[Dr. Frank fan]

What you have cited might work as a motive for something small and irrefutable, such as (say) "when Bush was a kid he chopped down a cherry tree but then told the truth about it, I know this because [bla bla bla]". It would NOT be a motive to invent, out of whole cloth, a story that Iraq shipped WMDs to Syria. Rather, what you have cited may be a motive to lie about that, but there's also a (far more persuasive) motive not to lie about that, which is that (assuming that it is indeed a lie) one risks easy exposure and humiliation by, like, some other military guy coming forward and saying "uh, that's a lie".

Have you noticed anyone saying that, BTW? Can you point to some military guy who's stepped forward to say that the idea that shipments of WMD went to Syria is hogwash, because he knows that they were really XYZ?

This is a lesser point but your "motive" is also predicated on the notion that this guy favors Bush to win the election. Although that could be true, I do not see support for it in the article.

There was plenty of information published about caravans leaving Iraq for Syria immediately before and during the invasion. Taken on its face, this is rather unremarkable. The Russian envoy left in one such caravan that was fired upon (by mistake one hopes) by US forces. Whether or there were WMDs in any of those caravans remains speculation unless one has an intelligence source that had access to the contents.

Presumably the ex-CENTCOM No. 2 has access to such sources, or intelligence derived from such sources, at least to a greater extent than you or I do. This makes it reasonable to provisionally accept that what he's saying is correct, unless you have some actual reason to doubt it?

Like you say, the fact that convoys left Iraq for Syria is unremarkable. The idea that they could have contained banned items is ALSO unremarkable. Why do you find it so difficult to accept?

Now, let us consider his sources as to the contents of those caravans. We don't know what his source say because he didn't say. Could it be that his sources are classified? If so, the observations and conclusions are also classified, until and unless official statement is released.

It could be that his sources are classified, I suppose, but there is no support for this in the article. Why on earth would you make that assumption and springboard from it?

I do not want to accuse the General of the unauthorized release of classified information

Instead you have accused him of lying, inventing a story out of whole cloth which bears on geopolitics and national defense. (Which is worse.)

What is left as the best explanation is that he was speculating.

For this you have to ignore his actual words, "I do know for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon and Iran". Rather, you have you decide that he is lying there. Once again, do you have an actual reason to suspect this man of lying?

I'd be more than hesitant to call speculation 'knowing for a fact' but I'm pretty conservative about that sort of thing.

You're the one who's decided, based on no evidence whatsoever, that his statement is speculation.

This makes you the one who's speculating, not he.

Why is the content of his claim so difficult to believe? Things have gotten so bass-ackwards that there are people who actually find it difficult to believe that... Saddam Hussein's government manufactured banned objects and moved them. *bizarre*

[Fred Fighter]

In show business there is a saying that there is no such
thing as bad publicity. Many a writer has shown the same
to be true. Remember John Anderson?

Secondly the story about WMDs being shipped to Syria is
unfalsifiable. Perhaps that's not the same as irrefutable
but for the purpose being discussed it is just as good.
He does not need to worry about his claim being disproven
because it is not possible to disprove that claim no
matter if it is true or not.

As to other military guys coming forward and saying "Uh,
that's a lie" as perverse as it sounds that would
probably boost sales.

If the story were true, don't you think other military
guys would be saying, "Why yes, I have access to the
same information and it is true"? How come Bush hasn't
said "We know for a fact that some of those weapons
went into Syria, Lebanon and Iran." Don't you think Bush
has access to the same information? If Bush has a sound
national security reason to not say that, why doesn't
that same reason apply to the ex-CENTCOM No. 2?

I do not agree that being the ex-CENTCOM No. 2
assures that he had access to
information that would allow him to determine, with
certainty that WMDS were shipped to Syria. How
could he?

Satellite and aerial recon photos would not be able
to tell what was inside the vehicles. Our human WMD
intel from within pre-invasion Iraq has proven to be terrible.

Add to that the possibility of disinformation or deliberate
misdirection. Should there at least be some consideration
that Iraq had engaged in a subterfuge to lead us away from
where the WMDs were really hidden?

So how could he possibly know that for a fact? You might
be inclined to say that I'm accusing him of being a liar.
That's fair, but I'll add that it is also possible that he
has a weak standard for knowing something for a fact.

Of course it is impossible for Iraq to move something it
didn't even have at that time and there has been ample
reason from early 2003 to the present to conclude that
it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs.

Then there is Duelfer's argument that it can be very hard
to find the weapons so first you look for the factories.
No factories, no weapons. Arguing that there were produced
in mobile factories for which no evidence has been found
is using one unfalsifiable hypothesis to reach a conclusion
upon which the second unfalsifiable hypothesis is based.
That's just building a house of cards.

So could these be pre-1991 weapons Saddam Hussein kept
hidden all this time? Aside from mustard gas, Iraq's
pre-1991 chemical weapons are short lived. I'm not
worried if Saddam Hussein shipped truckloads of duds
across the border.

Now for biologicals. It is certainly feasible that
Iraq had secret reference strains of anthrax, botullinum
or plague bacteria. The first two are commonly found in
soil around the world, literally as common as dirt, and the
latter is endemic in many rodent populations including
those in the SouthWestern United States. So it hardly
matters is Saddam Hussein had those or not. He could
replace them easily any time he wanted.

I'll allow as it was possible that Saddam Hussein might
have been delusional enough to ship duds to Syria along
with bacteria that were already to be found literally
lying on the ground in Syria. But if that is what he
sent that is hardly a matter of concern.

Over and above all of this, whenever somone says
I know something for a fact, but declines to say
how he knows it, that pegs my bullshit meter.

What reason could he have for not stating his sources,
if they were not classified? But if they are, he
shouldn't be telling us what he learned from them
either.

Addressing your other concerns I think lots of people
lie about important matters that affect geopolitics and
national defense every day. Still more merely exaggerate
the confidence in the conclusions they had reached.

What you imply to be unthinkable I regard as routine.
Gulf of Tonkin, 57 communists in the Pentagon, Black
hole of Calcutta and so on are just a few of the more
famous examples.

I do not ignore his words: "I do know for a fact that
some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon and Iran"
Like I said they peg my BS meter so long as he doesn't
tell us how he knows. Who he is (or was) doesn't enter
into that.

My actual reason for supposing that he is lying is that he
doesn't name his sources. Can you suggest a scenario in
which it is OK for him to give us this info but not OK
to give us his sources AND also not OK for the Bush
administration to officially give us the same info?
Two out of three isn't bad, but it's not sufficient either.

Besides, what sense does it make for Saddam Hussein to
ship out his most fearsom weapons on the eve of an
invasion?

If we invaded Iraq because Iraq had WMDs is that not a
good reason for Syria, Iran, and Lebanon to refuse them?

Libya seems to have gotten that message and that is one
of the bright spots in this whole matter.