Time: Mon Nov 04 03:19:32 1996
To: Neil Nordbrock
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Senator Reigle, Jr. Statement, October 1994
Cc:
Bcc:
>Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 23:32:33 -0800
>From: Jan Farmer <jfarmer@startext.net>
<snip>
>Subject: Senator Reigle, Jr. Statement, October 1994
>
>http://www.gulfwar.org/riegle3.html
>
>-The whole Riegle report is at this site.
>==================================================================
>[Image] Return to Index of Topics
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Statement of Senator Donald W. Reigle, Jr..
>
>Deployment of Iraqi Chemical Agents During the Persian Gulf War
>
>Mr Reigle: Mr President: On several previous occassions, I have made public
>important findings on the probable causes of the serious medical problems
>facing Gulf War veterans called Gulf War Syndrome.
>
>The evidence available continues to mount indicating that exposure to
>biological and chemical weapons is one cause of these illnesses.
>
>The Department of Defense steadfastly refuses to acknowledge this aspect of
>the problem. Their blanket denials are not credible. Recent American history
>provides grevious examples of official military cover ups and Defense
>Department mistakes...the poisoning of countless thousands of Vietnam
>Veterans by Agent Orange is just one compelling example.
>
>To my mind, there is no more serious crime than an official military cover
>up of facts that could prevent more effective diagnosis and treatment of
>sick US Veterans...
>
>Today, I will present additional evidence to show that despite repeated
>automatic denials by the Department of Defense, chemical weapons and
>chemical agents were present and found in the war zone...
>
>First, we now have a British report and a US Army report which document in
>detail the discovery of more than 250 gallons of dangerous chemical agents.
>According to the military units that were actually there it was mustard gas
>and another blister agent.
>
>Secondly, we have evidence of an Army Sergeant, who recieved official
>Defense Department awards and commendations for injuries from chemical
>weapons in the Kuwaiti theater of operations that the Pentagon now says did
>not exist. It is an astonishing example of the lengths the Defense
>Department is going in order to deny reality.
>
>Lastly, we have received the laboratory findings from a gas mask, its case,
>and filter, taken from the Gulf War Battlefield that reveals the presence of
>fragments of biological materials that cause illnesses similar to Gulf War
>Syndrome.
>
>British and US Army reports
>
>We now have British and US Army reports that document the presence of
>chemical agents IN Kuwait --well inside the Kuwaiti theater of operations--
>well inside areas occupied by US and British forces. They had been placed
>there by Iraqi forces during the occupation of Kuwait. The liquid was
>tested, and over 20 times the presence of chemical agents were confirmed.
>
>In this specific case, chemical specialists from the British Army using a
>Chemical Agent Monitor, M18A2 chemical agent detector, and detector
>paper--chemical specialists from the US Army using a Chemical Agent Monitor,
>detector paper, and two mass spectrometers, detected chemical mustard agent.
>Further, two sophisticated FOX chemical detection vehicles'
>
>mass spectrometers also identified the presence of phosgene oxime. This was
>a direct sample- not random vapors collected by the vehicle--as in
>previously reported cases.
>
>A British soldier who came into contact with the liquid blistered
>immediately and appeared to be going into shock---as might be predicted from
>the nature of the agents present.
>
>The tapes were ordered removed from the vehicle and to be sent forward along
>with a sample of the chemical agents. The soldiers were ordered to give the
>materials to individuals in unmarked uniforms --UNMARKED UNIFORMS. Earlier
>this year, Captain Johnson after hearing that the Department of Defense was
>denying the presence of chemical agents in Kuwait - forwarded the report on
>this incident through his chain of command. But the report was returned to
>him and not forwarded to the Department of Defense.
>
>The Kuwaiti, US, and British governments all received reports on this
>discovery and recovery of bulk chemical agents.
>
>The Department of the Army originally told my staff that prior to releasing
>Captain Johnson's report they must obtain clearance from the Department of
>Defense, and that an intelligence review must be conducted. That would seem
>to contradict their claim THAT THERE IS NO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ON THIS
>SUBJECT. They claim that prior to releasing the British report, they had to
>get the permission of the British.????
>
>However, when I received the British report, it was dated July 14, 1994,
>indicating that it had been prepared in reponse to my request, in
>coordination with the Department of Defense. This offical dissembling and
>efforts to obscure the facts are a continuation of Defense Department
>tactics we have seen before on this issue. The serious question remains as
>to why we were not provided with an official report dating from the time of
>the incident by the Department of Defense.
>
>A July 14,1994 report prepared by the British Chemical and Biological
>Defence Establishment claimed that "in their view" the substance was fuming
>nitric acid.
>
>But we now have a copy of the British report prepared by the unit actually
>present at the event, written three years earlier on August 8,1991. I had to
>find this report myself. It confirms that mustard agent was detected, and
>that the substance was oily, like mustard agent. Nitric acid is not oily. In
>my view, this is an important example of a pattern OF DELIBERATE
>MISREPRESENTATION OF THE TRUTH. IT IS AN APPALLING RECORD.
>
>The US report confirms that not only was mustard agent detected in the
>container using a mass spectrometer, but ALSO IN MICRODOSES ON THE GROUND .
>This would appear to eliminate the possible explanation that the container
>held fuming nitric acid--rocket fuel uxidizer--so concentrated that it
>reacted with materials in the mass spectrometer causing false readings when
>the material was examined. The mass spectrometers in both Fox vehicles were
>also successfully calibrated before and after this detection event.
>
>There is also the issue of how the Departmenty of Defense has handled the
>investigations into reported chemical agent detection events. We continue to
>receive reports from individuals, many of whom are no longer in the
>military--who have been contacted by high ranking military officers assigned
>to work with the Defense Science Board Task Force investigating this
>issue...We have received complaints from veterans that rather than trying to
>seek other witnesses or corroborate their reports, these officers have
>called to convince them that they were mistaken--that their individual
>experiences and findings were not credible- and that their statements made
>to Congress would be refuted. More recently, an individual associated with
>this original detection of chemical agents in the war zone was contacted by
>one of these officiers. This officier specifically told the indivdiual that
>these findings would be refuted by the Department of Defense--even before
>the Department received the report from the British that was eventually
>forwarded to me.
>
>I ask my colleagues here in the Senate to evaluate these reports only on
>their merits; 21 field tests conducted on this substance were positive for
>mustard agent; both US and British Chemical Agent Monitor readings confirmed
>8 bars for mustard gas, a maximum reading indicating the presence of highly
>concentrated agent; 8 of 8 mobile mass spectrometer tests, using two
>seperate FOX vehicles and liquid agent in a controlled setting identified
>identical substances --mustard agent, and phosgene oxime; it was the same
>color as mustard agent; it was oily like mustard agent; a mobile mass
>spectrometer reading indicated that microdoses of mustard agent were present
>in the soil; a British soldier suffered a chemical injury consistent with
>what would be expected when exposed to these agents, particularly to
>phosgene oxime; and a Department of Defense explanation described by the
>National Institute for Standards and Technology variously as "highly
>unlikely", "no likehood", and "not possible".
>
>ARMY SERGEANT'S Mystery" AWARDS
>
>The second case I would like to share with my colleagues is the story of
>former Sergeant David Allen Fisher, who also discovered what appears to be a
>cache of chemical weapons where the Department of Defense says none were
>deployed.
>
>In this case, as in the other cases like it, it seems impossible to obtain
>an explanation from the Department of Defense that is consistent with the
>events as reported by the soldiers present. In August, a Pentagon
>spokesperson stated that whatever chemicals were encountered in the bunker
>must have been left over from earlier fighting between Iraq and Iran.
>
>However, in September 1994, that same spokesperson said that he was not
>aware that any chemical weapons crates were discovered by Mr. Fisher,
>despite Colonel Dunn's report and despite the fact that Mr. Fisher recieved
>a PURPLE HEART for his injuries from Chemical agents. Other who were present
>that date including the Fox vehicle operators, one of whom received aa
>bronze star, and Colonel Dunn corroborate these events. Further according to
>Mr. Fisher, this was an active bunker complex with artillery pieces present
>and their mission there was to go from bunker to bunker searching for Iraqi
>soldiers. Old Chemical weapons, left over from a previous war, would be
>stored in a separate storage facility; if they were present at an active
>artillery position, they were deployed with the intention of using them.
>
>What continues to emerge is a depply troubling pattern of events involving
>individuals who have received medals --Bronze Stars, Meritorious Service
>Medals, Army Commendation Medals, and Purple Hearts ---in the course of
>coming into contact with weapons that the Department of Defense insists were
>not even present in the theater of war. Chemical and BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS WERE
>EITHER PRESENT OR THEY WERE NOT PRESENT. These events I have discussed raise
>serious concerns about the veracity of the Department of Defense's claims as
>well as their motives. I fully expect to find additional "exceptions" to the
>Department of Defense assertion that, at no time, were chemical or
>biological weapons ever found in the theater of operations.
>
>I have no further confidence in the Defense Department's statement on this
>vital matter. THE EVIDENCE CONTINUES TO GROW THAT THEY WILL GO TO ANY LENGTH
>TO DENY THE FACTS SURROUNDING THIS SUBJECT.
>
>We now know that there were chemicals found near An Nasiriyah, in an area
>that was secured by elements of the 18th Airborne Corps. The UN confirms
>that they were there, and a Defense Department official testifying before
>the Senate Banking Committee confirmed that troops were close to this
>facility--contradicting previous testimony in the same hearing by another
>senior Defense Department official.
>
>The medical and technical evidence establishes that chemicals were found in
>an Iraqi bunker complex south of Basra in an area that was secured by
>elements of the 3rd Armored Division.
>
>According to official records and scientific evidence, chemicals were found
>in a container in southeastern Kuwait in an area tested by Kuwaiti, British,
>and American soldiers from the 11th Armoured Cavalry Regiment;
>
>And according to Marine Corps historical documents, two Marines were injured
>by chemical agents in breaching operations during the "ground war".
>
>We also know that many of the soldiers that were present during each of
>these events are now ill and others were given medals.
>
>So what is THE TRUTH? Certainly not in the official Defense Department
>statement that all US troops were far from any chemical agents. Were there
>2, 3, 5, 10, or 100 chemical events like those described above? Will Members
>of Congress and THE SOLDIERS HAVE TO UNCOVER EACH AND EVERY EXPOSURE IN
>ORDER TO DETERMINE THE CAUSES OF THESE ILLNESSES. AND WHAT CAN BE BEST DONE
>TO TREAT THESE SICK, AND OFTEN DYING, GULF WAR VETERANS?
>
>WE CANNONT ALLOW THE US MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT OR OUR GOVERNMENT TO TURN ITS
>BACK UPON HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS AND THEIR FAMILIES WHO ANSWERED
>THEIR COUNTRY'S CALL AND WHO WERE ALMOST CERTAINLY EXPOSED TO CHEMICAL OR
>BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AGENTS DURING THE GULF WAR. AND WHAT OF THE RISK OF THOSE
>SAME EXPOSURES IN FUTURE WARS? IS THAT WHY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IS
>BEHAVING IN THIS MANNER--TO HIDE THEIR LACK OF ABILITY TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT
>OUR TROOPS FROM THESE KINDS OF EXPOSURES IN FUTURE WARS?
>
>NEW LABORATORY FINDINGS OF MATERIALS FOUND ON THE BATTTLEFIELD
>
>Finally, I have submitted samples for analysis to several renowned
>laboratories, including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's
>Forensic Science Center. In biological analysis, based on preliminary
>testing using advanced DNA analyses and screening techniques, unique DNA
>sequences were detected for Qfever and Brucella on the inside of a gas mask
>carrying case, the top of a gas mask filter, and under the rubber seal of
>masks submitted to my office for analysis by US Persian Gulf War veterans
>who brought them back from the Middle East.
>
>When additional primer pairs were compared, the findings were negative.
>These tests were repeated with identical findings--that is, the same
>identical DNA primer pairs were indicated.
>
>While false positive DNA testing can occur with only a single primer pair
>analysis, these results can also be indicative of the presence of only a
>single strand---perhaps due to the presence of another genetically - altered
>biological warfare-related microorganism.
>
>We do know that the US licensed the export of genetic materials capable of
>being used to create those types of genetically-altered biological warfare
>agents to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission--an Iraqi governmental agency
>that conducted biological warfare-related research--prior to the war. One
>method of creating theseGENETICALLY ALTERED MICRO-ORGANISMS IS BY EXPOSING
>THEM TO RADIATION. The US also licensed that export of several species of
>brucella to Iraqi governmental agencies. Both Q-fever and Brucellosis are
>also endemic to the region.
>
>This study is far from conclusive but points to the need for further
>research in this area. According to the Lawrence Livermore National
>Laboratory biological studies need further attention. Cultures need to be
>investigated more closely.
>
>In addition many chemical compunds were present in the samples. The
>scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Forensic Center believe
>that additional analysis of more samples may isolate and identify chemicals
>that in combination may be hazardous, chemical warfare agent compounds, or
>biological pathogens on the surface of collected items and that more study
>is warranted.
>
>While these results are preliminary they are also very important. They show
>that we have the tools to get to the bottom of this problem if we simply
>choose to use them.
>
>Let me repeat that. We have the tools to get to the bottom of this problem
>if we simply choose to use them.
>
>The human toll continues to rise. Just over one year ago, on September 9,
>1993, when the first staff report was prepared by the Committee, we were
>only able to estimate the numbers of sick veterans. Since that time we have
>learned that 5,400 Persian Gulf veterans had already registered with the
>Department of Veterans Affairs up to that point. The official Department of
>Defense Registry numbered only a few hundred. But in just over a years time
>the number of veterans who have since been added to these registries has
>grown by nearly 700%. Currently it is estimated that there are 29,000
>servicemen and women on the Department of Veterans Affairs Persian Gulf
>Registry and 7,000 on the Department of Defense Registry. The Department of
>Defense Registry is growing at a terrifying rate of about 500 individuals
>per week. THESE ARE HORRENDOUS STATISTICS THAT SHOW THE TRUE SCALE OF THIS
>PROBLEM AND THE HEARTLESSNESS AND IRRESPONSIBILITY OF A MILITARY BUREAUCRACY
>THAT GIVES EVERY SIGN OF WANTING TO PROTECT ITSELF MORE THAN THE HEALTH AND
>WELL BEING OF OUR SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN WHO ACTUALLY GO AND FIGHT OUR WARS.
>
>We have also learned that many of the signs and symptoms of illnesses
>initially experienced by the veterans of the Persian Gulf War are now being
>experienced by their spouses and families. This data confirms that these
>illnesses are becoming A MAJOR THREAT TO THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF A
>SIGNIFICANT AND RAPIDLY GROWING NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS AND WARRANTS A SERIOUS
>AND ALL OUT URGENT EFFORT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE THE PRECISE CAUSES
>OF THE ILLNESES.
>
>Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement be
>inserted in the record, and that the staff report prepared by the Committee
>on this issue with its appendices and supporting documentation be inserted
>into the record in the appropriate place at the conclusion of my remarks...
>
>--------------------- END OF STATEMENT ------------------------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Home | Important News | Latest Updates | Newsletters
>
> Search | Index | FAQ | Subsites | Tracings | WebBoard | Guestbook | Photo
> Gallery | Credits
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Graphics, Concept, and HTML ©1996, Grant Szabo All Rights Reserved
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail