Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 01/26/2006 View Wed 01/25/2006 View Tue 01/24/2006 View Mon 01/23/2006 View Sun 01/22/2006 View Sat 01/21/2006 View Fri 01/20/2006
2006-01-26 Iraq
Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve 2006-01-26 08:32|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [742 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Mr. Sada may have seen barrels with WMD type stickers on them loaded into planes but there is a good chance they were dummies.

It seems to me that Saddam had a basically Potemkin WMD arsenel that was used to freighten enemies.
Posted by mhw 2006-01-26 09:30||   2006-01-26 09:30|| Front Page Top

#2 He is pimping a book, and we shouldn't ignore that.

That's an interesting thought, mhw, and certainly possible.

I was going to say that it seems that looking at the quotes given in this article by "government officials" that the Bush administration is better at Clintonisms than was Clinton himself.

Example one:
And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."

many nations believed?
What did you believe Bush?

But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong
Much, but not all, eh? No mention of which intelligence turned out to be wrong.
"We did not have sex with find THOSE weapons"

The other statements in this article could be likewise parsed. My take is that the Bush administration has taken a policy of not blabbing to the press everything they know. They've figured out it's best to keep all that information close rather than allow the enemey to create a scandal "no weapons of mass destruction - Bush lied" and then the Administration feels compelled to rush to the microphone with details to prove their case - thus giving away valuable information as they try to investigate further.

It's been obvious from the get go that Saddam had the weapons. They had to repeat the lie many, many, times before the world bought into the "Bush Lied" meme. That the dem's still ran with it, knowing that the truth would eventually come out, just causes me to wonder.
Posted by 2b 2006-01-26 10:45||   2006-01-26 10:45|| Front Page Top

#3 The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war.

It might alter the debate in that no one would discuss WMD any more, but not one person who opposes the war or is indifferent would suddenly support it. They are simply against the war for wahtever reason Kos gives them.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-26 11:03||   2006-01-26 11:03|| Front Page Top

#4 LISTEN UP ! I listen to a radio show The John Batchlor Show on WABC in NY. Last night one John (forgot his last name) stated that millions of documents were recovered after Saddam's fall. Because of a shortage of translators, only a fraction of them have been cataloged. Among these is a tape in Saddam's own voice discussing the WMDs and his activities concealing them from Blix and others. The tape's contents will be made public on Feb 18th. Apparently, Saddam was organizing to write a book about his out foxing the UN inspectors and everyone else. The tape contains several hours of conversations between Saddam and other high ranking Saddamites covering from roughly 1992 to 2002.
I may have missed a few facts here, but that is the jist of it.
Posted by wxjames 2006-01-26 11:27||   2006-01-26 11:27|| Front Page Top

#5 Heh, wxj - now that would justify much more than popcorn, lol.

NS - I agree - the BDSers and similarly insane / gullible / rudderless people, such as those who think they want communism or socialism, are what they are completely independent of any facts.
Posted by .com 2006-01-26 11:51||   2006-01-26 11:51|| Front Page Top

#6 WXJames:

I believe the John in question is one John Loftus of:

He often Teams up with John Batchellor. They get a little to close to the edge for my taste. So salt to flavor. For instance, John Loftus is a life long DEM who voted for John Kerry and said on the show one night, I paraphrase, that Repub. should lighten up on the fear of John Kerry because on truth Kerry will not do anything any different the GWB in conducting the WoT. He just has talk that way to keep the left of his party in his camp.

Posted by TomAnon 2006-01-26 12:04||   2006-01-26 12:04|| Front Page Top

#7 The supposed tapes are supposedly going to be presented at the so-called "Intelligence Summit" on Feb. 17
Posted by growler 2006-01-26 12:30||   2006-01-26 12:30|| Front Page Top

#8 Thx, growler.

Going to the site, Of those I recognize, only one jumps out at me as a total fuckwit: John Deutch.

Anytime I see something like this that claims to be bipartisan, my cynicism defenses go up like a blast shield...

Anyone recognize other morons in this lot?
Posted by .com 2006-01-26 12:38||   2006-01-26 12:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Loftus has been wrong (at least so far) on a number of things, but has been right about some others. Although he is a Dem, he has publicly supported Pres. Bush, the Iraq War and many of the things that have been done by W since 9/11. As for his conference, Ledeen, McInerny, Vallely, Hunt, Babbin, Woolsey and others have been pretty supportive of the US military specifically and many of the actions taken by W in the WoT generally (although Ledeen has been critical of our approach to Iran).
Posted by Tibor 2006-01-26 13:23||]">[]  2006-01-26 13:23|| Front Page Top

#10 i await fuller info eagerly.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-01-26 13:41||   2006-01-26 13:41|| Front Page Top

#11 This account was collaborated by aerial photographs in the lead-up to the invasion.

Collaborated by US photos, by the Israelis, and by this fellow.

Colin Powell may be right before he was wrong after he said he was right, etc.
Posted by Captain America 2006-01-26 13:57||   2006-01-26 13:57|| Front Page Top

#12 I've been telling you guys this for how long?

This stuff will come out sooner or later. Its there in open sources if you know where to look.

Right now, the reasons for not using the data and analysis that shows this to be highly probable: politics.

We are already hip deep dariningthe swamp in Iraq, and have Iran ready to go nuclear. We dont have time or attention or political capital to spend on Syria right now. Syria would be a fatal distraction from Iran at the moment. It will be forced onto the back burners.

The right doenst want this just yet - timing is not right for the elections. And the military does not want this because we would be forced to act to destroy said stocks (and spread ourselves thinner, increasing risks and risking the gains we have in Iraq). Intel doesnt want this because it calls into quesiton their competence. State doesnt want this because it would make the difficult diplomacy games (ignoreing all kinds of evil) virtually impossible to play anymore with Syria and its allies. Europe doesnt want this because they are likely complicit with illegal trade with Syria. And the lefties *especially* dont want this to come to light because it shows the LEFT lied and smeared the president.

Baby Assad's turn will come, its that for now we have more important things to be working on.
Posted by OldSpook 2006-01-26 13:58||   2006-01-26 13:58|| Front Page Top

#13 I know how we can settle this....ask Hans Blix
Posted by Captain America 2006-01-26 13:58||   2006-01-26 13:58|| Front Page Top

#14 This whole discussion is a no brainer anyway. Let's see, they buried the airforce, they ran away from most direct confrontations during the invasion, they buried artillary shells and RPGs all over the country, They buried nuke equipment in back yards. Key equipment has been found in junk yards in Jordan, Turkey, and The Netherlands. Doesn't it stand to reason that they buried WMDs home and abroad prior to discovery ? Just because we don't have a map of all these sites, doesn't mean there were no WMDs.
That entire Bush lied argument is nothing more than an anti-Bushitler leftists koolaid hangover. People with such hangovers are doomed to a future of irrelevance. It is believed that shock treatments alone will not help.
Posted by wxjames 2006-01-26 14:45||   2006-01-26 14:45|| Front Page Top

#15 Debka was on this in 2003-04. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Posted by doc 2006-01-26 16:39||   2006-01-26 16:39|| Front Page Top

#16 Old Spook,

How will we get any support from the public (dems), Europe, and other countries to go after Iran after all the problems with not finding WMDs in Iraq?

If we're able to prove/show that the WMDs did get squirrelled away in Syria, won't we have an easier time with more partners dealing with Iran?

Plus we get to show how badly the Dems have behaved running up into the election. We can isolate Syria and let them sit and sweat and then deal with Baby doc after Iran.
Posted by Danking70 2006-01-26 17:18||   2006-01-26 17:18|| Front Page Top

#17 Has Khaddam in his Paris exile told us anything about Iraqi WMD movement into Syria/Lebanon?

All that's been reported has been about Hariri.
Posted by Danking70 2006-01-26 17:51||   2006-01-26 17:51|| Front Page Top

#18 Decapitate the Syrian baathist tyranny, go in exclusively to capture their WMD stockpiles, and return to Iraq while the Syrian factions kill each other. 2-3 months of operations.

Probably very dirty, and many casualties on our side, but we can't afford to convert one country at a time. The coming direct confrontation with Iran should not require watching the Syrian border at the same time.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-01-26 17:57||]">[]  2006-01-26 17:57|| Front Page Top

#19 A takedown of the Iranian regime would leave Syria completely naked, alone, and probably in armed chaos. Iran has to be done - and done by us, IMHO. So don't waste good people on Syria. Do Iran, seal up Syria and then deal with the remnants at a time of our choosing. Might allow the Lebs to get control over their embedded Syrian proxies, too, as the pucker factor in Syria would dry up such luxuries fast. Just my take.
Posted by .com 2006-01-26 18:01||   2006-01-26 18:01|| Front Page Top

#20 I went to the Intel Summit last year, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Met John Loftus, John Batchellor, Doctor Zin, and passed Walid Jumblatt in the hall. Dan Darling was supposed to present, but was told his skoolwork took precedence. Go figure.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-01-26 18:06||   2006-01-26 18:06|| Front Page Top

#21 To your point, Com, some 59% of polled Americans share the same view. In essence, employ "any force necessary" to take down the Moolahs.
Posted by Captain America 2006-01-26 19:57||   2006-01-26 19:57|| Front Page Top

#22 What are the odds of some of this stuff getting... distributed?
Posted by Pappy 2006-01-26 20:34||   2006-01-26 20:34|| Front Page Top

#23 Old Spook - thanks, I think you summed that up so well that I don't have to wonder anymore.
Posted by 2b 2006-01-26 21:09||   2006-01-26 21:09|| Front Page Top

#24 Old Spook and .com are right: Syria comes later. It is one notch down the food chain from Iran, so if Iran is out, Syria and Pencilneck fall from lack of support. Iran is the keystone to unravelling the madness of the Middle East. And they are making enemas enemies daily.
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2006-01-26 22:22||   2006-01-26 22:22|| Front Page Top

23:55 Anya
23:30 Barbara Skolaut
23:29 Frank G
23:18 Frank G
23:17 Frank G
22:53 James
22:48 Frank G
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:41 Frank G
22:38 Inspector Clueso
22:32 JosephMendiola
22:32 Old Patriot
22:32 CrazyFool
22:30 Frank G
22:30 Sgt. Mom
22:30 macofromoc
22:29 JosephMendiola
22:26 Redneck Jim
22:22 Alaska Paul
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:20 .com
22:18 2b
22:15 Redneck Jim
22:12 Dave D.

Search WWW Search