Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq

Politics > Politics-USA > Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Politics > Politics-USA
User:	"John \War Fraud\ Kerry"
Date:	17 May 2004 12:56:21 PM
Object:	Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq

"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...

The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to

I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that scam, now
that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again, "There are
no WMD's in Iraq!".
What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
.

User: "Bryan"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	17 May 2004 11:05:48 PM

John "War Fraud" Kerry wrote:

"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...

The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to

Don't forget the "L" word. I'm sure they will find other reasons to
help them imagine that Bush is a "liar".
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	17 May 2004 01:00:34 PM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
<PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:

"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...

The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to

So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
were correct?
If that's so, then you'll undoubtedly have no trouble proving the
origin of those shells. Get to it, boy.
--
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Jason Gallas"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	17 May 2004 01:57:28 PM

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:gcvha0pj9593kvrsi28sfqvs17fm2qvckt@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
: <PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:
:
: >
: >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
message
: >news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...
: >> The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to
: >
: >
: >I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that scam, now
: >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again, "There
are
: >no WMD's in Iraq!".
: >
: >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
: >
:
: So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
: unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
: were correct?
Actually everyone knew he HAD them. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians and they
will tell you for sure he did. The question was where was he hiding them
(in Iraq or other neighboring countries). Slowly we are finding out where
he was hiding them.
.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	17 May 2004 07:45:25 PM

"Jason Gallas" <jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote in message news:<hW7qc.5$UO4.0@fe22.usenetserver.com>...

LOL! except for all the people in this news group who said "Bush
lied, they died". I guess even stupid idiots can rhyme.
.

User: "FauxPrez"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	18 May 2004 10:30:38 AM

In article <a258afb5.0405171645.3702057@posting.google.com>,

(Mark Fox) wrote:
}"Jason Gallas" <jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote in message
} news:<hW7qc.5$UO4.0@fe22.usenetserver.com>...
}> "Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
}> news:gcvha0pj9593kvrsi28sfqvs17fm2qvckt@4ax.com...
}> : On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
}> : <PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:
}> :
}> : >
}> : >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
}> message
}> : >news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...
}> : >> The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to
}> : >
}> : >
}> : >I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that scam, now
}> : >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again, "There
}> are
}> : >no WMD's in Iraq!".
}> : >
}> : >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
}> : >
}> :
}> : So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
}> : unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
}> : were correct?
}>
}> Actually everyone knew he HAD them.
}
}LOL! except for all the people in this news group who said "Bush
}lied, they died". I guess even stupid idiots can rhyme.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,965319,00.html
US finds evidence of WMD at last--
buried in a field near Maryland
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday May 28, 2003
The Guardian
The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its
investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous
bacteria.
The bad news was that the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer
than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland
countryside.
The anthrax was a non-virulent strain, and the discoveries are
apparently remnants of an abandoned germ warfare programme. They
merited only a local news item in the Washington Post.
But suspicious finds in Iraq have made front-page news (before
later being cleared), given the failure of US military inspection
teams to find evidence of the weapons that were the justification
for the March invasion.
Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no
documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at
the US bio-defence centre at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come
up with paperwork proving the destruction of its biological
arsenal was portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the
run-up to the war.
In an effort to explain why no chemical or biological weapons had
been found in Iraq, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld,
said yesterday the regime may have destroyed them before the war.
Speaking to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations
thinktank, he said the speed of U.S. advance may have caught Iraq
by surprise, but added: "It is also possible that they decided
that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."
The US germ warfare programme at Fort Detrick was officially
wound up in 1969, but the base has maintained a stock of nasty
bugs to help maintain America's defences against biological
attack.
The leading theory about the unsolved anthrax letter attacks in
2001 is that they were carried out by a disgruntled former Fort
Detrick employee; equipment found dumped in a pond eight miles
from the base has been linked to the crimes.
The Fort Detrick clean-up has unearthed over 2,000 tonnes of
hazardous waste.
The sanitation crews were shocked to find vials containing live
bacteria. As well as the vaccine form of anthrax, the discarded
biological agents included Brucella melitensis, which causes the
virulent flu-like disease brucellosis, and klebsiella, a cause of
pneumonia.
================================================================
...AND...
================================================================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42036-2003May26.
html
Ft. Detrick Unearths Hazardous Surprises
Cleanup Finds Debris Of Biological Warfare
By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
Two years of digging at the U.S. Army's Fort Detrick in Frederick
has unearthed more than 2,000 tons of hazardous waste --
including vials of live bacteria and nonvirulent anthrax that the
military did not know was buried there, Detrick officials said.
Discovery of the pathogens at the former biological weapons
research center turned what the Army thought would be industrial
waste removal into the biggest cleanup in its history. So far,
cleanup crews have discovered more than 100 glass vials, many
containing live bacteria, and in a few, a nonvirulent strain of
anthrax. The $25 million excavation is due to end this year.
While the Army searches for evidence of biological and chemical
weapons in Iraq, Fort Detrick's cleanup saga shows how, nearly 40
years after the United States ended such programs at home, it
still struggles with their lingering dangers. As in the Middle
East, poor documentation, the passage of time and the programs'
secrecy have slowed the effort.
"You find it, contain it and try to figure out what it is," said
Col. John Ball, Fort Detrick garrison commander. "We're learning,
but it's expensive."
In the tall grass off Kemp Lane in Frederick, deer leap, white
tails flashing, and cows graze nearby. When the animals die, they
are autopsied as a precaution. This is Area B, a 400-acre site
that hosted Fort Detrick's target range, cropland and, in its
southwest corner, a network of waste pits. Inside a specially
pressurized and filtered vinyl tent, workers in biohazard suits
empty the dump of its Cold War trash and secrets.
"There's a certain time capsule effect," Ball said.
Inside the tent, bulldozers operate under blast shields, as pit
contents periodically ignite. The crew breathes through air
hoses. The site is quarantined for two hours at the end of each
working day, while the tent's air is tested for pathogens.
When digging began in April 2001, the Army expected to find
mostly lab chemicals, debris and incinerator ash. But little more
than one foot down, the bulldozers hit upon corroded drums of
herbicides and unidentified chemicals, syringes, lab instruments
and strange substances mixed with the dirt. They plucked out 50
pressurized cylinders of gases and liquids that still await
analysis. Four dissected laboratory rats appeared, still floating
in jars of formaldehyde at least 30 years old.
But what the Army least expected to find were tiny vials of live
bacteria like Brucella melitensis, Klebsiella pneumoniae and
Bacillus anthracis -- a nonvirulent form of the anthrax
bacterium, the potent form of which was brewed by the gallon at
Fort Detrick until 1969.
"The documentation for where this came from doesn't exist," said
Lt. Col. Donald Archibald, Fort Detrick's director of safety,
environment and integrated planning. After larger objects are
removed, the soil and waste are pulverized, and throughout the
process, they are doused with bleach to kill all bacteria. After
testing for pathogens, it is sent in sealed containers to a
disposal facility in Texas.
The few documents that exist say Fort Detrick used the dump from
1955 through the 1960s, while the post served on the front lines
of the U.S. biological and chemical warfare program. During those
years, technicians brewed a pastelike anthrax "slurry."
Scientists sprayed germs into a giant sphere called "the
Eightball," testing them on livestock and, occasionally, people.
The Crops Division tested a key ingredient in the dangerous
Vietnam War-era defoliant known as Agent Orange: Traces of it
have shown up in the dump.
Hubert Kaempf, 83, supervised Detrick's waste haulers during
those years. "We had one of the finest safety departments in the
world," he said. "But what was in keeping with safety and
sanitary laws then would now be very much forbidden."
Some waste -- laboratory materials, animal carcasses -- was
supposed to be sanitized, incinerated or both, and the ashes
buried. Chemicals were dumped directly into the pits. From time
to time, other government institutions sent trash to Detrick's
landfill. They included, Kaempf said, the Central Intelligence
Agency, which, a declassified government report shows, tested
biological agents at Fort Detrick.
The pits had no linings, as Fort Detrick's landfill does now.
There was no inventory done. Such precautions weren't required.
Then, in 1969, President Richard M. Nixon halted the weapons
programs. Fort Detrick underwent a massive decontamination and
became a conventional medical research center. Today, it houses
the National Cancer Institute and the U.S. Army Medical Research
Institute of Infectious Diseases.
"When Nixon shut us down," Kaempf said, "There was a lot of lab
apparatus that was just dumped. Whatever records . . . I have no
way of knowing where they went."
In 1991, toxins turned up in Army monitoring wells near the dump.
Tests showed trichloroethylene, or TCE, a metal-cleaning solvent
linked to liver and kidney damage, and tetrachloroethylene, or
PCE, a degreasing compound believed to cause liver cancer.
The Maryland Department of the Environment and the Frederick
County Health Department tested 33 wells at homes near Area B.
Half were contaminated with the two agents, six so badly that the
water was unfit to drink. In a few wells, concentrations of the
two chemicals exceeded Environmental Protection Agency limits
many times over. In an Army monitoring well nearest the dump, the
chemicals were so concentrated, "you could smell it," said Joseph
Gortva, an engineer who is managing the cleanup.
The post paid to put homes with tainted wells on the city water
system. It briefed politicians and posted detailed information on
its Web site. It convened an advisory board of neighbors, former
workers and businesspeople for public meetings every two months.
"They've been very open and honest," said Michael Kurtianyk, a
real estate agent on the advisory board. "I was looking for
something really secretive, but no."
Others aren't so sure. Said Helen Alexander, another member from
Frederick: "We probably don't know all the ins and outs of what
they actually found."
At one meeting in November 2000, the advisory board asked a
representative from the Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene whether the department could study cancer rates in the
population living downhill from the dump from the 1960s through
the 1980s. He replied, according to the minutes, "that it would
be difficult because data from the Maryland Cancer Registry only
goes back to 1992."
To secure Pentagon money for a cleanup, Detrick needed to
estimate the size and scope of the project. Archivists located an
old map of Area B, noting a series of four waste pits in a corner
known as B-11. A soil test boring released a gas that sent
several workers to the hospital for observation.
By the late 1990s, the restoration team had compiled thick
binders with everything it knew.
"We couldn't rule out that we might find biological material,
though we didn't expect to," Archibald said. The Pentagon
authorized a $5 million project. Digging began on the largest of
the four main waste pits.
Frederick Mayor Jennifer Dougherty, who had previously taken Fort
Detrick to task about sharing information on the cleanup,
remembered a phone call from Ball a year ago, the day the anthrax
turned up. "He said, 'We found a vial . . .' " she recalled. "At
that point, your mind just races."
Ball remembered thinking, "This could be bad, but let's wait for
the testing." It showed that the vial contained "a vaccine strain
of anthrax," which could not cause the disease. The Fort Detrick
team found identifying biological materials a costly, uncertain
process.
In a Restoration Advisory Board meeting Oct. 9, Ball "expressed
his surprise at learning that the United States, being one of the
most advanced technological nations in the world . . . does not
have the ability to rapidly and accurately identify biological
culture samples," meeting minutes noted.
Whether in Iraq or Frederick, "there's a body of science we rely
on, but there's a lot of gray area," said Archibald, the safety
director. "The more money you put into testing, the better the
results."
As retrieving, identifying and destroying biological agents
tripled the cleanup budget, the Pentagon balked, pressing to
delay the digging. Ball and Maryland officials pushed for the
funds needed to finish. Digging in the final three pits started
this month and is expected to end by December.
"I think today's Fort Detrick is a good neighbor," Dougherty
said.
Though a spokesman for the EPA said the groundwater contamination
has reached acceptable levels, the Army estimates it will take
four more years, and more money, to clean it completely.
Meanwhile, Fort Detrick is searching for other uncharted dumps.
"You never know what's there until you start digging," Ball said.
"We've generally ruled out finding a nuclear weapon."
================================================================
----
"Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!"
"Nope, no weapons over there!"
"Maybe under here?"
- Duhbya's WMD HAR-DEE-HAR!
Next: Duhbya jokes about child abuse...
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	17 May 2004 09:42:28 PM

On 17 May 2004 17:45:25 -0700,

(Mark Fox) wrote:

"Jason Gallas" <jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote in message news:<hW7qc.5$UO4.0@fe22.usenetserver.com>...

LOL! except for all the people in this news group who said "Bush
lied, they died". I guess even stupid idiots can rhyme.

Yah, whatever. I think *I'll* wait until we see better tests and it's
proven where the shell came from - or have you decided that you don't
*have* a burden of proof for these claims? Jeebus knows, it's not like
the claims from months ago have been proven yet either. It's not like
Bush's previous claims make it likelier that this shell was part of
Hussein's arsenal. Show me some *proof* and go from there.
(Cue the old "Hussein had WMD 'cause Bush said so" routine).
--
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	17 May 2004 02:20:28 PM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:57:28 -0700, "Jason Gallas"
<jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:gcvha0pj9593kvrsi28sfqvs17fm2qvckt@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
: <PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:
:
: >
: >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
message
: >news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...
: >> The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to
: >
: >
: >I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that scam, now
: >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again, "There
are
: >no WMD's in Iraq!".
: >
: >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
: >
:
: So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
: unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
: were correct?

Actually everyone knew he HAD them. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians and they
will tell you for sure he did. The question was where was he hiding them
(in Iraq or other neighboring countries). Slowly we are finding out where
he was hiding them.

Not so far, we're not. It's called evidence - so far there is, in
fact, none linking this shell with Bush's claims, and it's up to Bush
to provide such evidence.
--
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Jason Gallas"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	17 May 2004 06:08:11 PM

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:v14ia0dejk3n14r4hinbqt253gmpookeuf@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:57:28 -0700, "Jason Gallas"
: <jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
:
: >
: >"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
: >news:gcvha0pj9593kvrsi28sfqvs17fm2qvckt@4ax.com...
: >: On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
: >: <PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:
: >:
: >: >
: >: >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
: >message
: >: >news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...
: >: >> The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that scam,
now
: >: >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again, "There
: >are
: >: >no WMD's in Iraq!".
: >: >
: >: >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
: >: >
: >:
: >: So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
: >: unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
: >: were correct?
: >
: >Actually everyone knew he HAD them. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians and
they
: >will tell you for sure he did. The question was where was he hiding them
: >(in Iraq or other neighboring countries). Slowly we are finding out
where
: >he was hiding them.
: >
: >
:
: Not so far, we're not. It's called evidence - so far there is, in
: fact, none linking this shell with Bush's claims, and it's up to Bush
: to provide such evidence.
LOL, another goofy conspiracy theory?
.

User: "FauxPrez"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	18 May 2004 10:29:50 AM

In article <fBbqc.4894$fo4.902@fe10.usenetserver.com>, "Jason Gallas" <jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
}
}"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
}news:v14ia0dejk3n14r4hinbqt253gmpookeuf@4ax.com...
}: On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:57:28 -0700, "Jason Gallas"
}: <jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
}:
}: >
}: >"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
}: >news:gcvha0pj9593kvrsi28sfqvs17fm2qvckt@4ax.com...
}: >: On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
}: >: <PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:
}: >:
}: >: >
}: >: >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
}: >message
}: >: >news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...
}: >: >> The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to
}: >: >
}: >: >
}: >: >I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that scam,
}now
}: >: >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again, "There
}: >are
}: >: >no WMD's in Iraq!".
}: >: >
}: >: >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
}: >: >
}: >:
}: >: So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
}: >: unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
}: >: were correct?
}: >
}: >Actually everyone knew he HAD them. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians and
}they
}: >will tell you for sure he did. The question was where was he hiding them
}: >(in Iraq or other neighboring countries). Slowly we are finding out
}where
}: >he was hiding them.
}: >
}: >
}:
}: Not so far, we're not. It's called evidence - so far there is, in
}: fact, none linking this shell with Bush's claims, and it's up to Bush
}: to provide such evidence.
}
}LOL, another goofy conspiracy theory?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,965319,00.html
US finds evidence of WMD at last--
buried in a field near Maryland
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday May 28, 2003
The Guardian
The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its
investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous
bacteria.
The bad news was that the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer
than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland
countryside.
The anthrax was a non-virulent strain, and the discoveries are
apparently remnants of an abandoned germ warfare programme. They
merited only a local news item in the Washington Post.
But suspicious finds in Iraq have made front-page news (before
later being cleared), given the failure of US military inspection
teams to find evidence of the weapons that were the justification
for the March invasion.
Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no
documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at
the US bio-defence centre at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come
up with paperwork proving the destruction of its biological
arsenal was portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the
run-up to the war.
In an effort to explain why no chemical or biological weapons had
been found in Iraq, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld,
said yesterday the regime may have destroyed them before the war.
Speaking to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations
thinktank, he said the speed of U.S. advance may have caught Iraq
by surprise, but added: "It is also possible that they decided
that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."
The US germ warfare programme at Fort Detrick was officially
wound up in 1969, but the base has maintained a stock of nasty
bugs to help maintain America's defences against biological
attack.
The leading theory about the unsolved anthrax letter attacks in
2001 is that they were carried out by a disgruntled former Fort
Detrick employee; equipment found dumped in a pond eight miles
from the base has been linked to the crimes.
The Fort Detrick clean-up has unearthed over 2,000 tonnes of
hazardous waste.
The sanitation crews were shocked to find vials containing live
bacteria. As well as the vaccine form of anthrax, the discarded
biological agents included Brucella melitensis, which causes the
virulent flu-like disease brucellosis, and klebsiella, a cause of
pneumonia.
================================================================
...AND...
================================================================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42036-2003May26.
html
Ft. Detrick Unearths Hazardous Surprises
Cleanup Finds Debris Of Biological Warfare
By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
Two years of digging at the U.S. Army's Fort Detrick in Frederick
has unearthed more than 2,000 tons of hazardous waste --
including vials of live bacteria and nonvirulent anthrax that the
military did not know was buried there, Detrick officials said.
Discovery of the pathogens at the former biological weapons
research center turned what the Army thought would be industrial
waste removal into the biggest cleanup in its history. So far,
cleanup crews have discovered more than 100 glass vials, many
containing live bacteria, and in a few, a nonvirulent strain of
anthrax. The $25 million excavation is due to end this year.
While the Army searches for evidence of biological and chemical
weapons in Iraq, Fort Detrick's cleanup saga shows how, nearly 40
years after the United States ended such programs at home, it
still struggles with their lingering dangers. As in the Middle
East, poor documentation, the passage of time and the programs'
secrecy have slowed the effort.
"You find it, contain it and try to figure out what it is," said
Col. John Ball, Fort Detrick garrison commander. "We're learning,
but it's expensive."
In the tall grass off Kemp Lane in Frederick, deer leap, white
tails flashing, and cows graze nearby. When the animals die, they
are autopsied as a precaution. This is Area B, a 400-acre site
that hosted Fort Detrick's target range, cropland and, in its
southwest corner, a network of waste pits. Inside a specially
pressurized and filtered vinyl tent, workers in biohazard suits
empty the dump of its Cold War trash and secrets.
"There's a certain time capsule effect," Ball said.
Inside the tent, bulldozers operate under blast shields, as pit
contents periodically ignite. The crew breathes through air
hoses. The site is quarantined for two hours at the end of each
working day, while the tent's air is tested for pathogens.
When digging began in April 2001, the Army expected to find
mostly lab chemicals, debris and incinerator ash. But little more
than one foot down, the bulldozers hit upon corroded drums of
herbicides and unidentified chemicals, syringes, lab instruments
and strange substances mixed with the dirt. They plucked out 50
pressurized cylinders of gases and liquids that still await
analysis. Four dissected laboratory rats appeared, still floating
in jars of formaldehyde at least 30 years old.
But what the Army least expected to find were tiny vials of live
bacteria like Brucella melitensis, Klebsiella pneumoniae and
Bacillus anthracis -- a nonvirulent form of the anthrax
bacterium, the potent form of which was brewed by the gallon at
Fort Detrick until 1969.
"The documentation for where this came from doesn't exist," said
Lt. Col. Donald Archibald, Fort Detrick's director of safety,
environment and integrated planning. After larger objects are
removed, the soil and waste are pulverized, and throughout the
process, they are doused with bleach to kill all bacteria. After
testing for pathogens, it is sent in sealed containers to a
disposal facility in Texas.
The few documents that exist say Fort Detrick used the dump from
1955 through the 1960s, while the post served on the front lines
of the U.S. biological and chemical warfare program. During those
years, technicians brewed a pastelike anthrax "slurry."
Scientists sprayed germs into a giant sphere called "the
Eightball," testing them on livestock and, occasionally, people.
The Crops Division tested a key ingredient in the dangerous
Vietnam War-era defoliant known as Agent Orange: Traces of it
have shown up in the dump.
Hubert Kaempf, 83, supervised Detrick's waste haulers during
those years. "We had one of the finest safety departments in the
world," he said. "But what was in keeping with safety and
sanitary laws then would now be very much forbidden."
Some waste -- laboratory materials, animal carcasses -- was
supposed to be sanitized, incinerated or both, and the ashes
buried. Chemicals were dumped directly into the pits. From time
to time, other government institutions sent trash to Detrick's
landfill. They included, Kaempf said, the Central Intelligence
Agency, which, a declassified government report shows, tested
biological agents at Fort Detrick.
The pits had no linings, as Fort Detrick's landfill does now.
There was no inventory done. Such precautions weren't required.
Then, in 1969, President Richard M. Nixon halted the weapons
programs. Fort Detrick underwent a massive decontamination and
became a conventional medical research center. Today, it houses
the National Cancer Institute and the U.S. Army Medical Research
Institute of Infectious Diseases.
"When Nixon shut us down," Kaempf said, "There was a lot of lab
apparatus that was just dumped. Whatever records . . . I have no
way of knowing where they went."
In 1991, toxins turned up in Army monitoring wells near the dump.
Tests showed trichloroethylene, or TCE, a metal-cleaning solvent
linked to liver and kidney damage, and tetrachloroethylene, or
PCE, a degreasing compound believed to cause liver cancer.
The Maryland Department of the Environment and the Frederick
County Health Department tested 33 wells at homes near Area B.
Half were contaminated with the two agents, six so badly that the
water was unfit to drink. In a few wells, concentrations of the
two chemicals exceeded Environmental Protection Agency limits
many times over. In an Army monitoring well nearest the dump, the
chemicals were so concentrated, "you could smell it," said Joseph
Gortva, an engineer who is managing the cleanup.
The post paid to put homes with tainted wells on the city water
system. It briefed politicians and posted detailed information on
its Web site. It convened an advisory board of neighbors, former
workers and businesspeople for public meetings every two months.
"They've been very open and honest," said Michael Kurtianyk, a
real estate agent on the advisory board. "I was looking for
something really secretive, but no."
Others aren't so sure. Said Helen Alexander, another member from
Frederick: "We probably don't know all the ins and outs of what
they actually found."
At one meeting in November 2000, the advisory board asked a
representative from the Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene whether the department could study cancer rates in the
population living downhill from the dump from the 1960s through
the 1980s. He replied, according to the minutes, "that it would
be difficult because data from the Maryland Cancer Registry only
goes back to 1992."
To secure Pentagon money for a cleanup, Detrick needed to
estimate the size and scope of the project. Archivists located an
old map of Area B, noting a series of four waste pits in a corner
known as B-11. A soil test boring released a gas that sent
several workers to the hospital for observation.
By the late 1990s, the restoration team had compiled thick
binders with everything it knew.
"We couldn't rule out that we might find biological material,
though we didn't expect to," Archibald said. The Pentagon
authorized a $5 million project. Digging began on the largest of
the four main waste pits.
Frederick Mayor Jennifer Dougherty, who had previously taken Fort
Detrick to task about sharing information on the cleanup,
remembered a phone call from Ball a year ago, the day the anthrax
turned up. "He said, 'We found a vial . . .' " she recalled. "At
that point, your mind just races."
Ball remembered thinking, "This could be bad, but let's wait for
the testing." It showed that the vial contained "a vaccine strain
of anthrax," which could not cause the disease. The Fort Detrick
team found identifying biological materials a costly, uncertain
process.
In a Restoration Advisory Board meeting Oct. 9, Ball "expressed
his surprise at learning that the United States, being one of the
most advanced technological nations in the world . . . does not
have the ability to rapidly and accurately identify biological
culture samples," meeting minutes noted.
Whether in Iraq or Frederick, "there's a body of science we rely
on, but there's a lot of gray area," said Archibald, the safety
director. "The more money you put into testing, the better the
results."
As retrieving, identifying and destroying biological agents
tripled the cleanup budget, the Pentagon balked, pressing to
delay the digging. Ball and Maryland officials pushed for the
funds needed to finish. Digging in the final three pits started
this month and is expected to end by December.
"I think today's Fort Detrick is a good neighbor," Dougherty
said.
Though a spokesman for the EPA said the groundwater contamination
has reached acceptable levels, the Army estimates it will take
four more years, and more money, to clean it completely.
Meanwhile, Fort Detrick is searching for other uncharted dumps.
"You never know what's there until you start digging," Ball said.
"We've generally ruled out finding a nuclear weapon."
================================================================
----
"Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!"
"Nope, no weapons over there!"
"Maybe under here?"
- Duhbya's WMD HAR-DEE-HAR!
Next: Duhbya jokes about child abuse...
.

User: "Jason Gallas"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	19 May 2004 01:38:48 PM

Your links mention nothing of sarin (like that found from the shell in
Iraq), nor has any anthrax been found in Iraq. What is your point, or do
you have one?
"FauxPrez" <shrub@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:2guofeF77ctqU5@uni-berlin.de...
: In article <fBbqc.4894$fo4.902@fe10.usenetserver.com>, "Jason Gallas"
<jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
: }
: }"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
: }news:v14ia0dejk3n14r4hinbqt253gmpookeuf@4ax.com...
: }: On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:57:28 -0700, "Jason Gallas"
: }: <jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
: }:
: }: >
: }: >"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
: }: >news:gcvha0pj9593kvrsi28sfqvs17fm2qvckt@4ax.com...
: }: >: On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
: }: >: <PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:
: }: >:
: }: >: >
: }: >: >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote
in
: }: >message
: }: >: >news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...
: }: >: >> The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people,
to
: }: >: >
: }: >: >
: }: >: >I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that
scam,
: }now
: }: >: >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again,
"There
: }: >are
: }: >: >no WMD's in Iraq!".
: }: >: >
: }: >: >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
: }: >: >
: }: >:
: }: >: So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
: }: >: unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
: }: >: were correct?
: }: >
: }: >Actually everyone knew he HAD them. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians
and
: }they
: }: >will tell you for sure he did. The question was where was he hiding
them
: }: >(in Iraq or other neighboring countries). Slowly we are finding out
: }where
: }: >he was hiding them.
: }: >
: }: >
: }:
: }: Not so far, we're not. It's called evidence - so far there is, in
: }: fact, none linking this shell with Bush's claims, and it's up to Bush
: }: to provide such evidence.
: }
: }LOL, another goofy conspiracy theory?
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,965319,00.html
:
: US finds evidence of WMD at last--
: buried in a field near Maryland
:
: Julian Borger in Washington
: Wednesday May 28, 2003
: The Guardian
:
: The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its
: investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass
: destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous
: bacteria.
:
: The bad news was that the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer
: than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland
: countryside.
:
: The anthrax was a non-virulent strain, and the discoveries are
: apparently remnants of an abandoned germ warfare programme. They
: merited only a local news item in the Washington Post.
:
: But suspicious finds in Iraq have made front-page news (before
: later being cleared), given the failure of US military inspection
: teams to find evidence of the weapons that were the justification
: for the March invasion.
:
: Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no
: documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at
: the US bio-defence centre at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come
: up with paperwork proving the destruction of its biological
: arsenal was portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the
: run-up to the war.
:
: In an effort to explain why no chemical or biological weapons had
: been found in Iraq, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld,
: said yesterday the regime may have destroyed them before the war.
:
: Speaking to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations
: thinktank, he said the speed of U.S. advance may have caught Iraq
: by surprise, but added: "It is also possible that they decided
: that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."
:
: The US germ warfare programme at Fort Detrick was officially
: wound up in 1969, but the base has maintained a stock of nasty
: bugs to help maintain America's defences against biological
: attack.
:
: The leading theory about the unsolved anthrax letter attacks in
: 2001 is that they were carried out by a disgruntled former Fort
: Detrick employee; equipment found dumped in a pond eight miles
: from the base has been linked to the crimes.
:
: The Fort Detrick clean-up has unearthed over 2,000 tonnes of
: hazardous waste.
:
: The sanitation crews were shocked to find vials containing live
: bacteria. As well as the vaccine form of anthrax, the discarded
: biological agents included Brucella melitensis, which causes the
: virulent flu-like disease brucellosis, and klebsiella, a cause of
: pneumonia.
: ================================================================
:
: ..AND...
:
: ================================================================
: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42036-2003May26.
: html
:
: Ft. Detrick Unearths Hazardous Surprises
: Cleanup Finds Debris Of Biological Warfare
:
: By Elizabeth Williamson
: Washington Post Staff Writer
: Tuesday, May 27, 2003
:
: Two years of digging at the U.S. Army's Fort Detrick in Frederick
: has unearthed more than 2,000 tons of hazardous waste --
: including vials of live bacteria and nonvirulent anthrax that the
: military did not know was buried there, Detrick officials said.
:
: Discovery of the pathogens at the former biological weapons
: research center turned what the Army thought would be industrial
: waste removal into the biggest cleanup in its history. So far,
: cleanup crews have discovered more than 100 glass vials, many
: containing live bacteria, and in a few, a nonvirulent strain of
: anthrax. The $25 million excavation is due to end this year.
:
: While the Army searches for evidence of biological and chemical
: weapons in Iraq, Fort Detrick's cleanup saga shows how, nearly 40
: years after the United States ended such programs at home, it
: still struggles with their lingering dangers. As in the Middle
: East, poor documentation, the passage of time and the programs'
: secrecy have slowed the effort.
:
: "You find it, contain it and try to figure out what it is," said
: Col. John Ball, Fort Detrick garrison commander. "We're learning,
: but it's expensive."
:
: In the tall grass off Kemp Lane in Frederick, deer leap, white
: tails flashing, and cows graze nearby. When the animals die, they
: are autopsied as a precaution. This is Area B, a 400-acre site
: that hosted Fort Detrick's target range, cropland and, in its
: southwest corner, a network of waste pits. Inside a specially
: pressurized and filtered vinyl tent, workers in biohazard suits
: empty the dump of its Cold War trash and secrets.
:
: "There's a certain time capsule effect," Ball said.
:
: Inside the tent, bulldozers operate under blast shields, as pit
: contents periodically ignite. The crew breathes through air
: hoses. The site is quarantined for two hours at the end of each
: working day, while the tent's air is tested for pathogens.
:
: When digging began in April 2001, the Army expected to find
: mostly lab chemicals, debris and incinerator ash. But little more
: than one foot down, the bulldozers hit upon corroded drums of
: herbicides and unidentified chemicals, syringes, lab instruments
: and strange substances mixed with the dirt. They plucked out 50
: pressurized cylinders of gases and liquids that still await
: analysis. Four dissected laboratory rats appeared, still floating
: in jars of formaldehyde at least 30 years old.
:
: But what the Army least expected to find were tiny vials of live
: bacteria like Brucella melitensis, Klebsiella pneumoniae and
: Bacillus anthracis -- a nonvirulent form of the anthrax
: bacterium, the potent form of which was brewed by the gallon at
: Fort Detrick until 1969.
:
: "The documentation for where this came from doesn't exist," said
: Lt. Col. Donald Archibald, Fort Detrick's director of safety,
: environment and integrated planning. After larger objects are
: removed, the soil and waste are pulverized, and throughout the
: process, they are doused with bleach to kill all bacteria. After
: testing for pathogens, it is sent in sealed containers to a
: disposal facility in Texas.
:
: The few documents that exist say Fort Detrick used the dump from
: 1955 through the 1960s, while the post served on the front lines
: of the U.S. biological and chemical warfare program. During those
: years, technicians brewed a pastelike anthrax "slurry."
: Scientists sprayed germs into a giant sphere called "the
: Eightball," testing them on livestock and, occasionally, people.
: The Crops Division tested a key ingredient in the dangerous
: Vietnam War-era defoliant known as Agent Orange: Traces of it
: have shown up in the dump.
:
: Hubert Kaempf, 83, supervised Detrick's waste haulers during
: those years. "We had one of the finest safety departments in the
: world," he said. "But what was in keeping with safety and
: sanitary laws then would now be very much forbidden."
:
: Some waste -- laboratory materials, animal carcasses -- was
: supposed to be sanitized, incinerated or both, and the ashes
: buried. Chemicals were dumped directly into the pits. From time
: to time, other government institutions sent trash to Detrick's
: landfill. They included, Kaempf said, the Central Intelligence
: Agency, which, a declassified government report shows, tested
: biological agents at Fort Detrick.
:
: The pits had no linings, as Fort Detrick's landfill does now.
: There was no inventory done. Such precautions weren't required.
:
: Then, in 1969, President Richard M. Nixon halted the weapons
: programs. Fort Detrick underwent a massive decontamination and
: became a conventional medical research center. Today, it houses
: the National Cancer Institute and the U.S. Army Medical Research
: Institute of Infectious Diseases.
:
: "When Nixon shut us down," Kaempf said, "There was a lot of lab
: apparatus that was just dumped. Whatever records . . . I have no
: way of knowing where they went."
:
: In 1991, toxins turned up in Army monitoring wells near the dump.
: Tests showed trichloroethylene, or TCE, a metal-cleaning solvent
: linked to liver and kidney damage, and tetrachloroethylene, or
: PCE, a degreasing compound believed to cause liver cancer.
:
: The Maryland Department of the Environment and the Frederick
: County Health Department tested 33 wells at homes near Area B.
: Half were contaminated with the two agents, six so badly that the
: water was unfit to drink. In a few wells, concentrations of the
: two chemicals exceeded Environmental Protection Agency limits
: many times over. In an Army monitoring well nearest the dump, the
: chemicals were so concentrated, "you could smell it," said Joseph
: Gortva, an engineer who is managing the cleanup.
:
: The post paid to put homes with tainted wells on the city water
: system. It briefed politicians and posted detailed information on
: its Web site. It convened an advisory board of neighbors, former
: workers and businesspeople for public meetings every two months.
:
: "They've been very open and honest," said Michael Kurtianyk, a
: real estate agent on the advisory board. "I was looking for
: something really secretive, but no."
:
: Others aren't so sure. Said Helen Alexander, another member from
: Frederick: "We probably don't know all the ins and outs of what
: they actually found."
:
: At one meeting in November 2000, the advisory board asked a
: representative from the Maryland Department of Health and Mental
: Hygiene whether the department could study cancer rates in the
: population living downhill from the dump from the 1960s through
: the 1980s. He replied, according to the minutes, "that it would
: be difficult because data from the Maryland Cancer Registry only
: goes back to 1992."
:
: To secure Pentagon money for a cleanup, Detrick needed to
: estimate the size and scope of the project. Archivists located an
: old map of Area B, noting a series of four waste pits in a corner
: known as B-11. A soil test boring released a gas that sent
: several workers to the hospital for observation.
:
: By the late 1990s, the restoration team had compiled thick
: binders with everything it knew.
:
: "We couldn't rule out that we might find biological material,
: though we didn't expect to," Archibald said. The Pentagon
: authorized a $5 million project. Digging began on the largest of
: the four main waste pits.
:
: Frederick Mayor Jennifer Dougherty, who had previously taken Fort
: Detrick to task about sharing information on the cleanup,
: remembered a phone call from Ball a year ago, the day the anthrax
: turned up. "He said, 'We found a vial . . .' " she recalled. "At
: that point, your mind just races."
:
: Ball remembered thinking, "This could be bad, but let's wait for
: the testing." It showed that the vial contained "a vaccine strain
: of anthrax," which could not cause the disease. The Fort Detrick
: team found identifying biological materials a costly, uncertain
: process.
:
: In a Restoration Advisory Board meeting Oct. 9, Ball "expressed
: his surprise at learning that the United States, being one of the
: most advanced technological nations in the world . . . does not
: have the ability to rapidly and accurately identify biological
: culture samples," meeting minutes noted.
:
: Whether in Iraq or Frederick, "there's a body of science we rely
: on, but there's a lot of gray area," said Archibald, the safety
: director. "The more money you put into testing, the better the
: results."
:
: As retrieving, identifying and destroying biological agents
: tripled the cleanup budget, the Pentagon balked, pressing to
: delay the digging. Ball and Maryland officials pushed for the
: funds needed to finish. Digging in the final three pits started
: this month and is expected to end by December.
:
: "I think today's Fort Detrick is a good neighbor," Dougherty
: said.
:
: Though a spokesman for the EPA said the groundwater contamination
: has reached acceptable levels, the Army estimates it will take
: four more years, and more money, to clean it completely.
:
: Meanwhile, Fort Detrick is searching for other uncharted dumps.
:
: "You never know what's there until you start digging," Ball said.
: "We've generally ruled out finding a nuclear weapon."
: ================================================================
:
:
: ----
: "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!"
: "Nope, no weapons over there!"
: "Maybe under here?"
: - Duhbya's WMD HAR-DEE-HAR!
: Next: Duhbya jokes about child abuse...
.

User: "FauxPrez"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	20 May 2004 06:52:28 PM

In article <IQNqc.16943$XM6.11079@fe24.usenetserver.com>, "Jason
Gallas" <jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
}Your links mention nothing of sarin (like that found from the shell in
}Iraq), nor has any anthrax been found in Iraq. What is your point, or do
}you have one?
My point?
That hard-core right-wing idiots go on and on and on and on and
on and on and on and on and on thusly: "See, Saddam claimed that
he destroyed EVERY SINGLE LAST GODDAMNED SCRAP of anything even
remotely related to WMD, and well now my, my, my...just looky
here at this big 'ol honkin' WMD with sarin gas...SEE, you
left-wing America-haters, we told you so!!!!!"
Compare this to what happened at Fort Detrick. The USA had NO
IDEA that that nasty stuff was lying about...but there it was.
To claim that Saddam *deliberately* retained this single shell
makes no more sense than to claim that the USA *deliberately*
knew about and decided to not clean up the mess at Fort Detrick
all these long years.
----
"Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!"
"Nope, no weapons over there!"
"Maybe under here?"
- Duhbya's WMD HAR-DEE-HAR!
Next: Duhbya jokes about child abuse...
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	20 May 2004 07:00:53 PM

"FauxPrez" <shrub@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:2h4ulhF90ap8U1@uni-berlin.de...

In article <IQNqc.16943$XM6.11079@fe24.usenetserver.com>, "Jason
Gallas" <jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
}Your links mention nothing of sarin (like that found from the shell in
}Iraq), nor has any anthrax been found in Iraq. What is your point, or do
}you have one?

My point?

That hard-core right-wing idiots go on and on and on and on and
on and on and on and on and on thusly: "See, Saddam claimed that
he destroyed EVERY SINGLE LAST GODDAMNED SCRAP of anything even
remotely related to WMD, and well now my, my, my...just looky
here at this big 'ol honkin' WMD with sarin gas...SEE, you
left-wing America-haters, we told you so!!!!!"

Compare this to what happened at Fort Detrick. The USA had NO
IDEA that that nasty stuff was lying about...but there it was.

To claim that Saddam *deliberately* retained this single shell
makes no more sense than to claim that the USA *deliberately*
knew about and decided to not clean up the mess at Fort Detrick
all these long years.

How many WMD would need to be found
to make you believe that Saddam had WMD,
and knew it?
.

User: "FauxPrez"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	21 May 2004 02:22:10 AM

In article <lCbrc.13354$3W1.4132@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
}"FauxPrez" <shrub@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
}news:2h4ulhF90ap8U1@uni-berlin.de...
}> In article <IQNqc.16943$XM6.11079@fe24.usenetserver.com>, "Jason
}> Gallas" <jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
}> }Your links mention nothing of sarin (like that found from the shell in
}> }Iraq), nor has any anthrax been found in Iraq. What is your point, or do
}> }you have one?
}>
}> My point?
}>
}> That hard-core right-wing idiots go on and on and on and on and
}> on and on and on and on and on thusly: "See, Saddam claimed that
}> he destroyed EVERY SINGLE LAST GODDAMNED SCRAP of anything even
}> remotely related to WMD, and well now my, my, my...just looky
}> here at this big 'ol honkin' WMD with sarin gas...SEE, you
}> left-wing America-haters, we told you so!!!!!"
}>
}> Compare this to what happened at Fort Detrick. The USA had NO
}> IDEA that that nasty stuff was lying about...but there it was.
}>
}> To claim that Saddam *deliberately* retained this single shell
}> makes no more sense than to claim that the USA *deliberately*
}> knew about and decided to not clean up the mess at Fort Detrick
}> all these long years.
}
}How many WMD would need to be found
}to make you believe that Saddam had WMD,
}and knew it?
Enough so that people like David Kay don't say things about it
like "It doesn't strike me as a big deal."
----
"Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!"
"Nope, no weapons over there!"
"Maybe under here?"
- Duhbya's WMD HAR-DEE-HAR!
Next: Duhbya jokes about child abuse...
.

User: "Gogarty"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	21 May 2004 12:16:12 PM

In article <imqrc.24392$KE6.18941@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com says...

"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote in message
news:NKidnTKVselpszPdRVn-vg@bway.net...

In article <Xhorc.12457$YB6.2535@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...

I was trying to get your opinion, not Kay's.

This story is dead, faded away like all the others. Only the extreme

Repugs are

still flogging it.

Just like only the extreme Dems and their sycophants in the Partisan Media
are still flogging the "sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners" months-old
"news" story.

As I said...
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	17 May 2004 06:45:22 PM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:08:11 -0700, "Jason Gallas"
<jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:

Well, it's all Bush has offered so far.
--
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Bryan"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	18 May 2004 12:27:40 AM

Adam H. wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:57:28 -0700, "Jason Gallas"
<jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:gcvha0pj9593kvrsi28sfqvs17fm2qvckt@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
: <PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:
:
: >
: >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
message
: >news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...
: >> The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to
: >
: >
: >I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that scam, now
: >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again, "There
are
: >no WMD's in Iraq!".
: >
: >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
: >
:
: So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
: unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
: were correct?

Actually everyone knew he HAD them. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians and they
will tell you for sure he did. The question was where was he hiding them
(in Iraq or other neighboring countries). Slowly we are finding out where
he was hiding them.

Not so far, we're not. It's called evidence - so far there is, in
fact, none linking this shell with Bush's claims, and it's up to Bush
to provide such evidence.

He should not have to. You should decide for yourself if you would
continue your trust in Sadam, Blix, and Chirac over your own Government.
Either way, the media will eventually provide (or hide) some of the real
information.
.

User: "Parsifal"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	18 May 2004 04:13:47 AM

"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:f9hqc.110021$Ik.8970519@attbi_s53...

Adam H. wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:57:28 -0700, "Jason Gallas"
<jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:

now

: >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again,

"There

are
: >no WMD's in Iraq!".
: >
: >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
: >
:
: So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
: unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
: were correct?

Actually everyone knew he HAD them. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians and

they

will tell you for sure he did. The question was where was he hiding

them

(in Iraq or other neighboring countries). Slowly we are finding out

where

he was hiding them.

Not so far, we're not. It's called evidence - so far there is, in
fact, none linking this shell with Bush's claims, and it's up to Bush
to provide such evidence.

He should not have to. You should decide for yourself if you would
continue your trust in Sadam, Blix, and Chirac over your own Government.

Putting Saddam in the same bag than Blix and Chirac shows how sick these
Republicans are...

Either way, the media will eventually provide (or hide) some of the real
information.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	18 May 2004 09:32:58 AM

"Parsifal" <Parsifal@chello.at> wrote in message
news:ftkqc.120968$O9.96982@news.chello.at...

He should not have to. You should decide for yourself if you would
continue your trust in Sadam, Blix, and Chirac over your own Government.

Putting Saddam in the same bag than Blix and Chirac shows how sick these
Republicans are...

Do you think removing Saddam from power
in Iraq was a good thing?
.

User: "FauxPrez"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	18 May 2004 10:32:53 AM

In article <f9hqc.110021$Ik.8970519@attbi_s53>, Bryan <Bryan@news.net> wrote:
}
}
}Adam H. wrote:
}
}>On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:57:28 -0700, "Jason Gallas"
}><jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
}>
}>
}>
}>>"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
}>>news:gcvha0pj9593kvrsi28sfqvs17fm2qvckt@4ax.com...
}>>: On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
}>>: <PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:
}>>:
}>>: >
}>>: >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
}>>message
}>>: >news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...
}>>: >> The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to
}>>: >
}>>: >
}>>: >I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that scam, now
}>>: >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again, "There
}>>are
}>>: >no WMD's in Iraq!".
}>>: >
}>>: >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
}>>: >
}>>:
}>>: So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
}>>: unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
}>>: were correct?
}>>
}>>Actually everyone knew he HAD them. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians and they
}>>will tell you for sure he did. The question was where was he hiding them
}>>(in Iraq or other neighboring countries). Slowly we are finding out where
}>>he was hiding them.
}>>
}>>
}>>
}>>
}>
}>Not so far, we're not. It's called evidence - so far there is, in
}>fact, none linking this shell with Bush's claims, and it's up to Bush
}>to provide such evidence.
}>
}>
}He should not have to. You should decide for yourself if you would
}continue your trust in Sadam, Blix, and Chirac over your own Government.
}
}Either way, the media will eventually provide (or hide) some of the real
}information.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,965319,00.html
US finds evidence of WMD at last--
buried in a field near Maryland
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday May 28, 2003
The Guardian
The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its
investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous
bacteria.
The bad news was that the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer
than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland
countryside.
The anthrax was a non-virulent strain, and the discoveries are
apparently remnants of an abandoned germ warfare programme. They
merited only a local news item in the Washington Post.
But suspicious finds in Iraq have made front-page news (before
later being cleared), given the failure of US military inspection
teams to find evidence of the weapons that were the justification
for the March invasion.
Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no
documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at
the US bio-defence centre at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come
up with paperwork proving the destruction of its biological
arsenal was portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the
run-up to the war.
In an effort to explain why no chemical or biological weapons had
been found in Iraq, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld,
said yesterday the regime may have destroyed them before the war.
Speaking to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations
thinktank, he said the speed of U.S. advance may have caught Iraq
by surprise, but added: "It is also possible that they decided
that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."
The US germ warfare programme at Fort Detrick was officially
wound up in 1969, but the base has maintained a stock of nasty
bugs to help maintain America's defences against biological
attack.
The leading theory about the unsolved anthrax letter attacks in
2001 is that they were carried out by a disgruntled former Fort
Detrick employee; equipment found dumped in a pond eight miles
from the base has been linked to the crimes.
The Fort Detrick clean-up has unearthed over 2,000 tonnes of
hazardous waste.
The sanitation crews were shocked to find vials containing live
bacteria. As well as the vaccine form of anthrax, the discarded
biological agents included Brucella melitensis, which causes the
virulent flu-like disease brucellosis, and klebsiella, a cause of
pneumonia.
================================================================
...AND...
================================================================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42036-2003May26.
html
Ft. Detrick Unearths Hazardous Surprises
Cleanup Finds Debris Of Biological Warfare
By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
Two years of digging at the U.S. Army's Fort Detrick in Frederick
has unearthed more than 2,000 tons of hazardous waste --
including vials of live bacteria and nonvirulent anthrax that the
military did not know was buried there, Detrick officials said.
Discovery of the pathogens at the former biological weapons
research center turned what the Army thought would be industrial
waste removal into the biggest cleanup in its history. So far,
cleanup crews have discovered more than 100 glass vials, many
containing live bacteria, and in a few, a nonvirulent strain of
anthrax. The $25 million excavation is due to end this year.
While the Army searches for evidence of biological and chemical
weapons in Iraq, Fort Detrick's cleanup saga shows how, nearly 40
years after the United States ended such programs at home, it
still struggles with their lingering dangers. As in the Middle
East, poor documentation, the passage of time and the programs'
secrecy have slowed the effort.
"You find it, contain it and try to figure out what it is," said
Col. John Ball, Fort Detrick garrison commander. "We're learning,
but it's expensive."
In the tall grass off Kemp Lane in Frederick, deer leap, white
tails flashing, and cows graze nearby. When the animals die, they
are autopsied as a precaution. This is Area B, a 400-acre site
that hosted Fort Detrick's target range, cropland and, in its
southwest corner, a network of waste pits. Inside a specially
pressurized and filtered vinyl tent, workers in biohazard suits
empty the dump of its Cold War trash and secrets.
"There's a certain time capsule effect," Ball said.
Inside the tent, bulldozers operate under blast shields, as pit
contents periodically ignite. The crew breathes through air
hoses. The site is quarantined for two hours at the end of each
working day, while the tent's air is tested for pathogens.
When digging began in April 2001, the Army expected to find
mostly lab chemicals, debris and incinerator ash. But little more
than one foot down, the bulldozers hit upon corroded drums of
herbicides and unidentified chemicals, syringes, lab instruments
and strange substances mixed with the dirt. They plucked out 50
pressurized cylinders of gases and liquids that still await
analysis. Four dissected laboratory rats appeared, still floating
in jars of formaldehyde at least 30 years old.
But what the Army least expected to find were tiny vials of live
bacteria like Brucella melitensis, Klebsiella pneumoniae and
Bacillus anthracis -- a nonvirulent form of the anthrax
bacterium, the potent form of which was brewed by the gallon at
Fort Detrick until 1969.
"The documentation for where this came from doesn't exist," said
Lt. Col. Donald Archibald, Fort Detrick's director of safety,
environment and integrated planning. After larger objects are
removed, the soil and waste are pulverized, and throughout the
process, they are doused with bleach to kill all bacteria. After
testing for pathogens, it is sent in sealed containers to a
disposal facility in Texas.
The few documents that exist say Fort Detrick used the dump from
1955 through the 1960s, while the post served on the front lines
of the U.S. biological and chemical warfare program. During those
years, technicians brewed a pastelike anthrax "slurry."
Scientists sprayed germs into a giant sphere called "the
Eightball," testing them on livestock and, occasionally, people.
The Crops Division tested a key ingredient in the dangerous
Vietnam War-era defoliant known as Agent Orange: Traces of it
have shown up in the dump.
Hubert Kaempf, 83, supervised Detrick's waste haulers during
those years. "We had one of the finest safety departments in the
world," he said. "But what was in keeping with safety and
sanitary laws then would now be very much forbidden."
Some waste -- laboratory materials, animal carcasses -- was
supposed to be sanitized, incinerated or both, and the ashes
buried. Chemicals were dumped directly into the pits. From time
to time, other government institutions sent trash to Detrick's
landfill. They included, Kaempf said, the Central Intelligence
Agency, which, a declassified government report shows, tested
biological agents at Fort Detrick.
The pits had no linings, as Fort Detrick's landfill does now.
There was no inventory done. Such precautions weren't required.
Then, in 1969, President Richard M. Nixon halted the weapons
programs. Fort Detrick underwent a massive decontamination and
became a conventional medical research center. Today, it houses
the National Cancer Institute and the U.S. Army Medical Research
Institute of Infectious Diseases.
"When Nixon shut us down," Kaempf said, "There was a lot of lab
apparatus that was just dumped. Whatever records . . . I have no
way of knowing where they went."
In 1991, toxins turned up in Army monitoring wells near the dump.
Tests showed trichloroethylene, or TCE, a metal-cleaning solvent
linked to liver and kidney damage, and tetrachloroethylene, or
PCE, a degreasing compound believed to cause liver cancer.
The Maryland Department of the Environment and the Frederick
County Health Department tested 33 wells at homes near Area B.
Half were contaminated with the two agents, six so badly that the
water was unfit to drink. In a few wells, concentrations of the
two chemicals exceeded Environmental Protection Agency limits
many times over. In an Army monitoring well nearest the dump, the
chemicals were so concentrated, "you could smell it," said Joseph
Gortva, an engineer who is managing the cleanup.
The post paid to put homes with tainted wells on the city water
system. It briefed politicians and posted detailed information on
its Web site. It convened an advisory board of neighbors, former
workers and businesspeople for public meetings every two months.
"They've been very open and honest," said Michael Kurtianyk, a
real estate agent on the advisory board. "I was looking for
something really secretive, but no."
Others aren't so sure. Said Helen Alexander, another member from
Frederick: "We probably don't know all the ins and outs of what
they actually found."
At one meeting in November 2000, the advisory board asked a
representative from the Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene whether the department could study cancer rates in the
population living downhill from the dump from the 1960s through
the 1980s. He replied, according to the minutes, "that it would
be difficult because data from the Maryland Cancer Registry only
goes back to 1992."
To secure Pentagon money for a cleanup, Detrick needed to
estimate the size and scope of the project. Archivists located an
old map of Area B, noting a series of four waste pits in a corner
known as B-11. A soil test boring released a gas that sent
several workers to the hospital for observation.
By the late 1990s, the restoration team had compiled thick
binders with everything it knew.
"We couldn't rule out that we might find biological material,
though we didn't expect to," Archibald said. The Pentagon
authorized a $5 million project. Digging began on the largest of
the four main waste pits.
Frederick Mayor Jennifer Dougherty, who had previously taken Fort
Detrick to task about sharing information on the cleanup,
remembered a phone call from Ball a year ago, the day the anthrax
turned up. "He said, 'We found a vial . . .' " she recalled. "At
that point, your mind just races."
Ball remembered thinking, "This could be bad, but let's wait for
the testing." It showed that the vial contained "a vaccine strain
of anthrax," which could not cause the disease. The Fort Detrick
team found identifying biological materials a costly, uncertain
process.
In a Restoration Advisory Board meeting Oct. 9, Ball "expressed
his surprise at learning that the United States, being one of the
most advanced technological nations in the world . . . does not
have the ability to rapidly and accurately identify biological
culture samples," meeting minutes noted.
Whether in Iraq or Frederick, "there's a body of science we rely
on, but there's a lot of gray area," said Archibald, the safety
director. "The more money you put into testing, the better the
results."
As retrieving, identifying and destroying biological agents
tripled the cleanup budget, the Pentagon balked, pressing to
delay the digging. Ball and Maryland officials pushed for the
funds needed to finish. Digging in the final three pits started
this month and is expected to end by December.
"I think today's Fort Detrick is a good neighbor," Dougherty
said.
Though a spokesman for the EPA said the groundwater contamination
has reached acceptable levels, the Army estimates it will take
four more years, and more money, to clean it completely.
Meanwhile, Fort Detrick is searching for other uncharted dumps.
"You never know what's there until you start digging," Ball said.
"We've generally ruled out finding a nuclear weapon."
================================================================
----
"Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!"
"Nope, no weapons over there!"
"Maybe under here?"
- Duhbya's WMD HAR-DEE-HAR!
Next: Duhbya jokes about child abuse...
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	18 May 2004 12:43:46 AM

On Tue, 18 May 2004 05:27:40 GMT, Bryan <Bryan@news.net> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:57:28 -0700, "Jason Gallas"
<jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:gcvha0pj9593kvrsi28sfqvs17fm2qvckt@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
: <PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:
:
: >
: >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
message
: >news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...
: >> The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to
: >
: >
: >I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that scam, now
: >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again, "There
are
: >no WMD's in Iraq!".
: >
: >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
: >
:
: So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
: unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
: were correct?

Actually everyone knew he HAD them. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians and they
will tell you for sure he did. The question was where was he hiding them
(in Iraq or other neighboring countries). Slowly we are finding out where
he was hiding them.

Not so far, we're not. It's called evidence - so far there is, in
fact, none linking this shell with Bush's claims, and it's up to Bush
to provide such evidence.

He should not have to.

Yes, in fact, he should. He makes the claims, he provides proof. So
far, he's failed, and in several cases has been shown to have been
deceiving the public. He *doesn't* get a free pass because he's
President. He does get held to a higher standard than most because of
that.

You should decide for yourself if you would
continue your trust in Sadam, Blix, and Chirac over your own Government.

Not my government, and I see no reason to trust *your* government when
they've already amply shown that they cannot be trusted in this matter
- for the past year or more. Now, have you got any *proof*, or will
you simply carry on with your attempted guilt by association *****?
You can blindly accept whatever Bush tells you if you like. If that's
the case, you don't deserve the freedom your own soldiers bought for
you. I'll wait until there's something concrete before I make up *my*
mind - I can see that it's of no use expecting you to do the same.

Either way, the media will eventually provide (or hide) some of the real
information.

No, that's up to the administration, not the media.
--
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Bryan"
Title: Re: Roadside bomb containing WMD sarin nerve agent explodes in Iraq	18 May 2004 12:24:57 AM

Adam H. wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:57:28 -0700, "Jason Gallas"
<jgallas@usa.nospam.net> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:gcvha0pj9593kvrsi28sfqvs17fm2qvckt@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:56:21 GMT, "John \"War Fraud\" Kerry"
: <PrimoDemLoser@dnc.org> wrote:
:
: >
: >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in
message
: >news:8rsha0pghjfa26vb2k7dnnga962a9kqno9@4ax.com...
: >> The use of the phrase WMD was part of a scam to confuse people, to
: >
: >
: >I remember the liberal Democrats in these newsgroups using that scam, now
: >that you mention it. Those asses claimed, over and over again, "There
are
: >no WMD's in Iraq!".
: >
: >What a bunch of lying Democrat asses.
: >
:
: So, what you're saying is, the discovery of one or two shells of
: unknown origin means that Bush's claims that Hussein had war gasses
: were correct?

Actually everyone knew he HAD them. Ask the Kurds and the Iranians and they
will tell you for sure he did. The question was where was he hiding them
(in Iraq or other neighboring countries). Slowly we are finding out where
he was hiding them.

Not so far, we're not. It's called evidence - so far there is, in
fact, none linking this shell with Bush's claims, and it's up to Bush
to provide such evidence.

There is no credible evidence that can ever be provided to help those
who blindly hate Bush overcome their hatred. Even if the headlines next
week were that "stockpiles" of WMD were found in Iraq by the train-load
hidden underground, you Bush haters would process any variations of the
following....
.... it was from the 1991 Gulf War, so it does not count
.... it was not weaponized or weapons grade
.... America provided it to Sadam years ago
.... Bush placed it there himself
.... Rumsfeld had it placed there
.... Cheney had Haliburton place it there
.... no one was hurt by it, so it could hardly be considered WMD
.... it's only sarin gas, or ..., or ...., etc.
.... finally, Rumsfeld should be fired because he should have found it
earlier.
.... one more, Bush lied and knew it was there before the war, but he
wanted to kill Muslims and American first.
We have already seen as much on this thread.
.