I saw this for the first time last week on some blog I had never really seen before, so I didn't really pay much mind to it. Now that it has actually appeared in an American newspaper (though not much of one) it looks like a good time to post this. A top Iraqi general is claiming that Saddam transported his WMDs to Syria.

 

http://www.nysun.com/article/27110

I'm trying to find out the appropriate comparison for the New York Sun. It's sort of like "NewCity" but without the Gravitas.

 

I've heard this before, there has been whisper after whisper. With as bad as our government wanted WMDs in Iraq, if this had been a reality -something tells me we wouldn't have waited three years to investigate the possibility.

 

And if it was in the amount of weaponry they seem to be alleging, we sure as hell would have known about it.

And that's why I prefaced the source for what it was worth...

 

It is interesting that an Iraqi general is now saying this, and that we could have the evidence under our nose, and not have translated it yet. With the gaps in our intelligence, it wouldn't surprise me if again we had all of the information and just didn't know it. It was one thing when right-wing blogs were speculating about this. I never really paid them much attention because of the source... Now the source is someone who would have been on the inside, the only question is whether he is trustworthy or not.

There's been a lot of speculation since before we went in that they moved the stuff to Syria. But that can't be true, because Bush has to pay for the WMD's not being there like the liberals knew all along.

And that's why I prefaced the source for what it was worth... 

 

It is interesting that an Iraqi general is now saying this, and that we could have the evidence under our nose, and not have translated it yet.  With the gaps in our intelligence, it wouldn't surprise me if again we had all of the information and just didn't know it.  It was one thing when right-wing blogs were speculating about this.  I never really paid them much attention because of the source... Now the source is someone who would have been on the inside, the only question is whether he is trustworthy or not.

 

This guy could also be another Chalabi.

This guy could also be another Chalabi.

 

Or he could be another Deepthroat.

Or he could be another Deepthroat.

 

Maybe Ahmed Chalabi WAS Deepthroat.

 

Maybe Ahmed Chalabi WAS Deepthroat.

 

 

As long as Chalabli doesn't do Chicago, we are OK...

Those WMD's are somewhere. Saddam didn't all of a sudden decide to be mr nice guy.

 

They can be anywhere.

A reported 30 to 40 planes, including several MiG-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets, buried more than 10 feet beneath tons of soil

 

Iraq is a big place, as is Syria.

No matter how many times you say it, that doesn't make it true.

 

The UNSCOM inspection team in Iraq accounted for over 95% of Saddams' weapons. The portion they couldn't account for? Well, there was significant tainting of some of the water supplies, a lot of bombing, and a lot of usage over the years.

 

When UNMOViC went back in, they not only went to the storage sites to see if anything had been moved or used (they weren't), they also looked at the equipment which would have been necessary to manufacture the stuff to see if it had been used since the UNSCOM team was in there. It wasn't.

 

There are a lot of known facts working against this guy. They're simply not going to be right no matter how much people want to invade Syria.

No matter how many times you say it, that doesn't make it true.

 

The UNSCOM inspection team in Iraq accounted for over 95% of Saddams' weapons.  The portion they couldn't account for?  Well, there was significant tainting of some of the water supplies, a lot of bombing, and a lot of usage over the years.

 

When UNMOViC went back in, they not only went to the storage sites to see if anything had been moved or used (they weren't), they also looked at the equipment which would have been necessary to manufacture the stuff to see if it had been used since the UNSCOM team was in there.  It wasn't.

 

There are a lot of known facts working against this guy.  They're simply not going to be right no matter how much people want to invade Syria.

Saddam was such a nice guy to fully comply with everything. He was a saint and did everything that was asked of him. At least, that is what your research always tells you. :rolly

Not sure how I am supposed to remember something that may not have ever existed.

Saddam was such a nice guy to fully comply with everything.  He was a saint and did everything that was asked of him.  At least, that is what your research always tells you.  :rolly

I never said he complied with everything. Resolutions by the U.N. also insisted he stop killing the Kurds, for example.

 

But the simple fact is...after Operation Rommel in '98, Iraq was WMD disarmed. The UNMOVIC team was on the verge of proving it in March of 03, and the ISG confirmed that fact in 2003-2005.

I never said he complied with everything.  Resolutions by the U.N. also insisted he stop killing the Kurds, for example.

 

But the simple fact is...after Operation Rommel in '98, Iraq was WMD disarmed.  The UNMOVIC team was on the verge of proving it in March of 03, and the ISG confirmed that fact in 2003-2005.

Disarmed how? I'll answer that for you. He moved them.

Disarmed how?  I'll answer that for you.  He moved them.

Moved them into the hands of the UNSCOM team, which destroyed them. Agreed.

Saddam was such a nice guy to fully comply with everything.  He was a saint and did everything that was asked of him.  At least, that is what your research always tells you.  :rolly

 

 

Or anyone else who opposed the war.

Moved them into the hands of the UNSCOM team, which destroyed them.  Agreed.

 

Pass the bong. It must be good s***. So Saddam FULLY cooperated with UNSCOM. LMFAO. They even say he didn't cooperate and he was playing shell games. So you think he legally and dutifully destroyed everything on UNSCOM's watch and was a perfect little saint. Uh huh, whatever. Keep dreaming.

By UNSCOM's own assessment Iraq was 90-95% disarmed by the time the 1998 incident happened.

By UNSCOM's own assessment Iraq was 90-95% disarmed by the time the 1998 incident happened.

Yes, but HOW!?! He MOVED THEM. He didn't destroy that s***, he MOVED it to Syria.

 

And let me be clear, the whole thing on the intelligence was bulls***. But, I don't doubt for one single minute that he moved that stuff out of the country.

Edited February 9, 200620 yr by kapkomet

Um from 1991 to 1998, UNSCOM did the disarming. And their 1998 assessment says that Iraq was 90-95% disarmed.

Or anyone else who opposed the war.

 

I take issue with this. I was opposed to the war, and it had nothing to do with any thought that Saddam was anything other than a maniac. I was against the war because he was a militarily impotent maniac, making him no more dangerous than any one of a few dozen other dictators out there. There were much larger dangers out there that deserved our attention.

 

And WMD's were quite obviously not the real reason for the war. People who didn't see that were duped.

I take issue with this.  I was opposed to the war, and it had nothing to do with any thought that Saddam was anything other than a maniac.  I was against the war because he was a militarily impotent maniac, making him no more dangerous than any one of a few dozen other dictators out there.  There were much larger dangers out there that deserved our attention.

 

And WMD's were quite obviously not the real reason for the war.  People who didn't see that were duped.

 

 

What was the "real" reason then? Oil? I dont think so.

What was the "real" reason then?  Oil? I dont think so.

 

No, oil was probably around #4 on the list. Not a primary driver.

 

Come on Nuke, you know the reasons as well as I do

 

1. Gain an anchorhead in the Middle East for the spread of democracy

2. Bring the war on terror to a neutral site, instead of all over the globe

3. Gain a military rampart in the Middle East

4. Oil

1. Gain an anchorhead in the Middle East for the spread of democracy

2. Bring the war on terror to a neutral site, instead of all over the globe

3. Gain a military rampart in the Middle East

4. Oil

 

sounds about right.

 

and i agree that it was a bad idea.

Yes, but HOW!?!  He MOVED THEM.  He didn't destroy that s***, he MOVED it to Syria.

 

And let me be clear, the whole thing on the intelligence was bulls***.  But, I don't doubt for one single minute that he moved that stuff out of the country.

 

Kapkomet, stop your BULLs*** speculation. You or ANYONE else don't even know whether Saddam had actually moved them to Syria. It's all speculation. So STOP pretending as if you actually know it.

 

Answer me this question: When you are being attacked, when your own sons had been killed by your enemy, if you actually have those WMDs, would you have released them to kill your enemy?

 

You want to know why we attacked Iraq USING WMDs as alibi? Because we knew damn well that Iraq's WMDs were already destroyed by all the bombings we had on that country. Let's see if we will use WMDs justification on Iran or North Korea to attack them. The world knows they have them. I don't see us attacking them!