PDA

View Full Version : Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'


takeo
02-24-2003, 04:38 PM
By Mark Phillips
CBS News.com

Thursday 20 February 2003

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.

CBS News Correspondent Mark Phillips reports the U.N. has been taking a precise inventory of Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missile arsenal, determining how many there are and where they are.

Discovering that the al-Samoud 2 has been flying too far in tests has been one of the inspectors' major successes. But the missile has only been exceeding its 93-mile limit by about 15 miles and that, the Iraqis say, is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system. The al-Samoud 2 is not the 800-mile-plus range missile that Secretary of State Colin Powell insists Iraq is developing.

In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.

U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action.

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong.

Meanwhile, the U.S. and Britain are planning to present a new resolution to the U.N. Security Council on Monday in a bid for support to use force to disarm Iraq.

Finishing touches were being put on the resolution on Thursday. Adoption is by no means assured. A majority of the 15 council members are opposed to war at least until U.N. weapons inspectors report in mid-March.

Secretary Powell said a headcount was "academic" because the resolution demanding Iraqi disarmament had not been put forward.

Powell, who flies to Japan on Friday for the start of a five-day Asia trip, juggled resolution diplomacy with stressful negotiations with Turkey, a potential key ally in any war.

Turkey is balking at U.S. terms for an economic aid package. Powell, who interceded on Wednesday with Prime Minister Abdullah Gul, said he had told the Turkish leader "our position was firm with respect to the kind of assistance we could provide."

However, Powell said, "there may be some other creative things we can do."

As for the expected U.N. resolution, the Bush administration sees little value in extending inspections and much to worry about in Iraq's connection to al Qaeda and other terror groups.

One U.S. official said the projected day for presenting the resolution was Monday but that it could slip a day or two.

Powell said, "We won't put a resolution down unless we intend to fight for the resolution, unless we believe we can make the case that it is appropriate."

In Baghdad, meanwhile, Iraq allowed another flight by an American U-2 surveillance plane Thursday as President Saddam Hussein's government sought to convince the world that it is cooperating with the weapons inspectors.

In New York, a U.N. spokesman said Iraq also had submitted a list of people involved in the destruction of banned weapons -- a key demand by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.

It was the second flight this week by a U-2 in support of the U.N. inspection program. The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said the plane spent six hours and 20 minutes over Iraq's territory, searching for evidence of banned weapons.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Bard Fan
02-24-2003, 06:25 PM
The US shouldn't be in the position that they need to give the inspectors information or tips.

The inspectors are supposed to verify that weapons were destroyed. The inspectors are not supposed to be detectives.

Iraq is not fully complying with UN Security Resolution 1441.

Bard Fan
02-24-2003, 06:32 PM
Very interesting article in Time this week with Hans Blix

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030303-425797,00.html

TIME: You did say that many proscribed weapons and items, including 13 tons of chemical agent, were unaccounted for. You said there were significant outstanding issues of substance from previous inspection regimes, including the whereabouts of previously identified anthrax, VX, and long-range missiles. That seems to suggest they're not cooperating.

Blix : Well, is non-delivery of documents which they deny having noncooperation? Is that too semantic for you? They deny they have these documents, and you say you are not giving the documents. There is no cooperation. Well, I don't have the evidence that they have them.

TIME: So when you say to them, what happened to the anthrax, they say, well, there was a hole in the ground in the desert we put it in. Is that what they say?

Blix : Yes. That's right. Exactly. That's what they say. It was not a hole in the ground, they poured it in the ground. They did the same thing with the VX.
===================

There you have it. The Iraqis poured their WMDs in the ground. Let's all go home now. Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cerulean
02-24-2003, 06:46 PM
Blix : Yes. That's right. Exactly. That's what they say. It was not a hole in the ground, they poured it in the ground. They did the same thing with the VX.

Sounds like an environmental nightmare. Wonder if anyone has pointed this out to the peacenik environmentalists?

andak01
02-25-2003, 08:05 AM
I don't know about VX, but my understanding of bioweapons is they are extremely fragile. That's why it is so difficult to develop dry delivery systems for them. Once they become inert, they are no danger to anyone. They can't be accidently reactivated. If there is such a hole, the Iraqis could presumably point it out to the inspectors.

cerulean
02-25-2003, 08:13 AM
VX is a nerve agent.
Disseminating bioweapons on a large scale is a complicated endeavor, but Iraq has been working hard on this problem. Look into the work of the British-trained female scientist (can't recall her name right now) who is in charge of this program in Iraq.

As for whether a site with VX is safe, I found this info (obviously from a consultant) regarding sites that have had VX on them:

5.3. How Long Does VX Remain Deadly?

Q. How long does VX remain deadly? Can I safely use this site?

A. You have asked a rather complicated question for which I am afraid I have no answer. A prediction of the risk due to VX at a given site depends on many factors. These include the level of VX originally deposited on the site, what measures were taken to decontaminate the site, the amount of rainfall the site has received over the years, and how one wishes to use the site. The simple "yes" or "no" answer you seek will actually be the product of a rather demanding risk assessment. A somewhat less demanding and more direct assessment could be made by performing a chemical analysis of residual VX levels at the site. This assessment will still require information on how your client wishes to use the site, as the risk depends both on the amount of VX present at the site and how people will likely be exposed to the VX. In either case, such a risk assessment requires a fair amount of work by a professional; it is not something I can do for you by electronic mail.
http://www.mitretek.org/home.nsf/EnvironmentEnergy/FAQ5

Mediocrates
02-25-2003, 10:20 AM
Dry bio agents, as opposed to wet agents are very stable in the short-medium time frame. That's what makes them useful at all. Dry agents are built by attaching the bio agent to a binder. A binder is usually scintered alumina or silica and the resulting bond is then reground to nearly cell sized particles. Dry agents survive a wide range of temperatures and humidities as well as high altitudes. Depending on the bio agent there may be additional resistance to elevated levels of radiation including UV, microwaves and even low dosage beta particles. This is not a broad statement since clearly a scintered bonded viral agent which really isn't alive at all is very hardy compared to cholera. Likewise spores and moulds are very tough to kill.

cerulean
02-25-2003, 11:07 AM
Likewise spores and moulds are very tough to kill.
Precisely why the anthrax in the US mail was such a problem. Anthrax that is in spore form is extremely hardy. The anthrax in the mail was also finely powdered and attached to a binder so as to be durable and cause maximum dispersion.

From a 1998 source, I found the following:
Iraq later stated that beginning in August 1990 it produced significant quantities of biological agents, as shown in Table 2. Iraq tested and weaponized these agents, filling 100 bombs with botulinum toxin, 50 with anthrax, and 7 with aflatoxin. Iraq tipped 16 missile warheads with botulinum toxin, 5 with anthrax, and 4 with aflatoxin. Iraq claims to have destroyed these munitions unilaterally shortly after the Gulf War.

http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=cb20020113271
My belief is that Iraq has not gotten rid of all of these toxins.

I wonder if botulinum and aflatoxin would be considered chemical warfare or biowarfare agents. Botulinum, of course, occurs in improperly canned foods. Aflatoxin occurs in aged peanuts. I don't know what manufacturing process Iraq has used for these.

Mediocrates
02-25-2003, 11:25 AM
Botulism and related neurotoxic agents are bio agents even though their chemical mechanism is similar to chemical agents because of how they're made. You can grow botulism fairly easily and then the challenge is to weaponize it.

Chemical agents like ricin (castor beans), tabun, Cx, Vx, are whipped up in the lab directly from consituent components.

cerulean
02-25-2003, 02:51 PM
Warning: These are graphic pictures of Saddam's chemical gassing of a Kurdish community in 1988.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

andak01
02-26-2003, 06:05 PM
It's really sickening that we didn't dispatch Hussein when we had the chance. We stood by and watched following the Gulf War as he continued his genocide on the Kurds. Yet we obviously had the army to finish the job.

JustPat
02-26-2003, 09:40 PM
Ok, so they poured these bio and neuro agents in a hole in the desert. What was the hole lined with? How did they cap it? What size pump is installed to recover it when they are ready? Was the hole an underground laboratory? When can you trust a liar?

elke
02-27-2003, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by andak01
It's really sickening that we didn't dispatch Hussein when we had the chance. We stood by and watched following the Gulf War as he continued his genocide on the Kurds. Yet we obviously had the army to finish the job.

Agreed. The only question remains: now what?

JustPat
02-27-2003, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by elke
Agreed. The only question remains: now what?
Apparently, now we become his propaganda outlet. News anchor, Dan Rather, once again gives aid and comfort to the enemy in what can only be called a propagandafest. Do the have room for CBS in Gitmo?

elke
02-28-2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by JustPat
Apparently, now we become his propaganda outlet. News anchor, Dan Rather, once again gives aid and comfort to the enemy in what can only be called a propagandafest. Do the have room for CBS in Gitmo?

I know: I was kind of hoping that assassination attempt would be a part of that "interview".

Like Cerulean, I refuse to see the thing - it seems to me that anyone who knows anything at all about Hussein would be able to recite what he had to say verbatim, without ever seeing it. What a waste of valuable resources!

minusthejihad
02-28-2003, 09:10 AM
I DID watch it. Next to debating Takeo, it was the biggest waste of time all week. I've lost the last bit of respect I had for Rather completely. They laughed together and joked. It was completely insulting and the farthest thing from Journalism I've ever seen. I hope that Journalism courses throughtout the country analyze this "interview" and teach the future journalists exactly what NOT to do. However, with the current trends, that's a longshot.