reply to post by PatriotGames2
Well.... Talk about losing track of time. That was a very interesting but worthwhile 5 hours of reading. Now, I'll pay for this tonight in
classes...but it was worth it. That was probably the most informative material I've yet read on the state of chemical, bio and nuclear in Iraq during
and prior to the 1991 war.
Couple points... As much as the Chairman of the committee tried...and he tried many times with every one of the witnesses. He was told, by each, there
was no use of biological weapons or chemical weapons in or around Iraq, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. No confirmation or evidence has ever, at any point,
according to each of those witnesses, existed that there was any used.
The entire hearing is about working funding for Gulf War syndrome and the whole point of the process is to connect biological weapons to the illness.
In fact, the chairman says it himself in 3 different places. It's a bit disingenuous. Actually, the guy's a flat out jerk. He went off into tangents
of hypotheticals several times, trying to draw an answer he liked THAT way and still..got told no. None were used. False alarms happened...and the
points that no one died make a pretty compelling argument I've heard from day 1. Pretty crappy chemical weapons when it takes until after the war to
They DID FIND Chemical weapons in 1991...and multiple studies, which openly seemed to anger the committee at some points, concluded the maximum
dispersal was 10-12 kilometers downwind. Nothing more. That's IF anything got out...and no local civilian impact was ever seen around locations,
despite their looking hard for it. That, also according to testimony. That doesn't fit with thousands of ill among our troops, much further away..as
he's so badly hunting to establish here.
Researchers Narrow Gulf War Syndrome causes
That's 15 years later and nerve gas exposure (or pesticide...which, oddly, comes up in 5 different documents I've read on this tonight....just what
the hell was the DOD using pesticide over troop positions for?! That bad a bug problem?) is still only 1 of three possible causes they cite. Other
material, including areas of the 1994 report being cited here ..also show Depleted Uranium and the injections given to troops in that conflict as part
of the possible causes...
Now...The one witness with expertise to know, out of CIA as it happens, noted the fact that a great deal of Saddam's stuff was coming out of Europe,
not the United States. Specifically Germany. That would be Dr Oehler's testimony and it was some of the more detailed and informative. Even there
though, it's precursor basics and equipment. As noted by the witnesses, Iraq had a very robust and strong production program without outside help
before the 1991 war.
The last point I come away with and this is just infuriating because it was over and over and over again by this guy (Riegle), he mixes the words
chemical with biological as if the two are interchangeable or even similar. It's just done too many times with the different people testifying to be
remotely accidental. Is Sarin similar to a nuclear weapon? Well.. Bio has nothing to do with chemical except to be another weapon of mass destruction.
Yet, he literally interchanges the terms in what I'd say was a deliberate attempt to trip a couple of them up into saying something they hadn't meant
to say ..after saying more than once, what he was after flat wasn't there to find. (Wide spread release of anything).
Bottom line though? The *ONLY* one claiming the US supplied NBC weapons
kind to Iraq IS the Chairman himself. No witness will
confirm it and says 100% the opposite when pinned down...each time. Even the talk about material sent from U.S. companies under much looser laws in
the 80's is of dual-use (Iraq really is a BIG country that does more than make bombs...they were then too) or precursor nature.
The US flat doesn't send WEAPONS to other nations from the NBC category. It's not just against about a dozen treaties but it's outright, totally and
patently insane. Iran HAD been a CLOSE ally less than 10 years before Riegle suggests all this would have happened .....and we'd be trusting the next
one in line, no better in reality, MORE than our own NATO allies? Oh..
Doesn't sound right and never has. The testimony there agrees.
edit on 19-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: typography changes