some firms may have tried to ship the drugs without their government's knowledge.
U.S. officials also said Iraq ordered doses of another antidote -- obidoxime chloride -- which is used to counter the effects of certain chemical weapons.
"Obviously Turkey shares our concern about making sure that Iraq doesn't get anything that could further a program of weapons of mass destruction or be possibly involved with making it easier for Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction as they have before," Boucher said.
The New York Times first reported news of the Iraqi orders Tuesday.
U.S. officials said orders have been ongoing throughout the year, raising the question of why Iraq is stockpiling the drug.
The officials said there are several possibilities:
Iraq wants to protect its troops if it uses nerve agents or other chemical weapons against U.S. forces; Iraq wants protection in the event the United States bombs a site where such weapons are stored, or Iraq wants to raise concern in the West that it may plan to use such weapons in the event of a U.S.-led invasion.
A U.S. official said atropine is not on the U.N. "goods review list" -- items Iraq is not allowed to buy as a part of sanctions imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War -- because it has wide medical use.
But he said the amount the Iraqis ordered seems to be "more than is needed for medical needs and could indicate the Iraqis are preparing their forces" for possible use with weapons of mass destruction.
Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter said Iraq is capable of reconstituting a chemical weapons program within a matter of weeks.
"I believe Iraq will seek to reconstitute a militarized nerve agent that will be used in a last ditch defense of Baghdad, and I think the Iraqi government's efforts to acquire significant stockpiles of atropine are an indication that this is the direction that Saddam Hussein is heading," Ritter said on CNN's "Crossfire."
The U.S. State Department was looking into whether this drug could be considered a "dual use item" to be included on the list for the U.N.-supervised oil-for-food program.
Under the program, which comes up for extension November 25, Iraq is allowed to sell oil with the revenues used to buy humanitarian supplies.
Sources said the orders from Iraq also included wash-down showers and Geiger counters, which are used to detect radiation in the atmosphere.
The revelations came as Iraqi officials decide how to respond to a U.N. resolution ordering the Baghdad government to allow unfettered inspections for weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has threatened to use military force to disarm Iraq if it refuses access to U.N. weapons inspectors.
-- CNN correspondents Barbara Starr, David Ensor and Andrea Koppel contributed to this report.
CNN
Isn't that strange? Scott Ritter says that Iraq is capable of reconstituting a chemical weapons program within a matter of weeks.
I did not know that...
I had been led to believe that Scott Ritter was arrested, I mean not arrested, but I had heard he believed there was no WMD capability at all.
I had to re-read that because he sounded like Cheney. Or, Hillary... yep. I think more like Hillary than Cheney, Cheney would have said they were weeks away from giving it to Al Qaeda. Hillary would say what Ritter said...probably.
:) |
|
|
| Glenda Yenta |
I'd like to know who the sources on that finding were. I doubt they were more reliable than the ones who talked abou the ubiquitious WMDs.
If this story were true, they might have been worried about what the US was capable of doing to them. And who could blame them? Look at what we've done to their country these past few years. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Paris: We may help in chemical war
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 Posted: 1:50 PM EST (1850 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite French opposition to a war in Iraq, the French military could assist a U.S.-led coalition should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces, the French ambassador to the United States said Tuesday.
"If the war starts and if (President) Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, it would change completely the situation for the French president and for the French government, and President (Jacques) Chirac will have to decide what we will do to help the American troops to confront this new situation.
"But I confirm it would change completely the perception and the situation for us," said Jean-David Levitte, who told CNN he hoped that biological and chemical weapons would not be used.
In Paris, officials emphasized Tuesday that Levitte's remarks were based on what a spokesman in the foreign minister's office called a "strictly hypothetical question."
And an official in the French president's office referred to statements made Monday by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who said, "If the U.S. and our allies face a new and unforeseen situation in a new crisis, France would obviously be on their side to show solidarity in the face of an exceptional crisis."
Although Levitte declined to give details on the possible shape of French participation, he said: "We have equipment to fight in these circumstances."
When asked why the situation would change matters, Levitte said that "no army is allowed by treaties to use chemical and biological weapons. This is absolutely forbidden and if Saddam Hussein were to use these weapons then he would a create a completely new situation for the whole world."
Levitte also said France would want the United States to go back to the United Nations and participate in a Security Council resolution that would include humanitarian aid and assistance for a post-Saddam Iraq.
Earlier Tuesday, Chirac said "force is the very last resort" in the standoff with Iraq.
"France's viewpoint is shared by a large majority of the international community. The last debates at the Security Council have clearly shown that they were not willing to hurry through measures that would lead to war," Chirac said in a televised statement.
"The United States presented an ultimatum to Iraq, whether or not this was concerned with the disarmament of Iraq or not or of a much-hoped-for regime change inside the country, there is no justification for this unilateral resort to war."
Chirac described U.S. President George W. Bush's ultimatum "a very serious decision, in the light of the Iraqi moves towards disarmament and while the inspections were proving to be a credible alternative to disarm the country."
The French premier urged maintaining the unity of the Security Council over Resolution 1441.
"It's also a decision that calls into question the future of the efforts to end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," he said. "Whatever is the future of these events, this ultimatum puts into question the idea we have of international relations."
--CNN State Department Correspondent Andrea Koppel, Correspondent Jim Bittermann and Producer Elise Labott contributed to this report
CNN
That is strange... France thought Saddam had WMD... Otherwise why even bring this up?
I am getting the idea that everyone thought Iraq had WMD capability. It does sound strange though because we hear about "lies" and stuff like that. We have Scott Ritter...Hillary...France.
Very strange.
Did Bush lie? Did Scott Ritter? Did Hillary? Did France? Everyone? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
The whole "Bush lied" phenomenon is a myth cooked up by the liberal media and far-left, agenda driven websites.
The facts are these - the President had the assessment of Iraqs WMD programs/capabilities dropped on his desk. George Tenet (former CIA chief) was asked point blank if Iraq had WMD and Tenet told the President that it was a "slam dunk." His assertions were backed up by the intelligence agencies of Israel, Britain, France, Russia and Germany. With that information in front of him, the President deemed Iraq to be an ongoing threat and his fear that Iraq would "hand off" WMD to terrorist groups to use against the US or its allies was deemed very real at the time.
The only ones doing the "lying" are the liberal attack dogs at NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, theDailyKos, and so on. It's a massive disinformation and smear campaign that continues to this day, and it is nauseating. |
|
|
| Glenda Yenta |
| Are you arguing that the untruth was a result of gross incompetence versus a lie? |
|
|
| booybob |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
The whole "Bush lied" phenomenon is a myth cooked up by the liberal media and far-left, agenda driven websites.
The facts are these - the President had the assessment of Iraqs WMD programs/capabilities dropped on his desk. George Tenet (former CIA chief) was asked point blank if Iraq had WMD and Tenet told the President that it was a "slam dunk." His assertions were backed up by the intelligence agencies of Israel, Britain, France, Russia and Germany. With that information in front of him, the President deemed Iraq to be an ongoing threat and his fear that Iraq would "hand off" WMD to terrorist groups to use against the US or its allies was deemed very real at the time.
The only ones doing the "lying" are the liberal attack dogs at NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, theDailyKos, and so on. It's a massive disinformation and smear campaign that continues to this day, and it is nauseating. |
Please don't hurt them with the truth. They forgot all the other countries that said they had wmd.
They also forgot Mr &mrs Clinton said they had WMD
The only reason they don't believe it is because GWB took the fight to them, where Bill Clinton did NOTHING after ANY of the attacks on his watch.
Oops I forgot, he did launch a few tomahawks at a BABY MILK FACTORY.
God damn baby killer Clinton, When were we attacked by babies?? :D |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Glenda Yenta
Are you arguing that the untruth was a result of gross incompetence versus a lie? |
I'm going with mistake.
But, I do think exaggeration was used. And, that is normal for war. A President gearing up a country for war says many things and exaggerates.
Of course in this political climate all of that will be seen as lies. It seems many Americans do not care what they say, nor care of what they convince foreign countries of. If your a Muslim in Arabia and you hear Americans themselves saying that America lied to go to war and went to war for oil and are criminal, it sounds a lot like what the terror leaders are telling them. They are thus easily persuaded to commit acts of barbarity for their Allah.
This of course is lost on many in our society... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
I'm bringing another count of LYING to the board against Stumpy here:
Count 1 was his lying about what he heard on Hardball. The accused has plead GUILTY .
But in the course of trying this case, Stumpy repeatedly perjured himself by claiming that he did not know/could not tell us why he thought LIBBY LIED. He just didn't have an opinion on it.
Count 2: Stumpednutz was lying about lying AGAIN.
Stumpy repeatedly claimed ignorance as to knowing of any possible motive behind Libby lying. Then he goes and exposes himself (again) in another thread, this time exposing that he actually knows MORE then he let on...too bad it also proved him a LIAR:
WHY DO YOU LIE TO THE BOARD, STONEBALLS???
Stoneballs
LYING Member
Off Course |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
I'm bringing another count of LYING to the board against Stumpy here:
Count 1 was his lying about what he heard on Hardball. The accused has plead GUILTY .
But in the course of trying this case, Stumpy repeatedly perjured himself by claiming that he did not know/could not tell us why he thought LIBBY LIED. He just didn't have an opinion on it.
Count 2: Stumpednutz was lying about lying AGAIN.
Stumpy repeatedly claimed ignorance as to knowing of any possible motive behind Libby lying. Then he goes and exposes himself (again) in another thread, this time exposing that he actually knows MORE then he let on...too bad it also proved him a LIAR:
WHY DO YOU LIE TO THE BOARD, STONEBALLS???
Stoneballs
LYING Member
Off Course |
Keep this up and I'm gonna start ignoring you... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Keep this up and I'm gonna start ignoring you... |
...I'm shaking...just answer the question or stop posting your bullshit. Admit you are a LIAR.
(as well as a piece of shit cockroach!)
"ignore" me if you want, COWARD.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! :rdf: |
|
|
| harperman16 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
The whole "Bush lied" phenomenon is a myth cooked up by the liberal media and far-left, agenda driven websites.
The facts are these - the President had the assessment of Iraqs WMD programs/capabilities dropped on his desk. George Tenet (former CIA chief) was asked point blank if Iraq had WMD and Tenet told the President that it was a "slam dunk." His assertions were backed up by the intelligence agencies of Israel, Britain, France, Russia and Germany. With that information in front of him, the President deemed Iraq to be an ongoing threat and his fear that Iraq would "hand off" WMD to terrorist groups to use against the US or its allies was deemed very real at the time.
The only ones doing the "lying" are the liberal attack dogs at NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, theDailyKos, and so on. It's a massive disinformation and smear campaign that continues to this day, and it is nauseating. |
-Amen! |
|
|
| Stonewall |
If you look at the Iraq Resolution there are many reasons given for war. They gave Bush the Authority to go to war in Oct. 2002. So, it does not matter what he said after that authorization was given. He didn't need to say anything...he already had authorization.
People complain of 16 words although that was not a lie, and it was not a lie to go to war because by that time he already had authorization for war. Anything he said after Oct. 2002 is meaningless and a case could be made even statements made before Oct. 2002 because there were several reasons to go to war given in the Authorization.
The Democrats voted for the war because an election was coming up and after that they became confused. Kerry was running for President, Joe Wilson told lies and joined the Kerry Campaign. That is why he told lies because he wanted to damage the President at a time of war, for political reasons. His wife going along with the lies probably because she figured Joe could hide behind her skirt. He could say anything and he was covered. We all know, although not all admit, that Joe is a liar. Some stand by him still because he told them what they wanted to hear. Truth comes second when we want to believe something, at all costs, and especially when we hate.
It is now considered lies when mistakes are made. The CIA and everyone made a "slam dunk" mistake... |
|
|
|
|
|
