The obligatory “Dave Gaubatz found Saddam’s WMDs” post

posted at 6:44 pm on April 20, 2007 by Allahpundit

Melanie Phillips’s new piece in the Spectator is making the rounds so I might as well toss up a link. This story isn’t new — FrontPage was writing about Gaubatz last April and the Times featured him in a story about diehard WMD believers in June. He seems credible, but I must say, stories about the continuing hunt for WMDs at this point seem to me like a right-wing version of Trutherism. Besides, even if Gaubatz is right about the weapons having been moved to Syria, we’ll simply never know unless Assad ups and admits that they’re there. And if he was going to do that, odds are he’d already have offered to do it in exchange for whatever concessions he might want from the Bush administration.

Still an interesting read, though.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The only way Assad would ever fess up would be to save his own life after, let’s say, the various ethnic groups that make up Syria were to rise up against the Alawite dominated Baath party with weapons provided by some interested third party.

MoxArgon on April 20, 2007 at 6:55 PM

stories about the continuing hunt for WMDs at this point seem to me like a right-wing version of Trutherism.

What makes you think Saddam didn’t have WMDs? I’ve never even had it proved to me that his known and documented WMDs have been accounted for.

Perchant on April 20, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Actually, to me the whole WMD fiasco is the biggest argument against Trutherism. We’re supposed to believe that, in less that a year of presidency, Bush put together a plan to secretly wire up the WTC without anyone noticing to justify a war in Iraq (even though the attack didn’t implicate Iraq). Yet, after years of planning, he wasn’t able to sneak WMDs anywhere into the entire country of Iraq to justify the war and get the heat off of him?

It’s like a horribly written movie plot.

frankj on April 20, 2007 at 7:01 PM

I’m fairly receptive to this sort of thing, and I’ve never heard a good explanation about those trucks to Syria.

Where I depart Phillips’ analysis is with the reason for the supposed coverup:

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

I think there are plenty of people who would bring this up if they could to embarrass President Bush–especially the Democrats, who would use it to make him look incompetent.

see-dubya on April 20, 2007 at 7:12 PM

The Bekka Valley reports have always kept me wondering what Hezbollah might have at its disposal.

Pablo on April 20, 2007 at 7:15 PM

I’m fairly receptive to this sort of thing, and I’ve never heard a good explanation about those trucks to Syria.

Or planes. Has anyone credibly rebutted Gen Sada?

Pablo on April 20, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Say what??!!?? Believing that Saddam had WMDs is the equivalent of trutherism!?! What utter and complete baloney. You have been brainwashed.

Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada has stated that Saddam had WMDs and moved them to Syria in the run up to the invasion. Translated Saddam government documents indicate the same. Talk to Army sources in Iraq, not the Pentagon, and you will hear that Saddam had them.

What is more, it is undisputed that: (i) Saddam used one form of WMDs, nerve gas, against the Kurds, killing thousands; and (ii) Saddam intended to get more WMDs once he got clear of U.N. supervision, which he intended to do trhrough the Oil-For-Food scandal.

To speculate that Assad would likely have given up to the Bush Administration the knowledge about having Saddam’s WMDs is very silly. You just don’t know enough to say that. It is quite believable that Assad has not for reasons that have everything to do with his murderous game of supporting radical Islamists.

Phil Byler on April 20, 2007 at 7:20 PM

I have a better reason for the Bush admin not admitting the WMD’s are in Syria.

If they are and it became public, we would HAVE to go into Syria. We just do not have the military personnel required to do that. We’d just as soon ignore that until we are done in Iraq.

csdeven on April 20, 2007 at 7:22 PM

The exit question nails it:

Of course, we don’t know whether any of this is true. But given Dave Gaubatz’s testimony, shouldn’t someone be trying to find out? Or will we still be intoning ‘there were no WMDs in Iraq’ when the Islamic bomb goes off?

billy on April 20, 2007 at 7:22 PM

I think there are plenty of people who would bring this up if they could to embarrass President Bush–especially the Democrats, who would use it to make him look incompetent.

see-dubya

The Democrats stalled our invasion of Iraq. Their stalling strategy had its own catch phrase called “why the rush to war?”. We now have the answer to that question.

My conspiracy theory on that one was that some Democrats ( using runners like McDermott, Bonior, Lindauer ) worked with the Russians, the French and other oil for food partners to remove Saddam’s WMD from Iraq so that Saddam could accept a last minute inspection. The clock ran out on them and “shock and awe” commenced. They were hollering “no wmds” before we even entered Baghdad and there was no reason for them to be confident of that.

Perchant on April 20, 2007 at 7:43 PM

If the truth were known, it would become public that Iraq, with the help of Russia (which also supplied aircraft and trucks), shipped off WMDs, supplies, materials, and manufacturing equipment to Iraq and even some to Iran, shortly before the war started.

Letting this info out would burn bridges (as if they existed) between us and Russia, and would cause the middle east to go up like a tinderbox. Israel would feel threatened by Syria, and feel tempted to strike these stockpiles before they were attacked, and Iran would have the perfect excuse to attack Israel. If we “insulted” Russia with these facts, they would turn more against us (as if that were possible), and eliminate any chance they could take our side against the Islamists. Plus the fact that North Korea, Russia, France and Germany was selling supplies, materials, and equipment to Iraq and Syria, the whole thing would blow up.

Talk about a world war! That’s why Bush has been willing to take his lumps, to fight one battle at a time. I don’t think he was counting on one of the battles he’d fight was with the Dems and press of his own country!

stonemeister on April 20, 2007 at 7:47 PM

This is an important companion article in Melanie’s Diary:

The questions that need to be asked about those WMD

It’s long but important. For example:

At the 2006 Summit, a tape recording of Saddam discussing his nuclear weapons technology was presented to the public. The tape clearly shows Saddam discussing a progress report on a laser enrichment system for uranium, one of the more advanced methods to make a nuclear bomb. This nuclear technology tape had sat untranslated in a Kuwaiti warehouse along with thousands of shelf feet of captured Intelligence files. Mr. Negroponte had decided to give them a low priority until the 2006 Summit revealed their importance.

I think the reason the Admin has downplayed the WMD story is because the worst has indeed happened. As she says, through American incompetence, the worst case scenario has now been realised — that Saddam’s WMD are in the hands of terrorist regimes waging war against the west.

TheBigOldDog on April 20, 2007 at 7:59 PM

We found the WMDs.

They were in Libya and of the nuclear variety, funded by the Saudis, with Pak plans, NK materiel, and staffed by Pak and Iraqi scientists.

No one knew about this program until Muammar suddenly came clean about them, less than two weeks after Saddam’s extraction from his hidey-hole.

Why/how BushCo has never made more about the Libya disclosure has always been puzzling to me. I”m assuming that the details of cooperation by our “allies” in France and Germany and our new “friends” in Russia and China had something to do with it.

wordwarp on April 20, 2007 at 8:06 PM

And the 500 chemical warheads, too, Wordwarp. Rumsfeld said they were WMDs. I’m not sure I wasn’t too conclusory about the motives of the intel committee in this post, but I think the WMD’s count.

see-dubya on April 20, 2007 at 8:17 PM

They were in Libya and of the nuclear variety, funded by the Saudis, with Pak plans, NK materiel, and staffed by Pak and Iraqi scientists.

And the documents were written in CHINEESE!

Again, from Melanie:

When Col. Quaddafi turned over his blueprints for a nuclear warhead, they were written in Chinese. Even more alarming, the IAEA discovered that tens of thousands of advanced P-2 uranium centrifuges had been manufactured in Malaysia, but had gone missing. The Summit now believes that China had arranged this shipment for Iraq.

TheBigOldDog on April 20, 2007 at 8:23 PM

I still think that there is something to this:

DAT60A3 on April 20, 2007 at 9:19 PM

The link didn’t work. Try this:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/cachefly/images/2006-05/iraq-doc.pdf

DAT60A3 on April 20, 2007 at 9:20 PM

This story isn’t new — FrontPage was writing about Gaubatz last April and the Times featured him in a story about diehard WMD believers in June.

Haven’t read the Spectator piece yet, but I just had to pop in and say I gotcha beat. I used to post a link to this NY Sun article from February 8, 2006 in all of my WMD related posts
http://www.nysun.com/article/27183

And this is ain’t the half of it. There are the former generals. There are the satellite images of trucks. There are reports of Russian military trucks, and the hypothesis that the reason Bush won’t come out with it is because it will force us to break ties with Russia, and we feel we need them to deal with Iran. How about all those millions of pages of documents captured in Iraq? Remember we only got a few in that first batch, and ABC had that video of him (Saddam) ambiguously talking about an attack on American soil (though not saying it would be done by them). There is the revelation that there were operational ties with AQ, etc. etc. These stories have all been there, and been minimized by the MSM, but this stuff all came out roughly a year ago.

RightWinged on April 20, 2007 at 10:03 PM

In 2002 and 2003 it was reported that the NSA satellites had taken satellite photos of Iraqi Convoys leaving suspected chemical facilities and going into 3 sites in Syria.

Saddam Hussein’s #2 Iraqi Air Force General, General Sada, has testified that he oversaw the transport of Chemical Weapons into Syria, but they were disguised as “humanitarian” aid in 2002 and 2003 before the invasion:.
http://newyorksun.com/

These 20 planeloads are what General Sada said contained the Chemical Weapons in this story from Relief Web in June 2002:
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/ACOS-64BRQW?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=syr

Saddam Hussein said those 20 planeloads contained “humanitarian aid”, but he was under U.N. Sanctions?!
He said he didn’t have enough humanitarian supplies, which is what he used for the excuse to let his own people starve??!!
But he had enough to send 20 planeloads of “humanitarian aid” to Syria??!!
——————————————————————————————————————————

And this was further validated by Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf).
“A Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, 2004, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. ”
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

In 2004 10 al-Qaeda terrorists were captured in Jordan with more than 20 tons of Chemical Weapons. The reported targets were the Jordanian prime minister’s office and the headquarters of Jordanian intelligence, and the U.S. Embassy.

It has been reported that up to 100,000 could have been killed in the Terrorist Bombing.

al-Qaeda got those Chemical Weapons out of Syria:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635381.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

http://www.chinadaily.net/english/doc/2004-04/27/content_326599.htm

In 2003 Iraqi Nuclear Scientist, Dr Mahdi Obeidi, revealed he was hiding the key Nuclear Research and Nuclear Centrifuges needed to restart Saddam’s Nuclear Weapons Program under Saddam’s order.
Saddam reported these nuclear documents, and key nuclear centrifuge parts as “Destroyed” in 1995!

The experts argued that Saddam Hussein had ASPIRATIONS of reconstituting his Nuclear Weapons Program.

These Nuclear Documents and key Nuclear Centrifuge parts were declared DESTROYED by Saddam. They were NOT.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

angryamerican on April 20, 2007 at 11:06 PM

I think there are plenty of people who would bring this up if they could to embarrass President Bush–especially the Democrats, who would use it to make him look incompetent.

I don’t know, I mean. 4 heavily, massively invested years trying to convince the public they were duped and lied to by the supposedly most stupid, most incompetent man on earth – and come to find out that “meme” investment was about to blow up in their face? Nah – they aren’t in any way comfortable about any WMD.

Topsecretk9 on April 20, 2007 at 11:10 PM

wordwarp on April 20, 2007 at 8:06 PM

You can say it all you want but libs have a blind spot to this. I mean seriously, you tell them or show news reports and they get a blank look on their face like time skipped them and go right on with the “There were no WMDs”

- The Cat

P.S.

Actually, to me the whole WMD fiasco is the biggest argument against Trutherism. We’re supposed to believe that, in less that a year of presidency, Bush put together a plan to secretly wire up the WTC without anyone noticing to justify a war in Iraq (even though the attack didn’t implicate Iraq). Yet, after years of planning, he wasn’t able to sneak WMDs anywhere into the entire country of Iraq to justify the war and get the heat off of him?

It’s like a horribly written movie plot.

frankj on April 20, 2007 at 7:01 PM

See that’s all part of the plan. It makes the cover story so much more believable.

MirCat on April 20, 2007 at 11:10 PM

“CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

In December of 1998 and clear past most of the Democrats voting for war in Iraq they believed Saddam had WMDs. Then suddenly they had always known he didn’t.

Buzzy on April 21, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Or planes. Has anyone credibly rebutted Gen Sada?

I was gonna bring this up too…I haven’t seen anyone debunk him. Plus, our military have found over 500 shells with chemical warheads over the course of the last 4 years. But you don’t hear Brian Williams or Katie Couric say that do you?

BirdEye on April 21, 2007 at 1:34 AM

You can say it all you want but libs have a blind spot to this. I mean seriously, you tell them or show news reports and they get a blank look on their face like time skipped them and go right on with the “There were no WMDs”

NEWSFLASH: It isn’t just the “libs” who have stated there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Nonfactor on April 21, 2007 at 1:55 AM

Did anyone even read what AP wrote properly?

Geez.

Reaps on April 21, 2007 at 2:27 AM

Goalposting the WMD – I thought Sarin shells were a WMD, non?

Topsecretk9 on April 21, 2007 at 2:44 AM

The Kurds, as noted, knew he had WMD’s …when it killed them.

If left to his own demented schemes, he would have had them reconstituted oncde Hans Blix turned his back.

That the war strategy and battle tactics have been weak doesn’t change the need to depose such a loose-cannon lunatic.

Or to verify whether – OR NOT- there were WMD’s.

Not finding them (assuming they were a bluff that backfired) is actually a GOOD thing.

Now we are certain.

Uncertainty, with a psychopath like Saddam, is NOT good.

A shame this Administration didn’t know Islam (the absurd “bring democracy” idea among Sunni and Shi’ite savages) and can’t defend its own after-9/11-militarily-justifiable actions with the least bit of debater’s competence or poker player’s savvy.

(If there were other WMD’s- smuggled out, etc.- let’s hope the chemicals or triggers/fuses are deteriorated to the point of being near-inert.)

profitsbeard on April 21, 2007 at 3:07 AM

In 2002 and 2003 it was reported that the NSA satellites had taken satellite photos of Iraqi Convoys leaving suspected chemical facilities and going into 3 sites in Syria.
angryamerican on April 20, 2007 at 11:06 PM

Heck, even I have seen some of those satellite and spy-plane They were broadcast on one of the cable channels two or three days before the actual invasion began.

I suppose it IS possible though, that they were carying harmless stuff like baby formula and aspirin into those Bekka Valley bunkers for safekeeping.

LegendHasIt on April 21, 2007 at 4:01 AM

Let’s also not forget those 100 tons of yellowcake uranium that somehow, someway, while “under seal” turned into 88 tons. Also how those 12 tons were miraculously turned from yellowcake to enriched U while “under seal”.

The problem with the WMD debate is that the left, with media assistance, has constantly changed the definition of what a “stockpile” was/is.

Are 500 chemical weapons a stockpile? It was until the number of chemical weapons found reached 500, then the threshold was raised to 1000, when 1000 were found it was raised to 5000, when 5000 were found the threshold was raised to 10,000.

It was thought that a stash of 20,000 litres of Bac. Anthracis would be enough to qualify as a stockpile. When we went in and recovered 250,000+ litres, that changed. When we recovered more than 250,000+ litres of Bac. Thurengenisis in the same facility that housed a number of small missiles for delivery of said agent, the media dismissed it because there wasn’t actually bio-agents inside the missiles, just stored nearby (as in within 10′ of feet).

We’ve found PLENTY, the problem is that the more our soldiers find over there, the further the goalposts are moved.

When the first SARIN and Mustard Gas IED’s were used against our soldiers it should have ended all debate on this subject, but because our soldiers didn’t get killed, it was swept away.

I never cared if Saddam has a “quality” or “non-degraded” weapons program, I cared that he had a program. Just like I cared about alot of other reasons for him to go, beyond the WMD questions.

The WMD argument is harped on by the left because they know they can always win it by saying 500, 5000, 10000 doesn’t mean a stockpile and until there’s a mushroom cloud they won’t acknoledge any amount of uranium enrichment (in secret as with Iraq or in the open as with Iran) is dangerous to the U.S. and rest of the world.

–Jason

Jason Coleman on April 21, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Or planes. Has anyone credibly rebutted Gen Sada?

I was gonna bring this up too…I haven’t seen anyone debunk him. Plus, our military have found over 500 shells with chemical warheads over the course of the last 4 years. But you don’t hear Brian Williams or Katie Couric say that do you?

BirdEye

They’ve done better than “debunk” Gen. Sada, they’ve ignored him.

Spiny Norman on April 21, 2007 at 7:34 PM

The obligatory “Dave Gaubatz found Saddam’s WMDs” post… the Times featured him in a story about diehard WMD believers in June. He seems credible, but I must say, stories about the continuing hunt for WMDs at this point seem to me like a right-wing version of Trutherism.

Notwithstanding the fact that the two are not remotely equivalent, what do you think happened with Saddam’s ostensible WMDs?

RD on April 22, 2007 at 3:28 AM

AP:
Gaubatz is aligned with total fraud and Russian-mob-funded, John Loftus. Since Melanie Phillips notes his alliance with Loftus–who has been thoroughly discredited–in her column, that should have set red flags and alarm bells off for you. Sad that it did not. I’m disappointed in Melanie that she bought into this, without any verification or looking into Gaubatz and Loftus. They’ve been trying to get people to bite, and only she did–which made her stock sink in my book. My own experience with Gaubatz is that he’s all smoke and mirrors. He sent a flunky of his to e-mail me asking for all of my info on the various mosques in Michigan, so Gaubatz could use it and present it as his own work. When I refused, I got crazy e-mails from Gaubatz calling me “Dear Abby.” The guy strikes me as a total fraud. His alliance with Loftus is solid confirmation of that, and raises questions as to whether he, too, is funded by the same Russian mobster that is Loftus’ sugar daddy. More info on Loftus.

Debbie Schlussel on April 22, 2007 at 9:39 PM