This reads just like the Al Qaaqa missing tons of dangerous weapons story the NY Times ran right before the election.
As you noted the Al Qaaqa weapons 1) most likely went missing before in the run up to the war 2) and that given the US presence in the area once the war began, it was virtually impossible for that volume of material to have been carted off with the US tanks blocking road access 3) and this was not ‘new’ news but was known for months but published eight days before the election due to what many thought was political motivations of the NY Times and El Baradei of IAEA.
What is interesting about the reappearance of this story after its post election disappearance is its timing. Byron York in NRO just published a piece on 2/28/05 called –
Remember Al Qaqaa? With the election over, the New York Times forgets its big scoop.
'snip'
Why was the Al Qaqaa story so important in the eight days leading up to the election that it merited two stories per day, and so unimportant after the election that it has not merited any stories at all?
The Times's "public editor," Daniel Okrent, told National Review Online that he has raised the question, at least in a general sense, with the paper's editors. Those editors, Okrent explained, believe that the story has been fully reported. "Their version is pretty much, 'What did we have to add to the story? The story held up,'" Okrent told NRO.
Nevertheless, Okrent believes there are aspects of the Al Qaqaa story that merit following up. There is, for example, the still-unanswered question of where all those highly dangerous munitions ended up. "I do think there is the matter of where did this stuff go," he told NRO.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200502280821.asp
So this was a follow up to demonstrate that, of course, the Al Qaaqa articles were not politically motivated. But the NY Times still has not bothered to vet whether the arms could have been moved from the various other noted locations after the war had begun without US awareness. The NY Times still does not acknowledge that the Al Qaaqa site was emptied prior to the war.
The other interesting thing is the revelation of a source -- a former Baathist government minister, Dr. Araji. Was he the earlier source? Was this information available since a couple of months post invasion also and just being released now? Why? And most important, is his information reliable especially vis-à-vis the timing of the looting or whether it was looting at all or a systemized retreat in the face of a looming invasion. Does Dr Araji, a former Baathist, have his own agenda?
The article mentions several times that the weapons might have landed in Syria (or Iran), impliedly due to US neglect in securing them. With the possibility of US action in Syria looming, is this some kind of prelude to an outcry over any US action in Syria, ie US military action causes proliferation, makes the situation worse? Or a warning that Syria is too dangerous and should not be provoked? Or am I just paranoid.
Syria's WMD program and usage predate's Iraq's. They used poison gas to quell "discontent" in Hama, a Syrian city, back in 1982.
Congressional Record - HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES CONTINUE IN SYRIA (Senate - May 12, 1992)
"Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the state of human rights in Syria is well characterized in the opening line of the State Department's 1991 document, `Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,' which declares: Syria is ruled by an authoritative regime which does not hesitate to use force against its citizens if it feels threatened....In 1982, Hafiz Assad demonstrated to the international community how ruthless his regime could be by his brutal attacks on the northern cities of Hama and Aleppo. At these locations an uprising developed, led by a group called the Muslim Brotherhood, which resulted in an enormous use of force by Assad's security forces. When the insurrection was finally subdued, between 10,000 to 20,000 people were dead. The city of Hama was literally bulldozed. But it is not only his own people that President Assad treats in such an appalling fashion...." [/snip]
Additional sources:
"In the Syrian city of Hama, an insurrection by the Moslem Brothers was suppressed with rare brutality in modern history. The Alawite army isolated the city, cutting off any contact with the outside, and opened a ground and aerial bombing. According to Amnesty International, the Syrian military had placed rubber pipes at the entrance of buildings where insurgents were said to be hiding and pumped in poison gas. It is claimed that there were some 30,000 dead in Hama. The Alawite army attacked the entire population, both Christians and Moslems."
Historical Fact: Syria terrorism and war crimes - February 1982
The Hama Massacre of 1982 - Syria's regime brutally massacres it's own people
Could be, or at least stalling long enough to get WMD's out of the Bekaa if they are there. Especially with France suddenly involved I am suspicious, because they are one of the top materials suppliers for WMD programs in the Middle East. They have a vested interest in none of this being found, would love to embarrass the US while strengthening their own hand on the world stage.
Now with the Times jumping in again post election (but not vetting anything out as you said), and the source being former Saddam underling Dr. Araji (who himself has a track record of being anti-US and needs to be vetted himself), a malodorous smell is starting to rise of something pending about to happen.
I remember an article posted here on FR shortly after the invasion was wrapped up where Syria came out with a cryptic and out-of-the-blue statement that their chemical weapons program was now 'complete,' almost as if they were taunting us to do something about the fact they'd smuggled all those WMD's in.
I have also heard news reports recently that Saddam got alot of the cash we'd found from the Syrian govt, but again the story wasn't vetted as to what was offered in exchange for the cash. These two and many other pieces indicate some kind of exchange went on between Saddam and Syria.
Someone on another thread suggested we let them do this because we knew who was behind it and where the stuff would end up: Syria, so we set them up to later catch them red-handed. Which makes you think now things are in place to call Syria's hand, and this Lebanon thing is a foreshadow of things to come, and also why you see the Times rearing it's head again on the issue: trying to run interference.