Possible Bioweapons Lab Found in Iraq

Pentagon officials said yesterday they have identified at least one mobile laboratory in Iraq and declared that the finding strongly suggests Saddam Hussein's regime was covertly developing biological weapons.



In the first public briefing on the postwar search for weapons of mass destruction, the government disclosed details of the US effort to debrief Iraqis, decipher documents, and scour hundreds of sites to find what the Pentagon officials proclaimed will be proof of a program as ''extensive and as varied'' as the Bush administration attested before the conflict.

"Senior Pentagon officials struck back at domestic and international critics who argue that the primary American rationale for invading the country -- that Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons posed an imminent threat -- was based on flimsy evidence that was exaggerated to justify the removal of the Iraqi regime by force.

The officials predicted that the mobile production facility, found in northern Iraq near Mosul on April 19 and similar to those described by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell before the United Nations in February, will be the first among many incriminating pieces of information that US and British search teams will uncover.

''As time goes by and the more we learn, I'm sure that we're going to discover that the WMD programs are extensive and as varied as the secretary of state reported in his February address,'' Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, told reporters at the Pentagon."



http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/1..._suspected_lab_suggests_fuller_program .shtml

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Sorry, the page you have requested does not exist at this address. "

And oddly enough, I haven't been able to see a photo of this "mobile lab" yet.
I've said it before alanH, the US has a lot of people to satisfy regarding the authenticity of what they find while blocking UN inspections...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's the second time I've run into that problem with the Boston Globe. They might have software in place against relinking. Anyway, try this:


http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0sl=-21


And I would dispute that the US has a lot of people to satisfy in this regard. I think they have a lot of people who are not convinced, but I don't see the "need" to satisfy most of these people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

alanH,
If you mean "need" as in "a human needs to breathe", then yes, you are correct.
If you mean "need" as in "most people don't need the US to prove the authenticity of it's WMD evidence, it's credibility is unassailable", then you're sorely mistaken.

 

Sparks: some people "need" to have the WMD issue resolved to their satisfaction, this is true. The US has no "need" to prove it to them, though. I think it would help if the issue was settled, but I suspect most of the people who "need" to see this proof will not be especially convinced even when the proof arrives.

 

Not to mention if you read the article, it says 'suspected.'

 

Not only the article says "suspected" but they have retrieved numerous equipment that, once examined, relvealed themselves as being 'false alarms' concerning chemical warfare.

So its all wishfull thinking for now Alanh... sort of an opinion that is not founded by any facts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Prisme

Well put. I saw the other thread with alanH and this person really doesn't have any facts to back their claims of WMD-just like Bush has no facts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks Norad,

I truly feel safe with you protecting me in the heavens

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We'll have to muddle through somehow, even without convincing you guys.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

let's just say

your cause has a very bad start.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

alanH,
The point of all of this is that proving that Iraq was a threat is the one thing that can substantiate the claim that the US is not doing this for the Oil.
So in reality, the US doesn't need to prove that Iraq had WMD. It's got the biggest stick and can take whatever it wants. The proof is just to be able to claim in public that ithat's not what it's doing, without the whole room sniggering.

 

Sparks: it's going to be one of those things where time is going to bear it out, one way or another. If we go ahead and improve Iraqi society, and we don't "grab" their oil like some think we will, then it truly won't matter if the WMD are found or not.

Remember, many protestors during Vietnam were convinced that we were there to steal their tin ore. Those who need to, to affirm their world view, *have* to come up with some ulterior motive.

But, like I said, time will tell. It will be interesting to see what comes of this find in the dessert.

 

alanH,
That'd be a lot more believable if Halliburton didn't have a contract to pump Iraqi oil.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As to holding up Vietnam as an example to support a pro-war stance... words fail me.

 

Sparks: read what I wrote!

I am speaking about what protestors had said at the time of Vietnam. It's not necessarily a pro-war argument to point out a tactic used by those on the other side.

Also, I find it hard to swallow that president Bush would take all the attendent risks and fallout of war in Iraq, just to give Halliburton a contract. I don't say there's no shmoozing, but there's no reason to think Halliburton has that level or juice or that Bush et. al. would take those kinds of risks for them.

 

alanH,
Most vietnam protestors were against war. Discrediting their stance by pointing out a perceived weakness in their motives for adopting that position is a pro-war action.
Thing is, more fool me, I do read your posts.

Firstly, http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/691963?view=Eircomnet
(just for those that think I'm making it up).

Secondly, saying that the war was about giving Halliburton the contract is a neat dodge. The point wasn't that Halliburton got the contract - the point was that the contract existed. The US has no right to Iraqi oil - but they're taking it.

 

Sparks: they're not necessarily "taking it"...they are pumping it, and pumping it openly, with the stated intention of using the proceeds to improve the situation in Iraq. Now, if this is perverted in some way, or if there's corruption, then fine...attack it. But the pumping of the oil is all above board, and is in line with getting the country back up and running.

Discrediting a stance is discrediting a stance. I might well discredit an argument that agrees with my view if it's a weak argument. And I've done this.

I'm glad at least you don't think the war was started for the benefit of Halliburtion.

 

We would be doing Iraq a great disservice if we didnt jump-start their primary mode of income: oil production.

 

alanH,
Nice of you to miss the point again. Iraqi oil, by order of the UNSC, is a commodity that is currently under sanction. In other words, cannot be sold outside the OFF program.

So why is the US giving a contract to keep the oil fields running before sanctions are lifted?

And you didn't discredit the position of those that opposed the Vietnam war. They were correct.

And no, I don't think the war started for the benefit of halliburton. Or bechtel.
I think it started for the benefit of the Bush administration. The fact that they have ties to halliburton and bechtel is just so incidental.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sparks: don't be disingenuous-- the sanctions were applied to Saddam Hussein's government. Now that his government is out, there is no longer any reason for the sanctions, and they are likely to be lifted sooner rather than later.

As for the Vietnam War, I don't believe there was a "correct" position. There were different opinions on the war. And if I discredit a particular view that was held *within* the anti-war community, I'm discrediting that *particular* view, not necessarily the opposition to war. Kind of like you might discredit the particular view that George Bush wanted to start a war because he is a space alien. Discrediting that wouldn't make you pro-war, capiche?