Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

New York Sun ^ | 26 Jan 06 | Ira Stroll

[Doe Eyes]

This information will never reach the general public.

Yes, its in the best interests of the Bush Administration to keep this quiet.

[jonrick46]

It may be that the White House wants to keep quiet what they know. This what I call the honey pot tactic. By knowing where the honey pot is at all times, you can track those who are moving the honey out from the honey pot. It is those who you want to watch at all times.

[Jedidah]

"This information will never reach the general public."

Huh?

You, sir, ARE the general public. The link is to a major NYC newspaper. The general was on Hannity & Colmes last night, and I heard him on the radio on the way home this afternoon.

There are enough burdens in today's troublesome world without choosing to carry chips on our shoulders.

[Lejes Rimul]

"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/wmd_10-7.html

[Lejes Rimul]

And just how exactly is an attempted chemical weapons attack in Jordan by terrorists proof Iraq had WMDs? HAMAS fires Qassams into Israel all the time - is that proof that they brought Werner Von Braun back to life to teach them rocketry?

[Billthedrill]

Now, are you trying to tell me that "Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there" and "No weapons" are the same thing? You know perfectly well what he was saying, stop pretending.

[Lejes Rimul]

You're grasping at straws. Like I said, ultimately, don't you think that if there were WMDs, even spirited away to Syria, Dubya would know about them and say so?

[Billthedrill]

No, I'm not, and I have no idea how anyone might respond to any set of findings he has and I do not, and neither do you. You, however, are absolutely determined to mischaracterize existing evidence to suit your case - I cite the above as an example.

I do have one question, and I do not ask it to seem unpleasant - are you intellectually honest enough to admit you were wrong should evidence turn up in Syria or wherever, or will you continue to attempt to explain it away or present it in the most unfavorable light? If Sada is correct, which of your current opinions will it change?

[Lejes Rimul]

Of course. Should Iraqi WMDs be found in Syria, I'll eat my hat. As far as I'm concerned for the moment, however, W. said they're not there and I'm inclined to trust him on the matter.

I'm opposed to the Iraq War not because I harbor any love for Saddam Hussein, but because any informed historian could have told you back in 2003 that eliminating Iran's greatest foe would make it the regional superpower. The fact that there were no WMDs after all just brought home the enormous futility of the entire effort - now we're looking at an Iraq that's dominated not by secular democrats but by SCIRI, al-Sadr, and their ilk, Iranian proxies all.

[Billthedrill]

Not all, I think, (and there's my hat to be eaten as well), but I really don't think of the current Shi'a elements in Iraq as either monolithic or subservient to Iran (Sadr, of course, being the exception - he's a disgusting tool). Many of them are Shi'a who feel Iraq is the proper repository of Shi'ism (and with cause) and constituted a goodly portion of the army that fought their co-religionists to a standstill in the 80's. These are very far from Iranian sympathizers even if they are Shi'a.

We'll see. I'm obviously a bit more optimistic about the chances for a representative government in Iraq than you are. We'll both probably be wrong.

[RightWhale]

don't you think that if there were WMDs, even spirited away to Syria, Dubya would know about them and say so?

Not at this point. Assume he knows a lot that he cannot say, not even to silence his political critics. Notice that his political opponents in Congress are not making a big deal out of this even though the base on the street keeps going on and on. The Congressmen also know a lot they cannot say. Russia is protecting Syria, as is Iran. If we are to steamroller through the entire ME we would need some serious allies besides the English alone.

[Tommyjo]

hmmmmm... and he's selling a book! Why wasn't he interviewed by the ISG?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1357160/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542772/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1355594/posts

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:yUTLHQm5Cg4J:www.freerepublic.com/focus/search%3Fs%3Dwmds%26ok%3DSearch%26q%3Dquick%26m%3Dany%26o%3Dscore%26SX%3D41e585f129e1227ce898729ccf9fe7e7c735dd01+%22moved+weapons+to+syria%22+++site:www.freerepublic.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7

seems we were saying this priot to any action in Iraq.

[SevenMinusOne]

Lejes Rimul insistence that Iraq will be nothing more then a "tool" of Iran is simply a false premise.

The reality on the ground in Iraq day by day clearly shows how wrong that type of mindset is -

One can look at the most recent elections results and see that even a larger demographic Gov't was elected then in the prior ones. Iraq is being made up of a coalition of Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Secular Shia, etc...and certainly not one dominated or controlled in any way whatsoever by the SCIRI and their ilk. As this false premise trys to speculate.

Regarding al-Sadr (Rejes Rimul's big bogey man) he is nothing more then a street thug....who yes...supports Iran and Iran supports him...but has been completely marginalized in all reality (within Iraq).

al-Sadr has been seen more as a political problem then a military one (this thought process by both the military and Civ HQ's within Iraq...those on the ground.). He is a problem (marginalized problem) in which the new Iraqi Gov't will / should deal with.

Furthermore if we simply whacked Sadr....The Iranians would certainly just move their bet onto a new horse, and this new horse could very likely be a person with much more personal appeal than Sadr.

As another U.S. soldier who has worked within Iraq put it...Thug Sadr is after all only a jihad school dropout and not a big-shot mullah, let alone an ayatollah......like Sistani for example. He is a person who holds very little water among the vast majority of the Iraqi people.

Now could serious and sincere people have an honest disagreement on what should be done with al Sadr....most certainly.....But over hyping the value of Sadr himself serves no purpose.

The reality is freedom and the value self-worth are spreading throughout Iraq, Stan and the ME. These values are our biggest allies in the GWOT (going forward).

I wouldn't have even dropped in on this discussion other then Lejes's signature quote just drives me nuts (because it is so completely wrong).

Best regards,

[SevenMinusOne]

I meant to ping/include you to my post #54 -

[Peach]

The MSM has forgotten that in late 2002 and early 2003, Colin Powell showed satellite video of convoys of trucks leaving known WMD sites in Iraq and heading to Syria.

[TBP]

I wonder if this was one reason the left was so adamant that Israel not go into Syria during their war with Syria's proxy Hezbollah last summer.