Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514 ^ | IRA STOLL

[mal]

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

[FreeKeys]

Thanks for posting this. Link added to the top of the WHY IRAQ? page.

[ThirstyMan]

Well at least that makes sense. We don't have any evidence of that but it is logical. I'm just not sure that logic yields the correct answer either.

The current maniac running Iran doesn't seem to utilize logic. Baghdad Bob didn't seem to be bothered by it.

[Alberta's Child]

See #92. Keep trying.

[Alberta's Child]

The primary reason was that he turned Iraq into one of the world's foremost terror-sponsoring states . . .

Second only to Saudi Arabia, right?

Why didn't Saddam Hussein ever get invited to Crawford, Texas?

[Alberta's Child]

W said something else you might want to revisit . . .

Islam is a religion of peace.

Now tell me -- is he a font of wisdom, or not?

[lesser_satan]

bump

[PA Engineer]

And I'm amazed at people who make the claim that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs despite the fact that they haven't been found. When a country wages a "pre-emptive" war against another country like the U.S. has in this case, it is up to the U.S. to prove that the basis for that war was legitimate . . . and wild speculation about where these so-called WMDs are does not amount to proof in any sense of the word.

Your own words. Do you have any friends?

[thoughtomator]

If you want the full list of reasons (or nearly full, anyway), just review the 2003 SOTU speech. No need for me to repeat what you can get from the horse's mouth.

[garyhope]

I agree.

The entire Islamofascist world in concert with the left and some of our own treasonous citizens is at war with America, Israel, Jews everywhere and Western civilization.

The Islamofascists want us all dead, don't play by the rules (as if there are any when someone is trying to kill you), will stop at nothing and will not quit until they're all dead.

[higgmeister]

I don't think that meets any clear definition of "conservative" at all. In fact, I would suggest that the use of U.S. military forces to protect a royal family in one country and restore a royal family to the throne in another country represents one of the low points in U.S. history from a conservative perspective.

Where did you learn your US History? The US has been
sending troops to nations all over the world with regularity
since it was founded. Haiti, China, Barbary Coast (Lybia),
Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Somalia,
The Balkans, Lebanon, Mexico, the Philippines, Santo Domingo,
and Russia. All that without mentioning some of the ones
in more modern times that you may remember.

[My2Cents]

Maybe the Iraqis had not developed a suitable method to deploy the weapons, yet.

That's likely. But the UN inspectors, as I recall, and the Iraq Survey Group found empty artillery shells designed to carry a chemical weapon. If Saddam didn't have, and never had, chemical weapons, what were the empty artillery shells for? There's a major disconnect between what was actually found in Iraq, and what was (or was NOT) reported by the MSM. But I also blame the Bush Administration for not hammering away harder on what was discovered of Saddam's WMD capabilities. What I fear is that the Bush Adm. is hesitant to admit that they know that WMDs went into Syria, because that would prove that the very thing we went into Iraq to prevent -- the proliferation of weapons to terror-friendly states and terrorists groups -- was actually facilitated by the long-delayed invasion of Iraq.

[plain talk]

And I'm amazed at people who make the claim that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs despite the fact that they haven't been found .... blah blah blah

Denying Saddam had WMDs is like denying the holocaust. The facts are not on your side. Saddam used them and the existed - thats factual. The only unanswered question is what happened to them.

[higgmeister]

I don't think that meets any clear definition of "conservative" at all. In fact, I would suggest that the use of U.S. military forces to protect a royal family in one country and restore a royal family to the throne in another country represents one of the low points in U.S. history from a conservative perspective.

As I looked at this again, I see you were trying to make
a point about royality but we need to remember that our
greatest ally I think that we'll ever have is the government
of the very same royality we first rebelled against and we
identify more closly with the Tories, the Liberal PM not
withstanding.

[SeaBiscuit]

That's quite true, the MSM are not interested in any facts that would prove the existance of WMD, so I wonder if Sada went to someone in our government FIRST before writing a book. It seems to me that he would do so if his real interest is to secure the WMD rather than profits from a book, and so perhaps he did.. I'm probably just a bit cynical.

[MikefromOhio]

What a totally ignorant post....

Gee you REALLY know about those DON'T you????

[MHGinTN]

You spittled out, "I think anyone who believes that a head of state would move his most effective means of defense outside his country -- while he himself crawled down a hole as an invading army toppled his regime -- is pretty damned naive." Your years with the deadly infection of liberalism are showing ... and you call others naive? Bwahahahaha

[ChessExpert]

"Doesn't anyone remember the hoops the Dems in Congress made the President go through to go to war in Iraq? You gotta have hearings. ... Saddam had, at minimum, 6 months of advanced warnings, thanks to the Democrats in Congress and media, that we were going to attack."

Yes, I remember, and your comments are right on target.

Also, by my memory, WMDs were never the "only" reason for OIF. Clinton and other Democrats were more worked up over Hussein's WMD than was Bush.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

Bush was more restrained. WMDs may have been the last straw / best excuse, but not the only reason. Reasons include oppression, torture, mass murder in Iraq, support for terrorism, danger to neighbors (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.), and attempt to assinate a U.S. President, how many reasons does a person need? If you are informed, patriotic, and have sound judgement, it's a no-brainer.

[RVN Airplane Driver]

Are you at it again Mr. Iraq contractor....keep it up and everyone on FR will know you are a phoney...and worked as a Halliburton chow line help for big bucks.....

[MikefromOhio]

Are you at it again Mr. Iraq contractor....keep it up and everyone on FR will know you are a phoney...and worked as a Halliburton chow line help for big bucks.....

I've given you a WITNESS to what I was doing over in Iraq. In fact, several. Yet you, in your drunkeness STILL think that I am trying to pass myself off as something I am not. Keep trying though, YOUR stupidity in your quest to "out me" as a "phoney" is humorous. BTW, where's the thread you promised....???

[higgmeister]

I know. Spell checker could be my friend.