Posted on 01/26/2006 12:55:39 AM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
I suppose the 12 IED's found earlier in the war with sarin gas shells are NOT WMD's? Yeah, they were there....my kid was involved with one of those incidents.
Do ya also think that the "oil-for-weapons" program had a little to do with moving WMD's? I'll bet it would be somewhat embarrassing for good-old Saddam to have those weapons found with "made in France, Germany, or Russia" stamped all over them!
I also never thought WMD's to be the primary reason for the regime change.
I thought that W's mission was more to change the entire complexion of the Middle East. I think he feels that is necessary if Islamic terrorism is ever to be eradicated and its threat of setting off WMD's in America to be removed. Saddam was a logical first target in such a quest for several reasons, not the least of which was his obvious danger to the world in general.
Also, IMO, the thing would have been over a long time ago, except for the more or less constant moaning about how badly things are going there by the Democrat Pary and by the media. The terrorists read this stuff too, and take hope from it, and keep going.
Having said all that, hasn't W himself already come out and as much as said that there were no WMD's in Iraq anyway?
England, Germany and France intelligence also believed Iraq had WMD. So did the Clinton administration including WJC-the pervert, AlGore and Madeline Halfbright. WMD were used by Iraq against its Kurd citizens. This is a fact not conjecture. Thus, Iraq did have WMD before the 2003 war and before 9/11. There is no viable counter argument to these facts.
Since in 3 years we have found little-or-no evidence of their continued existence in Iraq, that means they're 1) still buried somewhere in country or, 2) they were secreted outside the country. The correct answer may be both 1 and 2 but the idea that they were transferred to Syria is not a worthless consideration.
Finally, the idea that the war is a dismal failure is specious. Although we have yet to find the WMD, Iraq has been liberated, Saddam is on trial for his life. The Iraqi people have voted not only for their Constitution but a representative government. AQ is clearly on the run in Iraq as well as elsewhere: 1) Just the fact that Sunni Muslims now have turned against Zarqawi is evidence of this; 2)We may have taken out Zawahiri on the 14th as well as other top AQ leaders; 3) AQ has yet to accomplish another attack on the American mainland although on is certainly possible. To pin the war's success or failure on the issue of WMD is not only shortsighted but unsupportable logic. If you wish to be a player in the world of logic and reason, you have to do better than this!
What book would that be?
Thanks for the link.
Jay Rockefeller IS to blame, and it was treason.
.....What's the purpose of having WMD's if you don't use them to protect your sovereignty?.......
Saddam did not expect invasion by American troops. He did expect a higher level inspections. He moved the WMD to avoid detection by inspectors thinking he would retrieve them once the heat was off.
Will he be on 60 Minutes Sunday?
[/Rhetorical Question off]
Saddams WMDs were of little military value against American troops well-prepared for WMD attacks. And if Saddam had used WMDs, all possible European resistance to the American invasion would have vaporized.
Whereas shortly after the Iraq War, an al Qaeda attack against Annan, Jordan was thwarted - one that allegedly was going to use chemical weapons in a plot to kill 80,000 people. Where did those weapons come from, AC? Think it's just a coincidence that the attacks were to originate from Syria and the Bekaa Valley?
ping
where the wmd went ping
If you think we went to war against the Iraqi leadership primarily because they had WMD, you are either ignorant or devious.
Thanks for the ping, although anyone with a brain knew the weapons went to Syria, and the evidence has been in the public domain for a long time. Sada's book serves as further confirmation, not breaking news.
If the Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism, as the article says, and the Bush Doctrine is any way, any how any where for the terrorists and the nations that support them, why haven't we just bombed Syria back into the sand yet?
We need to get on with the killin.
Maybe I'm missing something here . . . If the U.S. felt justified in waging war against another country on the basis of their WMDs, then how the hell did they let these convoys of trucks carry these things to Syria without doing anything about it?
Maybe there is a bigger game plan in play?
I know that, but that was precisely the justification that was used by this government to garner public support for the war.
I can't imagine why he would ever think such a thing, especially when that's exactly what the U.S. thought he should be back in the 1980s. /sarcasm off/
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.