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

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

[saquin]

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

Dr Kay's comments will intensify pressure on President Bashar Assad to clarify the extent of his co-operation with Saddam's regime and details of Syria's WMD programme. Mr Assad has said that Syria was entitled to defend itself by acquiring its own biological and chemical weapons arsenal.

Syria was one of Iraq's main allies in the run-up to the war and hundreds of Iraqi officials - including members of Saddam's family - were given refuge in Damascus after the collapse of the Iraqi dictator's regime. Many of the foreign fighters responsible for conducting terrorist attacks against the coalition are believed to have entered Iraq through Syria.

A Syrian official last night said: "These allegations have been raised many times in the past by Israeli officials, which proves that they are false."

[Texasforever]

That will leave a mark.

[Mr. Mojo]

Yep, nobody can answer those questions satisfactorily. ....And that's because there is no answer .......other than Saddam successfully hid them within he borders of Iraq (which we gave him ample time to do by messing around with the UN for months on end) or he sent them off to another nation (probably the Ba'athists in Syria). And hiding enough bio/chem weapons to wipe out countless people within a very small space is very easy to do, so there's a good possibility that our search will come up empty.

[jwalsh07]

Anything after that was probably bluster from Hussein.

Probably? Well probably don't cut it Bill. He bluffed, he lost. Too freaking bad for him and you. I bet you believed Baghdad Bob was fair and balanced, eh?

Secondly I find it interesting from a 'conservative' that we would require all other nations to acquiesce to UN resolutions when most would not want the same for these US.

I find it curious that your imagination conjures up strawmen at the blink of an eye. I could give two craps about the UN.

Mind you, I'm not calling for this nation of states to be beholden to the UN, my stance could be no further from that point. However, if we as a sovereign nation wish to be exempt from any UN resolutions, then we should not, or can not, expect any action different from other sovereign nations.

Which is it, are you advocating for permission slips from the UN or Americas right to defend our selves from terrorist harboring nations?

[Brimack34]

No WMD's is what all the liberal media is saying in Minnesota.

[jwalsh07]

WHat bugs the crap out of me is yoyo's who have no conception of the size and scope of CB product or the ease with which they can be manufactured once the science and enginneering have been done.

They have pictures in their mind of vast complexes and quarries full of product.

[Burkeman1]

It is amazing. It is like watching Clintonoids defend Slick during impeachment! Word parsing, character assassination, illogical emotional appeals. Truly beyond pathetic!

[Hon]

"Anything after that was probably bluster from Hussein."

Yeah, that Saddam was such a kidder he would put on little shows for the spy satellites.

When the UN inspectors would request to see a site, the satellites would suddenly pick up a line of trucks going up to the back of the site, loading up and then leaving before the inspectors would be allowed in.

What a prankster that Saddam is!

[jwalsh07]

Burkeman, what should Americas position be relative to states that give safe harbor to terrorists who kill 80 year old American jews and then dump them off the bow of the ship in their wheel chairs?

[Texasforever]

Well history shows that had Clinton been in this predicament, he would have already planted WMD just to take the heat off his sorry butt.

[Torie]

The inefficient government bureaucracy, probably just forgot where they went. Arab governments are not Germanic in their attention to paperwork you know. Or maybe, one agency destroyed them, or shipped them, and another agency did not know. Or maybe Saddam used them all up killing his own folks after killing some Iranians, and lied about his supply. Or maybe, they are all in Syria, or buried in the rose gardens somewhere in the Sunni triangle. So many possibilities, and well, while in this case there is time, none of it means a damn. The mass killer is on a final exit strategy. THAT is the only thing that really matters at present. The rest is all, while somewhat interesting, mere foreplay. Whether the foreplay was disingenuous or not, the good guys scored, and in this context, the final score is all that matters.

[FBD]

great post

[Burkeman1]

You tell me? About the same for Khadaffi who killed over 200 in Pam AM flight over Lockerbie? Good friend though right?

[Torie]

Oh dear. The neocons seem to have been in total control of America since close to its founding. While the incubation period of this virus might be rather long (200 years or so), it no doubt will emege even more virulent to kill the host when it does emerge, precisely because of the long incubation period. It is sort of like mad cow disease. Does this post make any sense at all?

[Burkeman1]

LOL! And I agree with that 100%. And if CNN caught the planting of WMD in Iraq on Camera by David Hale and Web Hubbell themselves it never would have seen the light of day!

[Burkeman1]

Nope.

[Torie]

I salute myself for having sucured you into making perhaps the first, and perhaps last, opinion that is "correct" that you will ever post on this site. And so it goes.

[Burkeman1]

I guess I am burned but what is "sucured"?

[Torie]

Cool "word" isn't it? You heard it hear first. It is a cross between suckered and secured, capturing a bit of the meaning of both. Well enough of my BS for one evening. Even I can't stand it.

[Torie]

hear = here I hasten to add. Yikes.

[SoCal Pubbie]

The situation facing the United States in 2003 was similar to that of Great Britain and France in the 1930's when Hitler was beginning to militarize the Rhineland and breaking the Versailles Treaty. From my earliest days I was told that had France, in particular, moved against Hitler at that time WWII would have been avoided. Yet on paper the German army at that time faced no significant threat to the Western Allies. They waited until the threat was imminent, and their country was overrun.

Bush, on the other hand, clearly stated "some say we must wait until the threat is imminent" but he argued that doing so would be a mistake. He never said the threat was indeed imminent. The fact that Saddam's WMD programs were unaccounted for did not in itself mean that he had WMD, but the refusal to comply with the terms of UN inspectors, coupled with his history of WMD made it an unacceptable risk, whether or not he actually had them. After 9/11 this should be obvious.