BINGO!!
FWIW ... that's exactly why we are treading rather softly on Iran, also. ;)
Posted on 12/15/2005 5:14:36 AM PST by mal
Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before the war started, Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom says.
The assertion comes as President Bush said yesterday that much of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was incorrect.
The Israeli officer, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, asserted that Saddam spirited his chemical weapons out of the country on the eve of the war. "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon told The New York Sun over dinner in New York on Tuesday night. "No one went to Syria to find it."
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
BINGO!!
FWIW ... that's exactly why we are treading rather softly on Iran, also. ;)
I have been saying this for a long time - history will be kind to this President. History will not be so kind to Kofi - and his grandchildren will be embarassed to carry his name (if they haven't changed it already).
I hope I live long enough to see this happen.
B. Getting all the data and links before closing the loop.
Saddam never had the F14. He sent Mirages and MiGs.
In fact,I think that Colin Powell presented some satellite photos showing this activity at the UN.
However,we'll never be able to prove this unless a)Syria has refrained from destroying these materials and b)we're able to take Syria by surprise in inspecting sites where it's hidden.
It would mean going into Syria and I think the administration is just waiting for Syria to give US a good reason to go into their country that doesn't overtly focus on this type of reason.
Until it becomes expedient to actually move against Syria militarily, it is a moot point that cannot be satisfactorally proved. Even knowing it's true is of no benefit with the current climate in the MSM and commie Dims, who will howl that it just ain't so, then set about claiming we planted the WMD in Syria, even if we do go in and find them.
Because the Dems can make it look bad on the President.
Who cares what the Dims. think? They would be to busy backtracking on their "there were no wmds" theories. This might be a reason for them to keep their mouths shut.
As I remember, the WMD were being moved into the Beeka sp? valley in Syria. Seems like GeeDubya would have brought this out, especially during the '04 campaign.
Same thing that David Kay suggested was a possible scenario. Colin Powell too.
Where did they go? It is fair to assume that they were more educated and were probably largely working against their collective wills in many cases but yet have not come forward.
If Hussein slaughtered them all, there would be some of evidence of that too.
Perhaps al-Qaeda knows something we don't and that's what they're really fighting for.
The military and GWB should have said for the past two years that "we found the WMD in Iraq the day we captured Saddam Hussein."
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Because he doesn't want Syria to know how much we know? And because he's not ready to go public with what we're doing about it?
If you didn't have an absolute fix on where they were located, would you want every terrorist in the world to know where they are? Better they think there were none, then to let them know they are out there somewhere.
My apologies. I should have used the blanket term "military fighters".
Well I'm sure Duelfer can't rule out the possibility that these invisible WMDs were shipped to the North Pole and Santa Claus has them now either. The reason the issue has been dropped is because it's clear the WMDs were just not there and hadn't been there for a long time. Of course maybe you've got some intel there the administration hasn't seen (being they are in the government). Maybe you should email it to them and ask them to discuss each point. The response you get should be a riot
Of course I expect your response to be replete with important information that's been covered up by the evil MSM and links to WorldNutDaily and the Weakly Standard as 'proof'. And yet no one in the administration takes time to discuss this so-called evidence. Should tell you something don't you think? Hey, maybe Bush is holding the evidence until 2006 elections!! Yeah, that's the ticket...
“Bush lied and people died,” goes the liberal mantra. Since the Iraq Survey Group found no WMD, Iraq never had any WMD. Really!?!
Final reports of ISG heads David Kay and Charles Duelfer state, “ISG is unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war…There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved… In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation."
Furthermore DOD officials cite worldwide intelligence reports pointing to WMD movement into Syria. CENTCOM cites Russian Special Forces and intelligence troops worked with Saddam's intelligence service moving weapons and material to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran. Numerous other sources report the same general theme, with different details without contradiction. Finally, the New York Post and New York Times reported on testimony of former Iraqi scientists indicating some banned weapons went to Syria.
Until these allegations can be disproved, I wouldn’t hang my hat on, Bush lied because we found no WMD in Iraq.
"The administration stated lack of evidence of weapon destruction as reason. There should have been records of their destruction or evidence of such action. Iraq provided neither."
This is the part I don't understand the administration not emphasizing. If I were Bush, I'd be remind people of two things:
"Iraq was given every opportunity to provide evidence their *documented* WMDs were destroyed. It failed to do so."
"Hussein was given the opportunity to leave the country peacefully, and there would have been no military action. He failed to leave."
"Those two factors left us no choice but to invade Iraq."
Simple enough. No "mea culpa". No "failure of intelligence". I don't get it.
How do we difine WMD today? It is 1,000 or more killed by a single impact or 500 or 100 or 1 million?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.