Too late. The template has been set.

Its too bad they were completely successful in destroying everything. I would love some evidence to throw in those naysayers' faces

But but but, Bush lied.

I've always believed the WMDs were moved to Syria.
Hopefully there is direct evidence.

The Rule of Skepticism is in effect, of course.

In perpetuity, in the case of the Dems and the MSM.

Duh.

We've known that here at LGF since 2004 at the latest.

Doesn't anybody remember the convoys of tractor-trailers fleeing to Syria in advance of the March 2003 invasion?

This is all known (to us). The moonbats and the MSM just refuse to acknowledge it.

Duh.

Double DUH!

Even if the evidence is overwhelming the MSM will yawn and the democrats will never admit its true.

The left has always avoid the question "What happen to the WMD Saddam had, used and declared." We only know they are unaccounted for.

The great and powerful Bush has already conceded that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq.

/Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.

Well, Saddam just did it to keep them out of Al Qaeda's hands!

/

Well, of course that has been the case... We've said that for 5 years now...

La-la-la I can't hear you...

/(D)

That's four "duh"s in a row!

A new record!

Will the report be available to the public? And when?

I'm convinced that even if we'd found stockpile after stockpile of WMD's in Iraq - the Moonbats would still be barking and whining against all efforts to USA's self-protection. Why? They really hate the USA as much as they hate freedom.

I have an open mind and I want to see the evidence. But there are so many who will never believe it regardless of the evidence.

I don't buy it. If the Syrian site contained Saddam's WMD's why destroy the evidence? Wouldn't it be worth a commando raid first to collect evidence/take pictures etc?

re: #6 zombie

Duh.

We've known that here at LGF since 2004 at the latest.

Doesn't anybody remember the convoys of tractor-trailers fleeing to Syria in advance of the March 2003 invasion?

This is all known (to us). The moonbats and the MSM just refuse to acknowledge it.

Just like it was yesterday.

John Loftus told me this 4 years ago.

re: #19 Killgore Trout

I don't buy it. If the Syrian site contained Saddam's WMD's why destroy the evidence? Wouldn't it be worth a commando raid first to collect evidence/take pictures etc?

Not if the plan was to use it against Israel, right?

re: #22 simonml

I don't see how that would make a difference.

Why do you think the Syrians didn't exactly put up a fuss in the media and at the UN over the September 6 airstrikes.

They had something huge to hide, and didn't want anyone to realize what exactly they were doing. For its part, the Israelis have been coy on what exactly they hit there - probably because they didn't want to give away their national technical means into what they knew were going on there, how they accomplished the mission, etc.

And the US probably don't want people to know either, for the same reasons - though if it was indeed Saddam WMD stocks, it would definitely make for a real interesting rejiggering of the old debates. Lots of I told you so's, not to mention a new basis to go after the Long Necked Thug in Damascus whose been providing aid and comfort to international terrorists including al Qaeda (just follow the rat lines), Hizbullah, and Hamas (say hello to Jimmy Carter while you have the chance Meshaal).

HUGE GRAIN OF KOSHER SALT ALERT!

IT'S ISRAELI MSM CHANNEL 2.

Democrats will deny it, the MSM will report their denial as fact, and that will be that, for the time being. [swami-hat off]

re: #21 pegcity

John Loftus told me this 4 years ago.

And I'm sure he heard it from me.

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD in Syria

Syria-Iraq's WMD Locations, Satellite Images

/tell LGFers something they already haven't known for years

re: #23 Killgore Trout

Destroy it to protect the Israeli people. Would've been nice to raid/collect evidence like you said, but maybe it wasn't possible.

Once again, I have complete faith in Israel's covert ops.

re: #5 Ward Cleaver

In perpetuity, in the case of the Dems and the MSM.

Nah, those groups aren't anywhere close to skeptical...they are in full outright denial of anything that does not fit what they want to be.

re: #22 simonml

Touche.

re: #28 Killian Bundy

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD in Syria

Syria-Iraq's WMD Locations, Satellite Images

/tell LGFers something they already haven't known for years

Tell me about it.

And yet at every moonbat event I go to, there is an endless ENDLESS refrain of "There were no WMDs!"

Say a lie enough times, it becomes truth.

And they are just NOW getting around to releasing information?

I've said this all along, just like most of you. Of course, they could produce a photo of Saddam and the optometrist personally loading the trucks and driving them into Syria, and the moonbats wouldn't believe it.

Ooooh, so that's why Jimmuh Carter is going there? he's going to make sure they stay hidden.

re: #17 Daisy

I'm convinced that even if we'd found stockpile after stockpile of WMD's in Iraq - the Moonbats would still be barking and whining against all efforts to USA's self-protection.

If we'd found stockpiles of WMD's, the Moonbats would have claimed that they weren't really "found", but were planted by the U.S. to justify the invasion.

Speaking of hidden WMDs, where are the Mrs. Arafat and Hussein?

I've thought for some time that it was wise of the Bush administration to allow Saddam to 'secret' the WMDs out of Iraq and into Syria .. why should he expose our forces to them? It seems obvious that they were moved to Syria (for all the reasons stated/known for some time here). Ah, Syria, whore-dog of Iraq and Iran.

re: #34 doppelganglander

I've said this all along, just like most of you. Of course, they could produce a photo of Saddam and the optometrist personally loading the trucks and driving them into Syria, and the moonbats wouldn't believe it.

I call Photoshop on you!

Photoshop! ! ! !

re: #29 simonml

Destroy it to protect the Israeli people. Would've been nice to raid/collect evidence like you said, but maybe it wasn't possible.

Once again, I have complete faith in Israel's covert ops.

Why bother to risk the lives to do that? No matter what evidence you collected it would simply never be enough. The lunatic not-so-fringe has decided in all of their collective wisdom that there were no WMD, therefor any evidence was manufactured by Israel, the US or the BushHitlerHaliburton conspiracy.

Well, I have a feeling there were some Israeli covert ops involved prior to the attack... For targeting purposes and whatnot... Perhaps they acquired some important information.

This has been a long standing "rumor" with no proof.

What I find funny, is that nobody mentions Syria and Iraq did not get along very well. They didn't even have any sort of diplomatic relations until a few years after Saddam was booted.

When this is confirmed we can expect Olby to conclude that David Horowitz is the most evil person in the world that day for reporting facts that validate the deceitful nature of those on the left.

Well duuuhhh!

re: #36 aunursa

If we'd found stockpiles of WMD's, the Moonbats would have claimed that they weren't really "found", but were planted by the U.S. to justify the invasion.

Yup, precisely.

re: #11 DesertSage

The great and powerful Bush has already conceded that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq.

/Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.

That he did. What kind of fool is he?

should i be surprised at all that mossad has the jump on this?

bless them and their intelligence systems.

no sarcasm. i think they help us far more often than is let on.

Doesn't surprise me.

re: #6 zombie

...but how do you know there were wmd's in those trucks? It could have been loads full of adorable kittens and magic unicorns.

We have known this for YEARS, since seconds after the war began

Also I seem to remember proof of UN vehicles being used

Then there was that truck that was stopped in Jordan (and came out of Syria ) on the way to an attack chock full of Iraqi chem and bio crap a few months to a year later...

I will go do some research and come back

re: #41 allan5oh

This has been a long standing "rumor" with no proof.

What I find funny, is that nobody mentions Syria and Iraq did not get along very well. They didn't even have any sort of diplomatic relations until a few years after Saddam was booted.

No diplomatic relations, but a mutual hatred of Israel. Sounds like enough of a relationship for the transfer of weapons.

re: #32 zombie

Tell me about it.

And yet at every moonbat event I go to, there is an endless ENDLESS refrain of "There were no WMDs!"

Say a lie enough times, it becomes truth.

I should read the thread first

lol

re: #24 lawhawk

I think the Administration is not interested in the 'I told you so' revisiting of the old debate. The old debate is the old debate. Is the expectation that all of the Dem leaders who were convinced in 1998-2002 that Saddam had WMD and programs, then decided in 2004 for political purposes 'Bush Lied, People Died', are going to automatically switch back away from the position they took to appease their base? Of course not. The political lines are defined and the Dems and MSM have no intent to let facts and reality intrude. As evidence look at their performance regarding the Surge and the testimony of Patraeus and Crocker.

Where this might have an effect is when the next major historical review of this era is done 20-30 years from now...if the Donks don't completely re-write history between then and now.

re: #41 allan5oh

This has been a long standing "rumor" with no proof.

What I find funny, is that nobody mentions Syria and Iraq did not get along very well. They didn't even have any sort of diplomatic relations until a few years after Saddam was booted.

That's a good point... Syria has had a long bad history with Saddam and was on "our" side in 1991... Why would they change tune overnight?

Unless there was a large sum of money involved of course, but then again why would Saddam even bother hiding WMDs in Syria? Just to prove Bush/USA wrong?

I've been saying for *years* that the evidence was shipped to Syria, especially since we had reconnaissance showing all those trucks traveling to Syria and nothing (unloaded) coming back. Doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to conclude what was happening on the run-up to GWII.

JAFLW

re: #52 Athos

If enough Americans believe Syria had the Iraqi WMDs, would the Dems change their position back? Methinks yes

re: #19 Killgore Trout

I don't buy it. If the Syrian site contained Saddam's WMD's why destroy the evidence? Wouldn't it be worth a commando raid first to collect evidence/take pictures etc?

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20, KT.

JAFLW

re: #49 BabbaZee

We have known this for YEARS, since seconds after the war began

Also I seem to remember proof of UN vehicles being used

Then there was that truck that was stopped in Jordan (and came out of Syria ) on the way to an attack chock full of Iraqi chem and bio crap a few months to a year later...

I will go do some research and come back

The only "innocent" explanation I ever considered was that the trucks might've been full of petrobucks and/or art treasures. How many trucks does it take to move $20 billion?

.

I have written and debated on this topic for years. I make the point that we did find AMDs (different than WMDs) in country during that initial raid that started out Gulf-War II.

I have a photo that you can see here

I also have written on this topic in my blog years ago in response to a challenge by a history professor from the University of Michigan. That blog can be found in this link.

.

Or, that we didn't really find enough to be considered a true "stockpile"; just a few leftovers from years ago.

re: #36 aunursa

If we'd found stockpiles of WMD's, the Moonbats would have claimed that they weren't really "found", but were planted by the U.S. to justify the invasion.

When looking for stuff on this subject
I just found this gem by my friend Deroy, it's a keeper.

What will end up happening is the Israelis and the Americans will show WMDs and the Syrians will counter that the Israelis really bombed a preschool and will have the pictures of the dead children to back them up. What's worse is that the media and the LLL will believe the Syrians because the Israelis are the true evil in the Middle East and the American wanted the oil and the Iraq War had nothing to do with WMB.

I mean, I'm kind of joking here, but the media is so invested in defeat that they will find all sorts of ways to discredit anything that proves that Saddam was a really bad guy that needed to be removed.

re: #53 so.cal.swede

Remember in the first Gulf war where Saddam sent most of his Air Force? Uh, I think that even back then Iraq and Iran were on pretty bad terms relationship wise.

Here's what's funny though...

I never got the impression, during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, that the attack would be about finding WMDs there... I thought the plan was to establish a base of democracy in Iraq, to correct the mistake in 91, and to make sure Saddam never helped people who wished us harm. I thought the UN Resolutions he broke, and the suspicions of WMDs were only the justification to get the UN on our side, not the goal of the operation.

Now, i recall at the time that I felt we should have focused on Afghanistan, but that's a different story.

re: #25 Ben Hur

HUGE GRAIN OF KOSHER SALT ALERT!

IT'S ISRAELI MSM CHANNEL 2.

Yes, I'd like to see some corroboration.

/not from debka, either

Funny how multiple times on multiple occasions our troops have found many different chemical and biological WMD's...but I guess they don't count as WMD's.

Nothing to see here...move along.

re: #55 simonml

No, I don't think so. They have no challenges ignoring the facts from the improvements made in Iraq by the Surge / Change in Strategy so they will just ignore the facts regarding the WMD. The major leaders of the D party knew that Saddam had WMD and WMD programs - most of them took to the podium on the Senate Floor to say so in Oct 2002 when they approved the use of military force.

They have far too much invested in appeasing their base than to follow those poll numbers...just as they refuse to follow the poll numbers that reflect more confidence and hope in the Iraq front because of the Surge.

re: #57 sparrowlake

innocent got nothing to do with any of it

;~}

I think something big is about to go down over there. A couple days ago I got a free email report from Stratfor. They laid out a string of thoughts that, if looked at separately, didn't mean much, but if taken together added up to some bad thoughts. I can't remember the exact string of details, but here is a rough list:

The assassination of Imad Magineyh (spelling?) They thought it was possible that Hamas/Hezbollah would hit back soon in revenge.

The deployment of 3 Syrian armored divisions in Lebanon on Feb. The divisions were positioned in a Defensive posture, ie to protect the road to Damascus. they are still there

At the same time , a couple US. Navy cruisers were moved unannounced off the coast of Lebanon. Normally , they would have been further west in the Med.

Israel just had a huge national training exercise were reserves were called up. The call-up of reserves is not taken lightly since this hurts the Israeli economy. So calling up reserves is important

It is hard to say what all these mean, but taken together, maybe 'something wicked this way blows'?

re: #56 Just Another Four-letter Word

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20, KT.

JAFLW

Actually, reports from that raid did reference that commando's were used and materials were seized from the site.

London Times report

Hot Air has more...

re: #66 Athos

Good point. I would say if it were in the midst of an election it would be quite different.

re: #2 simonml

Its too bad they were completely successful in destroying everything. I would love some evidence to throw in those naysayers' faces

Where does it say they destroyed evrything and how would we get it from Syria to begin with?

re: #25 Ben Hur

HUGE GRAIN OF KOSHER SALT ALERT!

IT'S ISRAELI MSM CHANNEL 2.

Hasn't this story been either in the links or in threads ALL WEEK?

re: #71 mjazzguitar

You're right. I assumed.

re: #62 BulgarWheat

Remember in the first Gulf war where Saddam sent most of his Air Force? Uh, I think that even back then Iraq and Iran were on pretty bad terms relationship wise.

The question is were they deserters? IIRC Iran never gave the planes back, and the crews were imprisoned for years.

re: #19 Killgore Trout

I don't buy it. If the Syrian site contained Saddam's WMD's why destroy the evidence? Wouldn't it be worth a commando raid first to collect evidence/take pictures etc?

Sure, miles into enemy territory, land, and start taking pictures.

re: #68 chicagodudewhotrades

If you are right, then we will know about it in the N.Y. Times front page along with the amount of troops deployed, names and addresses of where their families live, how many rounds they are carrying and types of munitions they are armed with, where they will be traveling and at exactly what times, photos of each soldier, best strategy to fight them...etc.

I will not even put a sarc tag on this one...

re: #53 so.cal.swede

Unless there was a large sum of money involved of course, but then again why would Saddam even bother hiding WMDs in Syria? Just to prove Bush/USA wrong?

To help his cause with UN 'inspections' and get the sanctions lifted. Saddam gambled that Bush wouldn't act militarily, and lost. Big time.

What is the Rule of Skepticism, or the 24/48 hour rule?

re: #63 so.cal.swede

Here's what's funny though...

I never got the impression, during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, that the attack would be about finding WMDs there... I thought the plan was to establish a base of democracy in Iraq, to correct the mistake in 91, and to make sure Saddam never helped people who wished us harm. I thought the UN Resolutions he broke, and the suspicions of WMDs were only the justification to get the UN on our side, not the goal of the operation.

Now, i recall at the time that I felt we should have focused on Afghanistan, but that's a different story.

I forget the exact number of resolutions, but I think it was around 22. That was enough to invade.

re: #72 Sol Roth

Hasn't this story been either in the links or in threads ALL WEEK?

Yes.

That would be from me.

re: #78 Sparkizzy

What is the Rule of Skepticism, or the 24/48 hour rule?

Teases of a huge news event, and indeed the story if it breaks, should be viewed with skepticism as to their veracity.

Pump
And
Dump

By nefarious mainstream douchebags.

re: #48 Kenneth

It was Saddams collection of velvet Elvis paintings.

re: #77 RickZ

That makes sense, but I also think that it was to also protect those nations (France, Germany, Russia) which were also deeply engaged with Saddam in providing materials for the production of the WMD. If the depth of their involvement, particularly in working around the sanctions, became known, there would be some significant embarrassment and blowback to those countries. I think that the Administration believes it is better for it to take the hits from the deranged left than to create some major international turmoil and incidents which could lead to some significant destablization.

There were reports and evidence that the Russians in particular where quite involved in the cover-up and evacuation of WMD from Iraq to Syria.

re: #78 Sparkizzy

What is the Rule of Skepticism, or the 24/48 hour rule?

The idea that it is prudent to wait for confirmation before believing the first reports of some dramatic event...

With the state of the press around the world, first reports are often incorrect or misleading.

Eventually, there will have to be an extended tour of the Bekka Valley.

/damn, the only thing preventing us from getting all this done is the Bonkeys

re: #80 Ben Hur

Yes.

That would be from me.

Yes it would. Although the Dick "John Holmes" Cheney photo has overshadowed your other prolific postings.

I think Charles reposted this as a "Put Up Or Shut Up" to Channel 2.

We be watchin'.

re: #68 chicagodudewhotrades

Talk and positioning is cheap.

/let's get on with the several thousand aimpoint game plan and let the F-22s do barrel rolls over downtown Tehran

This "news" of weapons transfers is at least three years old...iirc...

re: #41 allan5oh

This has been a long standing "rumor" with no proof.

What I find funny, is that nobody mentions Syria and Iraq did not get along very well. They didn't even have any sort of diplomatic relations until a few years after Saddam was booted.

Saddam wasn't exactly on speaking terms with the Ayatollah back in '91, but where did he park his fighter jets once he realized they were no match for coalition air-power?

Honor among thieves.

re: #18 Lawrence Schmerel

I have an open mind and I want to see the evidence. But there are so many who will never believe it regardless of the evidence.

And there are many open minded reasonable Americans who will examine the evidence, if made available, and conclude our effort was a noble one. Who are these people? Those who support John McCain - about 45% to 50% of the American public.

re: #83 Athos

That makes sense, but I also think that it was to also protect those nations (France, Germany, Russia) which were also deeply engaged with Saddam in providing materials for the production of the WMD. If the depth of their involvement, particularly in working around the sanctions, became known, there would be some significant embarrassment and blowback to those countries. I think that the Administration believes it is better for it to take the hits from the deranged left than to create some major international turmoil and incidents which could lead to some significant destablization.

I'm sure that's part of it, particularly when it came to exposing the Euroweenie position at the UN, where we went begging for permission in the first place. The UN wouldn't let us finish off Saddam in '91, and they didn't want us to take care of him in 2003, either. But through sheer strength of will, Bush did the right thing and twisted the UN's arm. That's why I say Bush doesn't deal with Iran; he shot his wad with Iraq. Now if the ankle-biting hadn't been so bad with Iraq, I believe he would have dealt with Iran.

There were reports and evidence that the Russians in particular where quite involved in the cover-up and evacuation of WMD from Iraq to Syria.

Yep. That infomation coming out would have embarrassed Bush's soul mate, the good Emperor Vlad.

Zombie -

We've known that here at LGF since 2004 at the latest.

Doesn't anybody remember the convoys of tractor-trailers fleeing to Syria in advance of the March 2003 invasion?

my recollection is that Debka was "reporting" this and it was generally regarded as believable, to be revisited later under the Debka broken clock rule. I don't recall any front page posts by Charles on this subject, but expect that there were some discussion/links in the comments.

re: #70 simonml

If, as we get closer to November, and the polls keep showing a definitive move towards McCain because of the national security weaknesses of the Dems, I fully expect that the Dem nominee to step up and call for more aggressive uses of military forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think this is because they believe that Afghanistan, after the Soviet debacle, really isn't winnable and expanding it to create turmoil in Pakistan will also revisit a vietnam-like scenario which they want to repeat in order to regain full control of all branches of government.

There is no interest in the Dems to confront the real regional threat - Iran, so AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan are 'safe' targets as this was the group behind 9/11.

re: #89 Noam Sayin'

Good point. There is a real risk to get locked into seeing only things through a prism that is defined by 'standards' - like Syria didn't really like Iraq, Iran didn't really like Iraq, Sunni's will not cooperate with Shi'a, etc.

Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. In context, out of context, damn the context: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

We may have "known" about this for years, but if this turns out to be some form of confirmation, it's news.

What did Saddam do when his multi-million dollar MiIGs were threatened?

/'nough said

re: #50 simonml

Correct.

For another example, Iraq and Iran had been at war for how long? Where did Saddam fly his jets (those that weren't shot down or destroyed in their 'hardened' emplacements)? Why Iran of course.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

When will the report be released?
Enough with the tantalizing hints.

Although this has been widely believed for quite some time, it would be nice to have definitive proof to shut the left up.

re: #100 loppyd

Proof NEVER shuts them up

Who needs facts when you can have the Big Lie?

You can not reason someone out of what they did not use reason to get into in the first place

re: #101 BabbaZee

Proof NEVER shuts them up

Who needs facts when you can have the Big Lie?

You can not reason someone out of what they did not use reason to get into in the first place

Wisdom from the mouth of a Jewtian!

re: #49 BabbaZee

Snip...

Then there was that truck that was stopped in Jordan (and came out of Syria ) on the way to an attack chock full of Iraqi chem and bio crap a few months to a year later...

...Snip

Is this the story you were thinking of?
Chemical Attacks Thwarted in Jordan

IIRC, they had eventually mentioned that one of the poison gases they found was one only to known to be made in Iraq at the time, but I can't find the specific reference to it now.

Knowing this, as John McCain surely did, makes me feel much better about having ONE candidate for president who's known as a "warmonger" who follows events in the ME, and who sings "Barbara Ann" the Beachboys 1979 version.

Two of our candidates are glad to visit Assad, Yasser, Hugo, and welcome such WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS, to the White House Lincoln Bedroom to stay.

re: #101 BabbaZee

Proof NEVER shuts them up

Who needs facts when you can have the Big Lie?

You can not reason someone out of what they did not use reason to get into in the first place

I bet I could make a few people shut up. LOL

The DOTS:

LA Times Dec 30th, 2003 (no link available as it has been purged form LA Times site, but many other sites refer to it)

A Syrian trading company with close ties to the ruling regime smuggled weapons and military hardware to Saddam Hussein between 2000 and 2003, helping Syria become the main channel for illicit arms transfers to Iraq despite a stringent U.N. embargo, documents recovered in Iraq show.

The private company, called SES International Corp., is headed by a cousin of Syria's autocratic leader, Bashar Assad, and is controlled by other members of Assad's Baath Party and Alawite clan. Syria's government assisted SES in importing at least one shipment destined for Iraq's military, the Iraqi documents indicate, and Western intelligence reports allege that senior Syrian officials were involved in other illicit transfers.

Iraqi records show that SES signed more than 50 contracts to supply tens of millions of dollars' worth of arms and equipment to Iraq's military shortly before the U.S.-led invasion in March.

Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee detailed the belief that Syria had possesion of Saddams WMD.

In April, Jordan's King Abdullah discovered vehicles that reportedly contained chemical weapons. The vehicles were linked to Syria.

It has also been reported that Sudan had ordered the removal of Syrian missiles and WMD.

re: #100 loppyd

Although this has been widely believed for quite some time, it would be nice to have definitive proof to shut the left up.

* * *
Dear Loppy,

Definitive proof of Pol Pot's murder of 2 million Cambodians BECAUSE we left Viet Nam, makes John Kerry shut up...NOT NOT NOT!~

Kerry and his protege Obama want to ignore reality, not confront it. Heavens, kiss and make up with Bashir al Assad and baby Assad and whoever is our enemy, that's the dem strategery.

re: #79 mjazzguitar

Forget UN resolutions...

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[Link: www.c-span.org...]

Not to mention all the links to Democrats reinforcing the fact that Saddam had WMD. The video doesn't lie.

On 10/19/07 the Syrian UN ambassaodor criticised Israel
(wadda shock) by stating that they "had attacked nuclear facilities
including the 7/6/7 attack on Syria".
In other words he admitted their nuclear program.
Charles had it on the front page,bless his reptilian soul,
but the whole thing got swept under the rug and denied.
Just as this will be.
When and if the light of day is ever earned for this story,
I hope the MSM chokes on these WMDs.
That they view this as something very hard to swallow.
will only enhance my enjoyment of their struggle.
Nobody give them a heimlich.

re: #83 Athos

That makes sense, but I also think that it was to also protect those nations (France, Germany, Russia) which were also deeply engaged with Saddam in providing materials for the production of the WMD. If the depth of their involvement, particularly in working around the sanctions, became known, there would be some significant embarrassment and blowback to those countries. I think that the Administration believes it is better for it to take the hits from the deranged left than to create some major international turmoil and incidents which could lead to some significant destablization.

There were reports and evidence that the Russians in particular where quite involved in the cover-up and evacuation of WMD from Iraq to Syria.

I had heard the same thing as well. The Fwench, Gerrrmans, etc. were up to their derrière in it, and Bush chose to cover it up or simply remain silent...

JAFLW

re: #106 loppyd

I bet I could make a few people shut up. LOL

I bet you could!
LOL!

re: #103 Redline

Is this the story you were thinking of?
Chemical Attacks Thwarted in Jordan

IIRC, they had eventually mentioned that one of the poison gases they found was one only to known to be made in Iraq at the time, but I can't find the specific reference to it now.

YES

thank you

re: #102 eschew_obfuscation

;~}

re: #28 Killian Bundy Uh, Killian, if you go to your link and use the enlarge photo capability, you get Three (3) different alleged WMD locations - as well as a SCUD base and Weapons Depot.
Which of these did the Israeli's hit, do you know or have any idea?
Anyone?

re: #41 allan5oh

This has been a long standing "rumor" with no proof.

What I find funny, is that nobody mentions Syria and Iraq did not get along very well. They didn't even have any sort of diplomatic relations until a few years after Saddam was booted.

I seem to recall that during the first Gulf War, many fighter jets made their way to Iran --despite the lack of any Iranian relations with Iraq.

Why does this behavior strike you as so unlikely?

There were no weapons, and even if you prove, it doesn't matter: 875 billion civilians were killed by bombs dropped from 35000 feet by joystick-abusing little Eichmanns in a war for oil, peaceful fun-loving neighborhoods were terrorised by redneck fascists from Alabama, and Amerikkka deposed a gentle, loving, legal despot dictator murderer ...

_{I knew I couldn't speak fluent moonbat}

re: #29 simonml Who says Israel or the US didn't conduct a covert raid at this (these? see my #115) sites? And used the reports from those raids in their targetting process?
And if they DID DO THAT, why on earth would they tell anyone that they did?!

re: #118 realwest

Who says Israel or the US didn't conduct a covert raid at this (these? see my #115) sites? And used the reports from those raids in their targetting process?
And if they DID DO THAT, why on earth would they tell anyone that they did?!

DUH, the government tells us everything, except who really shot JFK, and what's in Area 51, and who blew up the WTC, and why we're really in Iraq.

/damn my head hurts

re: #119 incanus LOL!
Well I know who killed JKF and what's in area 51, but I ain't telling!

re: #120 realwest

Real, I thought Mick Jagger said "it was you and me"?

Realwest, did you kill another thread or what?

heh

The Israeli strike took out a building, based on before and after satellite images.

Could Iraq's WMD program be contained in just one building?

Thre were convoys of trucks moved by the Russians, IIRC.

That would mean there may be more of the program still warehoused somewhere in Syria . . .

Who knows.

Our official tolerance for Assad's continued existence long ago ceased to amaze me.

he had them, he used them, he moved them.

Debka File was reporting all through 2003 about satellite photos of convoys heading into Syria from Iraq.

Just google and you will find lots of material that came out of Debka File on this.

It is interesting though that the topic is becoming mainstream now.

re: #60 BabbaZee

Babba, I just sent this to a friend who is in the intelligence business. I don't know if he has seen it or not but it is a "keeper."

This has been floated for years, why are they revivng it? Let's see some compelling evidence.

I said this from the beginning of the Iraq war. Saddam had entirely too much time to move them and where better than from one Ba'athist stronghold to another?

re: #6 zombie
"Doesn't anybody remember the convoys of tractor-trailers fleeing to Syria in advance of the March 2003 invasion?"

Naw...those semi's were all full of "Illegal Aliens"... ...

The reason this hasn't been reported before is simple. Why report something that no one would believe?

Once again the sheer brilliance of "Chimpy" is on display. Get the Democrats to let you invade Iraq. Then keep your mouth shut and drive your opponents nuts.

After the invasion, Bush never claimed to have found any bad stuff. But even if we found stuff, the BDS people would say it was planted.

Yep, Chimpy has outsmarted them again.