Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief

The Sunday Telegraph (UK) ^ | 1/25/04 | Con Coughlin

[RandallFlagg]

Thanks!

[over3Owithabrain]

"Nothing has underscored the carelessness of this Administration more than watching them handle this...I think they were right about the WMD, but they let the first Kay report be misreported, didn't handle his exit interviews, allowed him to speak to Reuters(for chrissake) which characteristically misreported it. Then, Rice, Powell and Cheney spoke, each seemingly giving different accounts. DAMN!"

Could this all be coordinated? Keep 'em guessing, keep the Dems whining about no WMDs - then hit it hard later this year with the full story, every I dotted and T crossed? Hope so...

[TheDon]

I do not think we are trying to eliminate all evil in the world, just those who have threaten the safety of the citizens of the US. It's not too excessive is it?

Those who aid and harbor our enemies, have made themselves our enemies as well. Therefore we overthrew the Taliban gov't in Afghanistan. We overthrew the Saddam dictatorship in Iraq because...must we count the reasons? On top of violations of their Treaty of Surrender, and numerous UN resolutions, all over long periods of time, finally they would not come clean about their WMD programs.

Just because we cannot remove all evil in the world doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.

I think we go forward as an "example of independence and peaceful intentions", which are demonstrated by our turning dangerous dictatorships to democracies, rather than turning them into subjugated provinces of the US.

[the Real fifi]

Not to my knowledge.. I think it is major carelessness.

On another note--the link between AQ and Iraq..check this out..http://edwardjayepstein.com/KSMQuestions.htm

[cyncooper]

I woke uyp to these Fox Reports and could only think to myself that this was so contradictoray of everything kay had said previously that it couldn't possibly be true.

Ok, less than 15 minutes ago I could hear Fox News in the other room...I thought it was Paige Hopkins, but when I walked in the room after the segment Laurie Dheu was the anchorette.

This is what I heard her say: "Kay now says Iraq NEVER had WMDS"

Um, is that what Kay said? I don't think so. Further disappointing was Byron York as guest replied that the administration is now emphasizing their other reasons for going in, though he did say they certainly had intelligence on WMDs and were never lying. But he did not correct the Kay record. Also a female guest, said it would be hard for dems Kerry and Edwards to make an issue of it due to their votes.

[cyncooper]

They're in love with John Kerry now also.

Exactly. I just posted what I heard Laurie Dheu say today about Kay saying (according to Laurie) that Iraq never had WMDs.

Then she went on to show Kerry and called him "The man of the hour".

That was it for me...CLICK.

[Tricorn]

"WMDs (we are told) are much more dangerous than machine guns."

You saying Saddam's WMD capability was much greater than ours??!! (The machinegun was a fictitious analogy weapon used in the analogy to depict a weapon more powerful than a revolver.)

The other thing is Saddam never thought we would follow through on regime change. He would have shipped the weapons out prior to the invasion.

Forget the analogies, anyway. It is not outside the realm of possibility that he did with his WMD exactly what he did with his air force in Gulf War I. And for the exact same reasons. He didn't use his best weapons when he knew they would be destroyed if he did. Instead he sought to PRESERVE his best weapons for FUTURE use.

[cyncooper]

See my post #125 from today. Laurie Dheu is even WORSE characterizing the Kay comments than they were yesterday!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

That they went to Syria before the shooting started is clear.

What will happen to them is clear also. By the time anyone gets around to looking in Syria with any seriousness...they'll be gone again.
I hope GWB doesn't fall for this bait and switch again.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Definitely Gray.

Thor! My man!
errr, humanoid, that is.

[alnick]

Byron York as guest replied that the administration is now emphasizing their other reasons for going in, though he did say they certainly had intelligence on WMDs and were never lying.

The admin has always emphasized their other reasons for going in; it was the media who played up the WMD angle.

[over3Owithabrain]

What the heck is up with FNC? How can they let Laurie the Lip get away with this? I swear, FNC was the one channel I used to be able to look for news that had at least some integrity and open-mindedness. Now between endless Jacko and Kerry obsession, along with parroting the usual lib slant, I have nowhere. FNC isn't equally bad yet (Brit, panel), but they are getting there fast.

[cyncooper]

Exactly.

I posted an excerpt from the 2003 SOTU Address yesterday in reply to someone, and I included his impassioned message to the Iraqi people that the day of their liberation was near.

Contrary to those who say now that liberation was trumped up as an afterthought and after the ground war was waged.

[cyncooper]

They actually are hyping a Newsweek poll of adults that shows Kerry beating Bush over their own Fox poll of registered voters showing Bush maintaining a lead.

I'm done with them for the weekend. Ack

[cyncooper]

STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT [IRAQ WMD]

October 2, 2003

[alnick]

Why would Saddam move the WMDs to Syria knowing fully well that the US was going to go after his regime?

Because the point was not to use them against the best-prepared troops in the world. The point was to use them against defenseless civilians.

A WMD attack against coalition troops would not have been good, but they were well-equipped to minimize the damage done by such weapons.

[alnick]

Would you be comfortable with a Saddam Hussein with "just" a WMD program continuing to rule Iraq?

[nuffsenuff]

It's pretty simple, if you want it to be...

A 25 November 2000 speech has Saddam Hussein saying: "Had not Iraq stood fast and made sacrifices for eight years during Al-Qadisiyah [the Iran-Iraq War], and for eleven years during the Mother of Battles [Persian Gulf War and its aftermath], it would have been destroyed and we would have been turned into refugees. . . . The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests."

You know what this tells me?

It tells me that we should have taken Saddam Hussein out in '91. It also tells me that we should have taken him out at least THREE times in the 90's after GW1.

After the first WTC bombing... Yes, Saddam has his fingerprints on that.

After the attempted assassination of Bush 41.

And when the UN inspectors were pulled out in 98.

It's obvious the guy was plotting against the US and he of all people was capable of doing serious harm to the US and our interests.

Saddam was doing the wrong things, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Game Over.

[randita]

It tells me that we should have taken Saddam Hussein out in '91. It also tells me that we should have taken him out at least THREE times in the 90's after GW1.

Exactly. SH is smart enough to know that he was dead meat once we decided to attack. He decided if he couldn't win the real war, he would at least attempt to win the propoganda war. SH hated GHWB and saw a chance to totally discredit GWB in the eyes of the world. So he shipped out the WMD's so none would be found in Iraq. He send the nuclear scientists to Libya.

SH would still be in power today if he had submitted proof to the UN that he had destroyed all his WMD's and allowed the UN inspectors free rein to verify that. That's ALL he would have had to do. He banked on GWB backing down to UN pressure like GHWB did. Until the 11th hour, it appeared as if SH would live to fight another day, but when it became inevitable that he was a goner, he had to think fast.

He trucked out the WMD to Syria. He forgot to get rid of the mobile labs and the thousands of WMD retardant suits, but that was a minor slip up. Then he went into hiding and plotted how to win the propoganda war. This business is not over and SH could very well have the last laugh, if the naysayers have it their way.

[billbears]

Would you be comfortable with a Saddam Hussein with "just" a WMD program continuing to rule Iraq?

Well that would depend on if he had the delivery systems to attack the borders of this nation of states. The North Koreans not only have the weapons but the delivery systems as well. They're a rogue nation with WMDs and our government gives them food.

But since Hussein didn't have them and they weren't spirited off to Syria, Iran, or whoever the neocons want to effect a 'regime change' in next, it doesn't really matter does it?