ISIS captures chemical-weapons plant in Iraq

posted at 10:41 am on June 20, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The Iraqis may have held off the ISIS advance from its main refinery, but they captured another key facility today. The chemical-weapons plant operated under Saddam Hussein, with its sealed bunkers of faulty munitions, fell into ISIS hands today:

Islamist insurgents continued to bear down on Iraqi forces Friday, seizing a former chemical weapons facility once part of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein’s arsenal and battling for control of the country’s largest oil refinery and an airport in the north.

The al-Qaeda-inspired militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who launched a lightning offensive across northern Iraq last week, seized the facility, which contains stockpiles of chemical munitions that are not considered usable, a State Department spokeswoman said.

When the facility came under threat yesterday, some wondered why the discovery of WMDs in Iraq didn’t make more of a splash in the news, considering the renewed controversy over the 2003 invasion. This facility had been declared after the 1991 war, though, and UN inspectors allowed to seal its contents. The poor quality of the storage made destruction too difficult, but that means that the al-Qaeda-related network has the chemicals available to them if they dare risk breaching the seals. This includes the worst of chemical weapons:

According to the CIA, the facility about 36 miles northwest of Baghdad was bombed extensively during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, ending its ability to produce chemical weapons. U.N. weapons inspectors subsequently destroyed equipment and stockpiles there, most of the complex was razed by the Iraqis, and the remainder was extensively looted, the agency said in a 2007 report.

However, the CIA report said: “Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers. Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed. These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.” Among the chemical agents once produced at Al Muthanna were mustard gas, sarin and VX, it said.

The defense of Beiji is hardly over. Now that ISIS has seized the chemical weapons facility, they’re reorganizing for an assault on the refinery:

The army officer in charge of protecting a key Iraqi refinery besieged by Sunni militants has said he fears insurgents are regrouping to resume their assault on the key facility, as reports suggested the fighters had overrun an old chemical weapons facility.

The fight over the Beiji refinery, some 155 miles north of Baghdad, began Tuesday. Col. Ali al-Qureishi said the latest attempt by fighters came late Thursday, and told The Associated Press on Friday that he believed the militants were regrouping to launch a new attack. …

The loss of the Baiji refinery would be a devastating blow to the national government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which has struggled in the face of the offensive by Sunni militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The militants captured much of northern Iraq in a lightning offensive last week.

Note the position of the chemical weapons plant and the Beiji refinery. Al-Muthanna is relatively close to Baghdad, but Beiji is far to the north. That’s one reason why Maliki wanted the US to conduct air strikes; ISIS is forcing Maliki to split his forces in order to hold onto the refinery. That’s less of a problem for the ISIS forces, which have seized much of that northern territory on their way to Baghdad.

They haven’t seized all of it, though, thanks to the Kurds. The Peshmerga, with higher morale and cohesion, successfully expelled ISIS from a city near Kirkuk yesterday and tightened their grip on long-claimed Kurdish territory previously seized by Hussein and claimed by the Maliki government. The fight with ISIS might end up producing a new national spirit and even Turkish endorsement for the Kurds’ ambitions:

Turkey has traditionally opposed Kurdish nationhood as too destabilizing in their own Kurdish-heavy provinces. With ISIS threatening their own borders, though, the Turks may be reconsidering the value of a friendly Kurdish buffer state, as well as the need for the Kurds to focus on defending its own borders against ISIS rather than stirring unrest in Turkey.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

ISIS captures chemical-weapons plant in Iraq

Errrr… say what?

When the facility came under threat yesterday, some wondered why the discovery of WMDs in Iraq didn’t make more of a splash in the news, considering the renewed controversy over the 2003 invasion.

Alternative headline: Bush fully vindicated.

Stoic Patriot on June 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM

This can’t can’t be true, because Chimpy McBushitler made up the whole WMDs story!

/

Ward Cleaver on June 20, 2014 at 10:45 AM

But…but…but…Boooosh LIED!

Shay on June 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM

No worries, liberals for years have assured us that these chemicals were small in quantity and of no value because they weren’t potent enough anymore due to age.

HumpBot Salvation on June 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Seems like Iraq is up to its azz in WMD. Trolls, what say you?

katy the mean old lady on June 20, 2014 at 10:47 AM

ISIS captures chemical-weapons plant in Iraq

“See you in New York…”

Electrongod on June 20, 2014 at 10:48 AM

which contains stockpiles of chemical munitions that are not considered usable,

In the hands of a drugged-up suicider they are quite usable; how are you feeling about all of this, Israelis?

Can we please make a pact with the Kurds now, they’re the only people in that entire armpit of a nation who are capable of being civilized.

Bishop on June 20, 2014 at 10:48 AM

However, the CIA report said: “Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers. Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed. These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.” Among the chemical agents once produced at Al Muthanna were mustard gas, sarin and VX, it said.

So basically the media’s excuse is, “Sure, Bush was right about Iraq having WMDs all along, but since they were previously declared, it’s no big deal”?

And VX Gas!? That stuff’s incredibly deadly.

Stoic Patriot on June 20, 2014 at 10:49 AM

“You do not see those chemical weapons, young Jedi. Move along.”

kozanne on June 20, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Seems like Iraq is up to its azz in WMD. Trolls, what say you?

katy the mean old lady on June 20, 2014 at 10:47 AM

But…but…but…..

that was so….12 years ago…..

Where’s my refill card on my Obamaphone……..

Electrongod on June 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Excuse me, but is this not a big vindication for President Bush? (a man who will always be referred to as “President”, unlike our current fool in chief)

BettyRuth on June 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Wow… Just Wow…

I guess the evil BUUUUUSSHHH was right…

Kuffar on June 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM

ISIS captures chemical-weapons plant in Iraq

Chris Matthews said that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq so this story can’t be true.
Still, if so, why didn’t we blow it up before we left?

V7_Sport on June 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Your Obamaphone comes with a new app… It detects Sarin Gas…

Kuffar on June 20, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Barack will really be p!ssed when he reads about this in tomorrow’s Washington Post.

bw222 on June 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Can anyone explain why there is a chemical weapons plant? Why didn’t we blow that up into smithereenies when we got there?

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 10:53 AM

I have heard that Iraq’s non-existent stockpile of WMD are responsible for Global Warming and I demand the UN investigate immediately!

Bruno Strozek on June 20, 2014 at 10:54 AM

ISIS captures chemical-weapons plant in Iraq

“See you in New York…”

Electrongod on June 20, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Damn.

Key West Reader on June 20, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Does this mean that Prezy McStompyfoot is going to be taken to task on all this happening on his watch?

I know, I know…..just kidding

Bruce in Fort Worth on June 20, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Your Obamaphone comes with a new app… It detects Sarin Gas…

Kuffar on June 20, 2014 at 10:51 AM

I was at Wal Mart last week buying what food I could afford to buy. ObamaBot with a full (and i mean FULL) cart of groceries comes right toward me with TWO Obama Phones – one on each boob. Cart full of steaks… grrrrr.

Key West Reader on June 20, 2014 at 10:56 AM

How soon will we be saying: Obama lied and New Yorkers died?

meci on June 20, 2014 at 10:58 AM

some wondered why the discovery of WMDs in Iraq didn’t make more of a splash in the news,

Seriously? Stop being so naive. The Democrats and Leftists have a narrative to push.
And who are the “some”?

So supposedly the UN officials couldn’t find any WMDs, but now they’re in plain sight? Wow. Amazing what a change in political party can do for “truth.” The Dem narrative of Bush!@!!@1!!! and NO WMDs!!! may have shorter legs, but they still have legs.

conservative pilgrim on June 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Yeah but their old and degraded, and are no more hazardous than laughing gas, so they don’t count.

Red Creek on June 20, 2014 at 11:00 AM

The poor quality of the storage made destruction too difficult, but that means that the al-Qaeda-related network has the chemicals available to them if they dare risk breaching the seals. This includes the worst of chemical weapons:


Ed
… ever hear the phrase “pour encouragez les autres”?

ISIS has LOTS of prisoners. Bring them to the storage bunkers.

Behead the first one in line.

Then tell the second one to pick up a bag of tools and go open a bunker – if he lives, he goes inside and comes back to tell you what he found.

Rinse.

Repeat.

PolAgnostic on June 20, 2014 at 11:01 AM

…and tightened their grip on long-claimed Kurdish territory previously seized by Hussein and claimed by the Maliki government.

Barack Obama occupied Kurdush lands?! Oh wait, it’s another Hussein… sorry, it’s so difficult to tell them apart.

Rix on June 20, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Yet another story about the invasion of Iraq, but still no post on the invasion of AMERICA?????

Gee, Drudge and Breitbart are all over it; wonder why the Hot Air editors continue the news blackout here??

Today’s Drudge top headlines:

Sheriff Joe: Obama’s ‘dumping of illegals intentional’…
Resident suggests housing them in DC…
Boehner: ‘Administration’s own making’…
Hundreds Arrive By Hour…
‘De facto amnesty here’…
WH: ‘Unlawful Migration’…
Frustrated Agents Look For New Jobs…
Rick Perry Unloads…
130,000 minors expected to arrive in coming year…
Miami Public Schools Issue SOS…

‘THEY CAN’T STAY’

fred5678 on June 20, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Yeah but their old and degraded, and are no more hazardous than laughing gas, so they don’t count.

Red Creek on June 20, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Except they are dangerous in the hands of mad men. If they’re willing to strap on suicide vests they’re willing to do anything…

sandee on June 20, 2014 at 11:05 AM

“Mr. Cheney, Megyn Kelly’s on line 3.”

Akzed on June 20, 2014 at 11:05 AM

It’s not a vindication. Saddam gave access to these plant to the UN whenever they wanted.

It was other non-designated areas that the W Admin claimed he wasn’t allowing access to, and when Saddam finally did, they really didn’t give a shite.

Saddam gave in on the inspections. People forget that little factoid.

Because it wasn’t about WMD’s. It was about Abdul Rahman Yasin, Ramzi Yousef and wtf Saddam had been doing for the past decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Yasin

What’s not known is what Yousef has said while he’s been held in Supermax.

But Yasin was in Iraq. They offered him up in exchange for a resolution saying Iraq had no involvement with AQ, 9/11 or WMD development.

We wouldn’t sign it. We invaded. Yasin “disappeared” right after we invaded, and all that’s been found was his home and some financial ledgers.

So Saddam killed the guy. IMO, it’s because Hussein was involved with WTC ’93 and Yasin could connect him to TWA 800 among other things.

budfox on June 20, 2014 at 11:06 AM

This can’t can’t be true, because Chimpy McBushitler made up the whole WMDs story!

/

Ward Cleaver on June 20, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Dude, it’s Chimpy McBushHitlerBurton … get it right, dammit.

/

thirteen28 on June 20, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Wait a second…they’re chemical weapons in Iraq?

vcferlita on June 20, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Well considering the obvious technical expertise of the ISIS engineers, I’d expect a few hilarious workplace accidents to occur before we see them arrive in New York. But, arrive they will.

BTW, what if WE went in with airstrikes now, and reduced the whole facility to smoking rubble? How far would the toxic gas clouds travel?

Harbingeing on June 20, 2014 at 11:11 AM

And all this just so Mallory can get a table at Seize.

Also provides invaluable aid to Kreiger’s research.

(I did say I’d keep making these jokes).

The Schaef on June 20, 2014 at 11:12 AM

So, let me get this straight:

We knew about this facility for more than 10 years. We knew there was VX gas there. We knew AQ was infesting the area.

And we just left it in place.

I’m sorry, but just who could not have seen this coming…

JohnGalt23 on June 20, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Why didn’t we blow that up into smithereenies when we got there?

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Primarily because blowing up chemical weapons tends to not destroy them, but disperse them. You have to dispose of chemical weapons very carefully.

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Just opening up the sealed doors may provide ISIS with “unexpected results.”

Who would risk it?

dogsoldier on June 20, 2014 at 11:15 AM

“Mr. Cheney, Megyn Kelly’s on line 3.”

Akzed on June 20, 2014 at 11:05 AM

No kidding. Somebody has egg on their face.

conservative pilgrim on June 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM

OK, I’ll say it…

Crickets.

How soon will we be saying: Obama lied and New Yorkers died?

meci on June 20, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Hugo Chavez had been training Arabs to pass as Mexicans for years.

Lessee now…

Children’s Crusade + unstable chemical weapons + Choom Gang = 9/11/14.

formwiz on June 20, 2014 at 11:17 AM

When the facility came under threat yesterday, some wondered why the discovery of WMDs in Iraq didn’t make more of a splash in the news, considering the renewed controversy over the 2003 invasion. This facility had been declared after the 1991 war, though, and UN inspectors allowed to seal its contents.

It doesn’t fit the narrative to mention anything about Saddam’s WMDs. That interferes with asking the rhetorical question, “Where are the WMDs,” as if Saddam never had any.

The fact that this particular one had been sealed after 1991 is irrelevant. You will NEVER get a hint from the media that Saddam ever had any WMDs.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 20, 2014 at 11:17 AM

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Alright, why did we allow it to continue to exist? Surely there is procedure.

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 11:17 AM

BTW, what if WE went in with airstrikes now, and reduced the whole facility to smoking rubble? How far would the toxic gas clouds travel?

Harbingeing on June 20, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Not nearly far enough.

trigon on June 20, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Just opening up the sealed doors may provide ISIS with “unexpected results.”

Who would risk it?

dogsoldier on June 20, 2014 at 11:15 AM

The word fanatic ring any bells?

Besides, as someone earlier alluded, they have prisoners to do that.

formwiz on June 20, 2014 at 11:19 AM

BTW, what if WE went in with airstrikes now, and reduced the whole facility to smoking rubble? How far would the toxic gas clouds travel?

Harbingeing on June 20, 2014 at 11:11 AM

That would make a toxic stew. Sufficient hits with napalm might clear it, but we’d need the opinion of a person with an NBC MOS to confirm that.

dogsoldier on June 20, 2014 at 11:19 AM

I see there’s nothing to worry about, as CBS buries the news at the end of a story about the refinery:

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki responded to the reports Thursday, telling the Wall Street Journal and Britain’s Telegraph the U.S. government remains “concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL,” but that the Obama administration does “not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials.”

And we all know the highest priority of ISIL is
safety.

Drained Brain on June 20, 2014 at 11:19 AM

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM

And Israel is not very far away.

kozanne on June 20, 2014 at 11:20 AM

“You do not see those chemical weapons, young Jedi. Move along.”

kozanne on June 20, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Life imitates art, all right.

“These are not the WMDs you are looking for…..”

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 20, 2014 at 11:21 AM

formwiz on June 20, 2014 at 11:19 AM

So would you say the probability is high? I would.

dogsoldier on June 20, 2014 at 11:21 AM

This facility had been declared after the 1991 war, though, and UN inspectors allowed to seal its contents.

It was the undeclared stuff we were after and never found and wondered about all those trucks moving stuff to Syria just before the invasion.

rhombus on June 20, 2014 at 11:26 AM

I’m sorry, but just who could not have seen this coming…

JohnGalt23 on June 20, 2014 at 11:12 AM

If it was Cheney, I might think he was hoping they would breach the seals and kill half of ISIS. But we have had Jarret in charge for the last 6+ years, so…….

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 11:26 AM

And we all know the highest priority of ISIL is
safety.

Drained Brain on June 20, 2014 at 11:19 AM

They kept Johnny Mac safe while he enjoyed a lunch of human hearts with them.

Why do you hate lunch?

Bishop on June 20, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Primarily because blowing up chemical weapons tends to not destroy them, but disperse them. You have to dispose of chemical weapons very carefully.

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM

A nuclear weapon would produce enough heat to destroy the chemical threat. Just sayin’.

VegasRick on June 20, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Tim Russert just flipped six feet under!! Man, he said “No WMD’s” more times than any human in existence!!

Deano1952 on June 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Iraq has air assets including that first F16 we recently delivered. We are flying drones non-stop off our carrier.

At the first sign that ISIS is trying to exploit this facility, I expect it will go up in smoke.

The reason the bunkers are sealed is because it was too dangerous to try to dispose of the contents. This means that the site is/was already contaminated, probably with the old VX/tabun/sarin stored there.

The greatest danger the facility poses is in any remaining mustard gas which ISIS probably could handle.

This site probably poses no greater danger to anyone than the old pesticide facility that ISIS seized in Syria.

Toocon on June 20, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Alright, why did we allow it to continue to exist? Surely there is procedure.

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 11:17 AM

That I can’t answer, except to say that perhaps someone thought the stuff would break down before it could ever be used. (Chemical weapons tend toward instability.)

And Israel is not very far away.

kozanne on June 20, 2014 at 11:20 AM

Though I would think prevailing winds would put Iraq and Iran at risk more than Israel, but there is a risk.

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM

The poor quality of the storage made destruction too difficult, but that means that the al-Qaeda-related network has the chemicals available to them if they dare risk breaching the seals. This includes the worst of chemical weapons:

Good maybe they will VX themselves.

William Eaton on June 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM

A nuclear weapon would produce enough heat to destroy the chemical threat. Just sayin’.

VegasRick on June 20, 2014 at 11:28 AM

There is that, yes. Now, if we could just get them to move those weapons to where they are also working on uranium in Iran……..

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 11:33 AM

In the hands of a drugged-up suicider they are quite usable; how are you feeling about all of this, Israelis?

Can we please make a pact with the Kurds now, they’re the only people in that entire armpit of a nation who are capable of being civilized.

Bishop on June 20, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Good idea. To wit:

Israel to Get First Batch of Oil from Disputed Kurdish Pipeline

ChicagoJewishGuy on June 20, 2014 at 11:34 AM

There is that, yes. Now, if we could just get them to move those weapons to where they are also working on uranium in Iran……..

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 11:33 AM

If Bush was still in office I’d bet that the weapons would have been already moved there. It’s for the children libs!

VegasRick on June 20, 2014 at 11:41 AM

All of our military analysts say the chemical stockpile is not useful…..

It is not if you are thinking in a traditional sense…..

All ISIS has to do is load up chemicals onto Humvees and place them in strategic areas
and then light them up with a stinger missile when the time comes…..

ISIS will fight dirty and they really don’t care about proper handling of weapons grade chemicals.

Most of them have the attitude that they will meet Allah and never go “home”.

redguy on June 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Well, it says that the UN locked it up in 1991 but I don’t trust the UN and I don’t trust crazed Islamic terrorists.

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM

redguy on June 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Not useful in a degradation way? What about getting the place up and running again?

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 11:48 AM

These sites were common knowledge for the past decade. But of course, they are not WMD WMD’s right deniers?

Tell that to the first village in Iraq that gets a few of these containers blown up in the middle of their town square.

can_con on June 20, 2014 at 11:52 AM

Can anyone explain why there is a chemical weapons plant? Why didn’t we blow that up into smithereenies when we got there?

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Chem Weapons tend to be rather prickly things Cindy: blowing them up in place with conventional explosives to bury them was probably the wisest play AT THE TIME.

But of course, time marches on…

Good news; most of those weapons may already be inert due to thier mishandling…weapons like Mustard, Chlorine, etc have a limited shelf life (Non persistent Blood Agents), and are more a nuisance than anything else to a modern army with protective gear. That of course, doesn’t apply to ISIS or Civilian populations

Bad News; The really SCARY stuff, like VX & Sarin are considered “Persistent Nerve Toxins”..that means they can linger for days or weeks (or longer depending) on *any* surface without a major decontamination regime. The only plus side (if you can call it that) is if the items are in a binary stowage (both chemicals have to be premixed before being deployed.

There IS a surefire way to decontaminate the area though…either through use of Thermobaric bombardment, deployment of a nuclear demolition charges or nuclear air launched cruise missile.

The other option is going to have to retake the area with heavy force; contain it, and then detox the area…and we know how likely any of this is going to happen.

BlaxPac on June 20, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Not useful in a degradation way? What about getting the place up and running again?

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Not likely…the place is a war zone and will be fought over by both sides until nothing remains…I am hoping that at some point during the Islamic royal rumble the containment is broken and a toxic cloud of VX/Mustard Gas/etc. appears…only good things for infidels if that happens.

Seriously some of you guys are freaking out like Progressives over the most trivial of things.

If we were smart we would bomb the facility now to ease certain frayed nerves, but I doubt Obama would do that…too PC to do that, and I know the Neo-cons won’t do that because it would kill some of our Iraqi “partners in democracy”!

Quite a conundrum…

William Eaton on June 20, 2014 at 11:57 AM

The other option is going to have to retake the area with heavy force; contain it, and then detox the area…and we know how likely any of this is going to happen.

BlaxPac on June 20, 2014 at 11:53 AM

If we didn’t do it while we were in charge, it’s a lead cinch that The Won isn’t going to give a flying flip.

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM

What a gas!

OldEnglish on June 20, 2014 at 12:01 PM

William Eaton on June 20, 2014 at 11:57 AM

I just think it is mighty damn handy that the media says there was no WMD and now they are going batcrap crazy about WMD. It must be wonderful to have both sides of any argument at any time.

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 12:01 PM

If we didn’t do it while we were in charge, it’s a lead cinch that The Won isn’t going to give a flying flip.

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Depending on whats found in there…we wont be the ones to exercise those options; the Israelis will.

This stuff may not last long enough to make a trip from the Mid-East to the continental US, but it’s a lot closer to Tel-Aviv.

And if you don’t think they wouldn’t exercise the option if there is no other available, you got another think coming…and it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s not a planned tactic too.

BlaxPac on June 20, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I just think it is mighty damn handy that the media says there was no WMD and now they are going batcrap crazy about WMD. It must be wonderful to have both sides of any argument at any time.

Cindy Munford on June 20, 2014 at 12:01 PM

The problem is if the WMDs stored there were such a danger to America, we should have done something with them while we were there. Also if WMDs was the real reason we entered Iraq, then why are these still there? That is why I keep pointing out, WMDs was NOT the reason we entered Iraq. We went there on a “democracy transplant mission” and found out Islam and Democracy don’t go well together. The whole WMDs thing was a “cause” to rally people around, but democracy was always the main agenda.

As for the media I really don’t care what they say…they are left wing propagandist and no one should be surprised by their arguments about anything.

William Eaton on June 20, 2014 at 12:10 PM

The chemical-weapons plant operated under Saddam Hussein, with its sealed bunkers of faulty munitions…

You inserted your own opinion. Where did you read that the munitions were faulty, especially if the bunkers were sealed? What is a faulty munition verses a functional munition? A munition that contains chemical weapons, but doesn’t fire, is not necessarily faulty depending on the intent of the handlers… it can be a functioning container for chemical weapons, while failing to be a usable delivery mechanism.

dominigan on June 20, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Easy to explain. The ludicrous claim of the nonexistence of WMDs in Iraq was purely a rank political ploy by the Dems (traitors, who were for the war before they were against it), that was relentlessly promulgated by the Media (the enemy within) and willingly swallowed by a population of imbeciles (liberals in general and Democrat voters in particular).
There.

justltl on June 20, 2014 at 12:20 PM

No worries, liberals for years have assured us that these chemicals were small in quantity and of no value because they weren’t potent enough anymore due to age.

HumpBot Salvation on June 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM

No – the lefties have assured us for years that these things DIDN’T EXIST.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Time for some embarrassing questions:

- Since the facility was a declared chemical/biological weapons facility following the 1990-1991 Iraq War, why were the weapons still there in 2003, 11 years after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up said weapons and why were said weapons uncategorized?

- Since it was a known facility, why were certain bunkers in which uncategorized chemical/biological weapons were placed by the UN still filled with uncategorized chemical/biological weapons in 2011? Could it have been an attempt to deny that Iraq still had WMDs?

Steve Eggleston on June 20, 2014 at 12:25 PM

The same incredible illogic applies to the current crop of morons and liars who say that, because the war was illegitimate (it wasn’t), any screw-up by the despicable Obama, no matter how avoidable and destructive, is Bush’s fault.
With an impartial Media and/or a semi-intelligent population of voters, anyone making that absurd claim would be laughed into oblivion.

justltl on June 20, 2014 at 12:30 PM

No worries, liberals for years have assured us that these chemicals were small in quantity and of no value because they weren’t potent enough anymore due to age.

HumpBot Salvation on June 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM

What happens if you try to use chemical weapons after the use-by date? Do they turn into sour cream after that date?

slickwillie2001 on June 20, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Should have strafed em while they were an easy target. 0 = worst POTUS ever!

Bmore on June 20, 2014 at 12:31 PM

You inserted your own opinion. Where did you read that the munitions were faulty, especially if the bunkers were sealed? What is a faulty munition verses a functional munition? A munition that contains chemical weapons, but doesn’t fire, is not necessarily faulty depending on the intent of the handlers… it can be a functioning container for chemical weapons, while failing to be a usable delivery mechanism.

dominigan on June 20, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Exactly!!
Some people are trying to explain this away with the “weapons are faulty” or “chemicals are weak”, and crap like that.
None of that matters in the hands of terrorists. They’ll put the chemical containers in a car bomb or such, and when it blows up, there will be chemical effects on people and detected by any sensors in the area. That will cause the intended level of “terror” and panic, even if the majority of people don’t actually die directly from chemicals.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 12:35 PM

V7_Sport on June 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Chemical weapons are deadly and not easy to destroy. In some cases impossible to destroy.

antisocial on June 20, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Chemical weapons are deadly and not easy to destroy. In some cases impossible to destroy.

antisocial on June 20, 2014 at 12:38 PM

No, not impossible. After all, the US and the Soviet Union figured out ways to destroy the entirety of their chemical weapon stockpiles.

Steve Eggleston on June 20, 2014 at 12:43 PM

The Iraqis may have held off the ISIS advance from its main refinery, but they captured another key facility today. The chemical-weapons plant operated under Saddam Hussein, with its sealed bunkers of faulty munitions, fell into ISIS hands today:

Democrats in 2006: There were no WMD’s in Iraq. Bush lied, soldiers died.

2014: Terrorists have taken over the WMD’s in Iraq.

Will Obama and the Democrats have the honesty to admit–BUSH WAS RIGHT, Iraq had WMD’s, and the American invasion of Iraq kept them out of enemy hands for 11 years?

Steve Z on June 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Where are the patriots and heroes that should be frog-marching Obama, Reid, Pelosi and their minions, as well as most of the Media, off to trial for willfully destroying the once greatest nation on earth and putting its citizens at grave financial, moral and, soon to be, physical risk?

justltl on June 20, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Chemical weapons are deadly and not easy to destroy. In some cases impossible to destroy.

antisocial on June 20, 2014 at 12:38 PM

No, not impossible. After all, the US and the Soviet Union figured out ways to destroy the entirety of their chemical weapon stockpiles.

Steve Eggleston on June 20, 2014 at 12:43 PM

I work for a company that does this (but this is not what I do).
There are systems and processes – but they are not quick or easy or cheap.
If the munitions are in fairly good shape, as they are for the most part in the US and Russian inventories, they are “easier” to handle and insert into the machinery that makes the chemicals harmless and disposable. If the munitions are not in good shape, just handling them becomes tricky and dangerous – think sort of like what you’ve all seen in movies about trying to handle raw nitro-glycerin. Even some of our old chemical munitions are not in real good shape – which is why we have not disposed of 100% of ours yet either. In some cases, it’s safer to just lock and seal them into a solid bunker and leave them alone.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 12:51 PM

I used to wonder whether there was one – even one – positive thing that Obama et al. have done for the nation.
Now I wonder whether there is even one action by them that isn’t overtly destructive.

justltl on June 20, 2014 at 12:55 PM

One of the unpleasant surprises during OIF was when the Poles found a cache of Saddam’s CWs. They were ‘overage’ as monocomponent shells.

Unfortunately, due to desert conditions, they were still quite lethal… nearly a decade past their ‘best used by’ date.

In desert conditions there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ CW until all the components of it have been neutralized.

ajacksonian on June 20, 2014 at 1:12 PM

No, not impossible. After all, the US and the Soviet Union figured out ways to destroy the entirety of their chemical weapon stockpiles.

Steve Eggleston on June 20, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Just to emphasize – we have NOT yet destroyed all of our chemical munitions.

http://www.cma.army.mil/pueblo.aspx

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 1:13 PM

And we all know the highest priority of ISIL is
safety.

Drained Brain on June 20, 2014 at 11:19 AM

They kept Johnny Mac safe while he enjoyed a lunch of human hearts with them.

Why do you hate lunch?

Bishop on June 20, 2014 at 11:26 AM

To be fair, the Muslim Freedom Fighter guy that ate the other feller said that after a week of really bad diarrhea, he came to regret his act of Muslim manliness.

BL@KBIRD on June 20, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Well considering the obvious technical expertise of the ISIS engineers, I’d expect a few hilarious workplace accidents to occur before we see them arrive in New York. But, arrive they will.

BTW, what if WE went in with airstrikes now, and reduced the whole facility to smoking rubble? How far would the toxic gas clouds travel?

Harbingeing on June 20, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Depends if we wait for the winds to blow in a favorable direction. I’ll leave it to others to define ‘favorable direction’.

meci on June 20, 2014 at 1:40 PM

BTW, what if WE went in with airstrikes now, and reduced the whole facility to smoking rubble? How far would the toxic gas clouds travel?

Harbingeing on June 20, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Liberal Media: “What toxic gas clouds?”

dominigan on June 20, 2014 at 1:43 PM

WOW!

This is NOT the missing evidence that Iraq was recently manufacturing chemical weapons to use against America.

This well known facility was officially declared, destroyed and inspected in the early 90′s by UN inspectors who said, at that time, that what remained in it’s abandoned ruins was not a threat.

The UN inspectors stated that Iraqi Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of approximately five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally they said botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years and therefore the weapons found would need to have been made recently with an active chemical program having scientists running military facilities that are capable of manufacturing them within the last five years otherwise they are harmless substances and no threat.

Here is the evidence that is still missing listed in order of importance:

#1. Any recently operating, (yr 2000), specially designed military facilities that are capable of manufacturing chemical weapons.

#2. Any scientists that worked at any recently operating, (yr 2000), specially designed military facilities that are capable of manufacturing chemical weapons.

#3. Any stock piles of recently manufactured, (in year 2000), chemical weapons.

#4. Any documented evidence of recently operating, (in year 2000), specially designed military facilities that are capable of manufacturing chemical weapons.

JustTheFacts on June 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Just to emphasize – we have NOT yet destroyed all of our chemical munitions.

http://www.cma.army.mil/pueblo.aspx

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Noted, though that and the Kentucky site had their associated pages last updated in 2012.

Steve Eggleston on June 20, 2014 at 1:54 PM

In some cases, it’s safer to just lock and seal them into a solid bunker and leave them alone.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 12:51 PM

How, in any circumstance, does a location in Iraq qualify as that being the best option?

Steve Eggleston on June 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM

How, in any circumstance, does a location in Iraq qualify as that being the best option?

Steve Eggleston on June 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM

That decision would have likely been based on 2 factors (that I see) -
1) The munitions are in such bad shape they would be very dnagerous to handle in any way.
AND
2) We expected Iraq to have a long-term stable government – and of course US troops in country to help guard them….

Obviously, #2 didn’t materialize – or at least didn’t hold after we pulled out.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 2:08 PM

within the last five years otherwise they are harmless substances and no threat.
JustTheFacts on June 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM

So you’d be willing to take the word of someone from the UN (cough, AGW, cough) that it’s perfectly safe to just walk right into that facility and mess with whatever is in there?
And you’d be willing to do that to show us nothing in there is “a threat”?

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 2:12 PM

1) The munitions are in such bad shape they would be very dnagerous to handle in any way.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 2:08 PM

That they were *more* dangerous to handle than they were to leave in place to moulder. Yes. Competing risks.

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 2:16 PM

That decision would have likely been based on 2 factors (that I see) -
1) The munitions are in such bad shape they would be very dnagerous to handle in any way.
AND
2) We expected Iraq to have a long-term stable government – and of course US troops in country to help guard them….

Obviously, #2 didn’t materialize – or at least didn’t hold after we pulled out.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 2:08 PM

I could buy item #1 IF anybody knew what they were. The fact the UN didn’t even bother to try to figure out what they were before “sealing” them up (and we didn’t try either) sort of knocks that into the unbelievable realm for me.

Item #2 was originally a UN decision with Hussein’s government. The fact that they were producing WMDs through at least 1998 and at a minimum went through the motions right up into 2003 shows the UN chose poorly (just like they did in North Korea). Anybody with a brain realized at the end of 2006 that the Rats would ensure that there would be no long-term stable post-Hussein government if they gained the Presidency, and we’re seeing that end result now.

Steve Eggleston on June 20, 2014 at 2:27 PM

And you’d be willing to do that to show us nothing in there is “a threat”?

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Isn’t that what lieutenants in chem warfare are for? To be the first one to take the mask off?

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 2:29 PM

I could buy item #1 IF anybody knew what they were. The fact the UN didn’t even bother to try to figure out what they were before “sealing” them up (and we didn’t try either) sort of knocks that into the unbelievable realm for me.

Anything that smells of UN incompetence it totally believable to me.

Anybody with a brain realized at the end of 2006 that the Rats would ensure that there would be no long-term stable post-Hussein government if they gained the Presidency, and we’re seeing that end result now.

Steve Eggleston on June 20, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Well, yah, that’s pretty much the basis of everything going wrong right now – and not just Iraq, and not just these chemical weapons – pretty much every major news story and every thread in HA.
Plain and simple fact is the Dems are fluking up everything they’re doing.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Isn’t that what lieutenants in chem warfare are for? To be the first one to take the mask off?

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 2:29 PM

They’re the ones with the red shirts, right?

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Plain and simple fact is the Dems are fluking up everything they’re doing.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Unless the plan is to screw everything up. Then they are doing swimmingly… even while fluking everything up… which is what they want… whoah… I’m getting dizzy.

GWB on June 20, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2