I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

grossly Malraux Wolf…

White Phosphorus is a WMD regardless of who has it. But, as the links I provided show, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq did not possess it or even had the capacity to produce it by the time of the invasion in 2003. His regime had not had the capability to manufacture that, or any other biological or chemical agent in years.

It is not me saying it –it is the CIA, the UNSCOM, David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and the Army’s 75th Exploitation Task Force.

You are trying to find an inconsistencies and/or contradictions where there are none. I provided links to two CIA reports, one released in 2002 and another in 2004.

First things first: Hussein’s regime did, at some point, manufactured and possessed WMDs. There is no arguing that. But its capacity to produce them was greatly diminished during the first Gulf War and by the sanctions imposed on Iraq until 2003. By the time the UNSCOM team was inspecting Iraqi facilities Hussein’s regime was largely complying with U.N. terms and was not producing WMDs anymore.

Second: The 2002 report by the CIA is a pre-war assessment of the suspected capability retained by Iraq to produce WMDs, and it is highly caveated. It clearly states a strong suspicion that Iraq has continued its WMDs programmes because Iraq has rebuilt several facilities, but does not provide conclusive evidence. Not a bad reflection on the CIA –they simply did not have access to insiders.

Third: The January, 2003 UNSCOM report to the U.N. Security Council basically says that what the commission is looking for are stockpiles leftover from 1991 –not newly produced biological or chemical agents. It also describes how Iraq’s capability to produce WMDs is practically non-existent. The inspectors did not find evidence of any chemical or biological agents produced after 1991. See the UNSCOM report here: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

The 2004 CIA post-invasion report also confirms that, indeed, Iraq had no WMDs capabilities by 2003 and that the few rounds discovered dated from around 1991 –the year of the first Gulf War. You read my quotes from the 2004 report. The UNSCOM report and the CIA 2004 report are consistent.

What this means is that between the October 2002 CIA report and the UNSCOM January 2003 report, the assessment of Iraq’s WMDs capabilities improved dramatically, thanks to the ongoing inspections. While the CIA in 2002 strongly suspected Iraq had an ongoing WMDs programme, the UNSCOM report in 2003 dispelled that notion. By 2004, the CIA had concluded that, in spite of its previous assessment, Iraq had not had the capability to produce WMDs in years. Those are the quotes I included in my previous post.

Finally, I am not the one saying Hussein’s regime did not have WMDs. The UNSCOM and the CIA 2004 reports did that for me.

Also, It has been widely reported that the Army’s Task Force in charge of uncovering Iraq’s WMDs had to leave that country empty-handed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40212-2003May10?language=printer

David Kay, former U.S Chief Weapons Inspector, also said in January of 2004 that Iraq had no WMDs: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated the same thing in October of 2004: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html

Bush himself made jokes about the inability to find those pesky WMDs during the 2004 annual dinner with the Radio and Television Correspondents: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/bush.wmd.jokes/

Iraq had WP according to the report you linked, so they had WMD. Then you turn around and say they didn’t have WMD. Which is it?

I suggest you read the report.

It is common knowledge that Iraq used WMDs during the Iran-Iraq war, and against the Kurds. I am not arguing against that.

As a matter of fact, the CIA report in its section “Full Capability, 1981-1991: Ambition” provides ample information of the manufacturing and use of the WMDs by Iraq.

However, the CIA report, in its section “The Decline, 1991-1996 – Destroying Iraqi Weapons”, states that: “During the Gulf war in early 1991, Coalition Forces destroyed or extensively damaged most of Iraq’s CW infrastructure, including many of the agent and precursor production facilities at Al Muthanna. Then, in April 1991, the UN adopted Security Council Resolution 687, which established a ceasefire in the Gulf war.Iraq was required to verifiably disarm as a prerequisite to lifting of the oil embargo imposed by UNSCR 660 of August 1990.”

Also, at the very top of the document, in the section “Key Findings”, the report says that:

“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.”

Also, “The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts.”

Another excerpt: “Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). “

One more: “Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. However, ISG has no information that the plan ever included a trigger for CW use.”

So, contrary to the Bush II administration’s claims, Saddam Hussein’s regime had all but abandoned its Chemical Weapons programme by 1991. When Iraq was invaded in 2003, it had not produced Chemical Weapons in years, had no capability to produce them, and had only a very small number of old, abandoned rounds that dated back to the 1990s.

The CIA released a document in October 2002, titled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs”. The document included an item in the list of WMDs called “Chemical Warfare Programs”: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

By the CIA’s definition, chemical agents are Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This other CIA document specifically mentions White Phosphorus as part of Iraq’s chemical warfare programme: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

White Phosphorus is both a chemical agent and a WMD, and is used as an incendiary weapon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary

From the Wikipedia: “The Vietnam War era slang Willie Pete, Whiskey Pete or Wiley P is still occasionally heard.”

The contention that WP is not an illegal weapon, although technically true, is misleading. Also from the wikipedia:

“Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians.”

By their own admission, the U.S. military have used White Phosphorus in Fallujah in areas with high concentrations of civilians: They have fired White Phosphorus rounds within city limits, into buildings, directly at people.

The U.S. military have used WMDs in Iraq.

“(…) U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes ….' The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]”

The Department of State identified misinformation in its own “Identifying Misinformation” page, and had to correct it.

From the article “Fight for Fallujah” p.26: (Ryan Neat provided the link)

“b. White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosives]. We fired ’shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”

So, the rounds of phosphorous were not “fired into the air” but directly at people.

From a North County Times article, in the section titled “Shake ‘n’ bake”:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt

“‘Gun up!’ Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.

‘Fire!’ Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.

The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call “shake ‘n’ bake” into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.”

Here we have a description of phosphorous rounds being fired into buildings, directly at people, within city limits, and not “fired into the air”.

As to the DoS’ claim that White Phosphorous was only used against military forces, this is what Jeff Englehart, a Marine who served in Fallujah said during an interview with Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now”:

“We were told going into Fallujah that every single person going into the combat area that was walking, talking, breathing was an enemy combatant.”
“It seemed like just a massive killing of Arabs. It looked like just a massive killing.”
“Yes. Burned bodies. Burned children. Burned women. White phosphorus kills indiscriminately.”

Find Jeff Englehart’s blog here: http://www.ftssoldier.blogspot.com/

And the full text of his interview here: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516227

You are coorect:

WP is not an illegal weapon.

It is illegal to use it on people, which was done in Fallujah.

I was in the 4/5 Field Artillery Fort Riley Kansas 1st Infantry Division.

You are not aloud to use WP on people.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

You’re a LIAR AND A FOOL. The March edition of Field Artillery Magazine (A MILITARY MAGAZINE) says the exact opposite. It is YOU who are being a liar and a propagandist. Compared to you, Al Jazeera looks honest! How bad is it when the US military not only commits war crimes, but republicans lie about it outright when caught by your own publications! YOU ARE A TERRORIST, A LIAR AND A TRAITOR AMERICAN VALUES PETE!

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true.

Qatar-based Internet site Islam Online was one of the first to spread the false chemical weapons claim. On November 10, 2004, it reported that U.S. troops were allegedly using “chemical weapons and poisonous gas” in Fallujah. (”US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah”) It sourced this claim to Al-Quds Press, which cited only anonymous sources for its allegation.

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used “outlawed” phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using “outlawed” weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.

There has been an undercurrent of unrest over the call for the impeachment of President Bush that is now bubbling to the surface. Several recent polls are showing a shift in public opinion towards impeachment of the president while a number of organizations are campaigning to convince the House of Representatives to lay charges. There are many impediments towards impeachment not the least of which is the fact that the House is Republican. Nevertheless, it is a healthy step forward that the American people may be finally realizing that the President is devious and lacks integrity.

On June 30/05 a Zogby Poll reported that “(42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.” More recently an Ipso Public Affairs conducted between October 6/05 to October 9/05 found that 50% of Americans agreed with the statement “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war against Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.” The Santa Cruz City Council voted 6-1 “…to send a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee asking the panel to investigate…” impeachment if “President Bush …deceived the American public about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” Veterans for Peace have called for the impeachment of the President on a number of charges none of which refer to international law.

Calls for impeachment of President Bush based on his lies about weapons of mass destruction are misguided and misplaced. While lying about weapons of mass destruction to persuade Congress to grant approval for a war against Iraq is a serious offense, it is overshadowed by President Bush’s actions following the approval. President Bush and his administration have perpetrated major war crimes in Iraq and should be held accountable for violating the War Crimes Act. (as documented in my latest book “Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face”)
The U.S. constitution states that “The President…shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (Article II, Section4) Constitutional scholars agree that a serious criminal act constitutes grounds for impeachment. If President Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions, he should be charged under the War Crimes Act.

The War Crimes Act states that “Whoever…commits a war crime…defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party” will be “fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.” According to the Nuremberg Principles, if war crimes have been committed under this act, President Bush, as head of state, should be held responsible.

President Bush began violating international law the moment the U.S. started bombing Iraq. According to international law, there are only two criteria for a legal war: self-defense as defined in the United Nations Charter, Chapter VII, Article 51 and authorization of the Security Council. There is no specific UN resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in 2003 and none of the former resolutions pertaining to Iraq authorize the use of force.

The Bush Administration cannot justify the war under the spurious defence of a preemptive strike because no such term exists in international law. International law states that an act of war only qualifies as self-defense if there is an actual or imminent threat. Administration legal spinners can’t legitimately demonstrate that Iraq posed such a threat. The UN charter also states that “Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” (Chapter VII, Article 51) By completely bypassing the Security Council, the Bush Administration has forgone any opportunity to claim that the war was legitimate.

President Bush has also violated a number of clauses in the fourth Geneva Convention which states that “In the case of armed conflict…Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms…shall in all circumstances be treated humanely…[and] the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and at any place: a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds; mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; b) Taking of hostages; c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” (Part 1, Article 3) It also states that “The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation.” (Article 6)

As well, he has violated clauses in the first Protocol of the Geneva Conventions including “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy protections against dangers arising from military operations” (Chapter II, Article 51) and “Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals.” (Chapter III, Article 52)

Fallujah is a typical example of American forces ignoring the rights of civilians and the protection of non-military targets. The objective of the November 8/05 assault on Fallujah was to kill all the insurgents who were in the city and to instill fear as a deterrent from further action on the part of all insurgents throughout Iraq.

Preceding the attack on Fallujah, American warplanes conducted nightly air strikes on residential buildings, restaurants and mosques. Before the actual assault began, U.S. warplanes reduced the Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the center of Fallujah to rubble. American forces then encircled the city with a cordon of more than 10,000 armed troops and were supported by all the American warplanes in the area. According to a CounterPunch Newsletter, November 17/04, “Women and children were allowed to leave the doomed city, but all males `of fighting age’ were turned back if they tried to leave…They were turned back to face the coming attack.” U.S. marines set up blockades so that ambulances and other vehicles transporting dead or injured residents could not reach a hospital. (Doug Lorimer, Scoop Independent News, November 18/04) Fallujah General Hospital was taken over by American marines and “Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs.” (New York Times embedded reporter, ZNet, False Dawn, November 8, 2004)

After blasting Fallujah with tanks, U.S. marines traveled from house to house and threw hand grenades into each room before determining whether persons were there. A quarter of its homes were completely destroyed and most of the remaining homes were severely damaged. (Michael Schwartz, ZNet, January 14/05) Erik Eckolm of the New York Times described the city as “a desolate world of skeletal buildings, tank-blasted homes, weeping power lines and severed palm trees.” (Michael Schwartz, ZNet, January 14, 2005)

According to Michael Schwartz, “When the first medical teams arrived in January they collected more than 700 unburied and rotting bodies (reputedly including those of 550 women and children) in only one-third of the city; and these obviously didn’t include the dead already buried during the battle or hidden under the debris.”

Many of the 200,000 refugees who were forced to abandon their homes brought nothing with them and ended up in refugee camps without any facilities or help from the American or the Interim Iraqi Government.

Even one death in an illegal war would have constituted a war crime. In Fallujah, innocent people were killed, buildings were destroyed, and refugees ignored, all of which violate the clauses of the Geneva Conventions stated above.

Alberto Gonzales, former White House Counsel, declared that provisions of the Geneva Conventions are obsolete and therefore, the U.S. can opt out of them. International law was not created as a set of guidelines under which nations could pick and choose which laws they will honor. If the United States Government believes that certain clauses in the Geneva Conventions should no longer be operative, the legitimate course of action would be to convince the signatories to the Conventions to discuss changes in the proper forum. As well, the White House lawyers should read Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution which declares that “All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” In other words, the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions are a part of American law and violating either of them is tantamount to violating American law.

To impeach President Bush on the grounds that he lied about WMD will further weaken the United Nations and the international regime of laws which criminalize wars of aggression and civilize war to the furthest extent possible. By only charging Bush with lying implies that the war would have been legitimate had the Americans found any WMD. The mere presence of WMD in Iraq does not qualify as an actual or imminent threat. One of the most basic issues in a claim of self-defense is whether Iraq had the delivery capability for its WMD to reach American soil. The inspection teams, UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, and the International Atomic Energy Agency had found no evidence of WMD and no delivery capability. According to Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC “Iraq on the whole has cooperated…access has been provided to all sites.”

Ignoring the war crimes of the President also diminishes the role of the United Nations as the only instrument for resolving disputes and authorizing war. Congressional approval for a war does not override the United Nations Charter which has become part of American law. If nations decide not to relinquish some of their sovereignty over foreign and defense policy to a world body such as the UN, the world would be reduced to a state of war and disorder.

President Bush is guilty of lying to the American people and violating international law. Both are serious offenses but to ignore the latter is a disservice to the United Nations and to the people of Iraq who have died or suffered at the hands of this war criminal.

Author of “Lying for Empire: How to commit War Crimes with a Straight Face”

As bad as things are right now, it boggles the mind to ponder how much worse they’d be if men like Bush and Cheney succeeded in their goal of total information control.