Report: U.S.-Israeli study of airstrike on Syrian nuke facility will show Saddam transferred WMD

posted at 10:08 pm on April 7, 2008 by Allahpundit

Rumors of the discovery of the holy grail of Iraq hawks surface once again. I am … how you say? Ah, yes: Skeptical.

An upcoming joint US-Israel report on the September 6 IAF strike on a Syrian facility will claim that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to the country, Channel 2 stated Monday.

Furthermore, according to a report leaked to the TV channel, Syria has arrested 10 intelligence officials following the assassination of Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh.

Is the suggestion that the facility bombed by the IAF was itself housing Saddam’s WMD, or that whatever it was that was inside the building — ballistic missiles, a nuclear reactor, a nuclear weapons factory — was built on the back of transferred technology? (The Syrian structure does date to 2003.) If the former, there’s a problem: It’s North Korea, not Iraq, that’s supposedly responsible for supplying Assad, an allegation most recently repeated just a few days ago in a Japanese paper that claimed to have inside information about Ehud Olmert’s conversation with Japan’s prime minister on the subject. If the latter, there’s another problem: The boxy Syrian structure resembled one of North Korea’s gas-graphite reactors, one of the reasons analysts thought it was a nuke facility. If it was actually just a warehouse, that’s a mighty unfortunate coincidence for Assad. Still, it’s worth re-reading the 2004 NYT op-ed by Mahdi Obeidi, former chief of Saddam’s centrifuge program, about what Iraq had and didn’t have and how quickly they could have put Humpty Dumpty back together if they needed to:

Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly… Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.

As I say, I’m skeptical (and have been for awhile) but it’s worth flagging on a slow news night while we wait for the report.


Related Posts:

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

Comment pages: 1 2

This is gonna be HUGE! Wait, I forgot, our media has an agenda, it’ll be on page A35, buried under stories of dogs pooping on sidewalks.

O/T: The Vets for Freedom Tour hits D.C. tomorrow! I got my GPS and I hope to meet some fellow HotHeads there!

Tony737 on April 7, 2008 at 10:10 PM

I am … how you say? Ah, yes: Skeptical.

C’mon, jump the gun. Just this once.

Weight of Glory on April 7, 2008 at 10:15 PM

There are or at least were multiple sites in Syria.

indythinker on April 7, 2008 at 10:20 PM

It’s been widely reported over the past 5 years that Saddam transferred lots of stuff—presumably chemical and biological weapons components, but conceivably nuclear materials as well—to Syria in the run-up to the war.

Further, John Loftus long ago reported (on the John Batchelor radio show) that the Libyan nuclear program, which Khadafi gave up to the Americans after Saddam fell, was in fact run by Iraqi scientists using Chinese/North Korean materials obtained through the A. Q. Khan ring.

So the facility in Syria could have been both Iraqi and North Korean.

MrLynn on April 7, 2008 at 10:21 PM

What’s strange for me, is the “teaser” quality of the J-post site. If you got a bombshell, why tip your hand that it is coming. Maybe their scared they will get scooped, or something.

Weight of Glory on April 7, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Eeyore. :(

VolMagic on April 7, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Weight of Glory on April 7, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Its a leak of the upcoming US/Isreali report they are reporting on. They don’t have anything yet other than the leak.

VolMagic on April 7, 2008 at 10:24 PM

A) We know Saddam had WMD, he’s used ‘em before.

B) If we haven’t found them, we also haven’t found where they would or should have been disposed of…remember, Saddam said they just dumped ‘em in a hole in the desert somewhere.

C) Simply IMHO, it’s purely a thought, but I have always said they were shipped off to Syria prior to the war.

JetBoy on April 7, 2008 at 10:24 PM

Ah! Yes. It makes sense now. Thank you. Somehow I missed the part that it was an independent report, which is sad given the paragraph was, like, two lines.

Weight of Glory on April 7, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Israel had mentioned this a couple of years ago. All the proof laid out will not convince those that refuse to believe.

Hening on April 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Oops! forgot to qote you, VolMagic so you would know that I was responding to you. WOW! It’s been a long day. I’m going to bed.

Weight of Glory on April 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Was it Hussein that transfered the nuke material to syria?

No, I don’t think so..he was probably busy being prepped by Farrakhan and other nation of islam members for his presidential run at the time.

Uh….

Can anybody tell me why we haven’t taken out that little North Korean lunatic yet?

He’s been handing out nukes to every jihadist and dictator for the past 15 years.

Is north korea some sort of impenetrable fortress or something?

SaintOlaf on April 7, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Yawn. Most of all Saddam’s generals admitted to loading the food planes from Syria with WMD’s. They’re just now listening?

Mazztek on April 7, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Is there a Coddington or a Catton out there that can put this whole picture together before I die? I fear I’ll never get to read the actual history of this mess. I figure I only have about 20 years, tops, so hurry the hell up.

Limerick on April 7, 2008 at 10:33 PM

He’s been handing out nukes to every jihadist and dictator for the past 15 years.

He has? He can’t even detonate one of his own, much less hand them out.

lorien1973 on April 7, 2008 at 10:34 PM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

I’m also a bit skeptical, mainly because of the North Korea factor. But I’ve believed since before the invasion that hanging the whole casus belli on WMD was a mistake in view of the ample time we gave Saddam to move his remaining WMD assets to Syria.

flipflop on April 7, 2008 at 10:37 PM

JetBoy on April 7, 2008 at 10:24 PM

It’s far more likely that Saddam kept up the appearances of having a WMD program to prevent Iran from invading.

Or

Saddam -thought- he did have an active program. Given his penchant for killing people under him, I’d hate to be the general that said he couldn’t make more weapons and they just kept making up the reports – and when we eavesdropped and got intelligence, we got the same info.

Or

Given that we know approximately how much weaponry Saddam had and how much he used on the Kurds; it’s a simple math problem to figure out how much he had left. If any. If he had some left; then its interesting where it ended up going or destroyed or whatever.

Or

We know that Saddam had nuclear material (the IAEA inspected it all the time). That, there was Saddam’s WMD. It wouldn’t have been hard to get a bunch of that out and sold. Attach it to a bomb and you have a nice little dirty explosive right there.

The last thought alone destroys the concept that Saddam didn’t have any WMD. He certainly did. From the nuclear material left over from the reactor that Israel destroyed.

lorien1973 on April 7, 2008 at 10:39 PM

I question the timing.

I’ll wait for the report too. Not gonna fall into that honeytrap again…

danking70 on April 7, 2008 at 10:39 PM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Eh, that’s a bit of a stretch. As I mentioned above, I think Saddam had more than enough time and opportunity to move his remaining WMD assets. I just don’t happen to think that a viable nuke program was part of that.

flipflop on April 7, 2008 at 10:39 PM

my blog posted on this at the time:

10/27/07; (prescient speculation).

and again, on 11/22/07; (relating the first published reports/rumors the site was built with saddam’s stuff).

i have always felt this was likely.

reliapundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:41 PM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Only this conspiracy is probably true…

tommylotto on April 7, 2008 at 10:45 PM

It’s more than just nuclear material — there are centrifuges, other weapons manufacturing components, computer systems and data, uranium fuel, etc. And that’s just for the nukes. There’s quiet alot of materiel that goes into building and maintaining WMDs.

The US has many satellite and aerial photographs of long truck convoys headed for Syria, the entire Iraqi airline system was converted to cargo planes for flights to Syria, you fill in the blanks.

But Iraq had no WMD’s! Yeah, right.

stonemeister on April 7, 2008 at 10:48 PM

Let me get this straight……Israeli special forces were reported on the ground at the blast site, and I’m told that what they hit is just a best guess? Tired of the cloak and dagger crap….either we hit something or we didn’t, screw the state secret crap. My friend Zion knows what was there. Just cough it out. If it was a good target great. If it was a poor target I could care less.

Limerick on April 7, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Assuming that Syria who has always been in Saddams shadow, would have automatically assumed Saddams fate to receive and harbor WMD is indeed

Convienent

Tidy

Extremely Foolish

EricPWJohnson on April 7, 2008 at 10:51 PM

…I could couldn’t care less.

Limerick on April 7, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Fixed! (Sorry…that’s one of my pet peeves :-)

flipflop on April 7, 2008 at 10:51 PM

flipflop on April 7, 2008 at 10:51 PM

LOL…if you are looking for some Taming of the Screw work you found it right here.

Limerick on April 7, 2008 at 10:53 PM

BTW that wasn’t a typo.

Limerick on April 7, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Assuming that Syria who has always been in Saddams shadow, would have automatically assumed Saddams fate to receive and harbor WMD is indeed

Convienent

Tidy

Extremely Foolish

EricPWJohnson on April 7, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Syria hasn’t demonstrated intelligent gamesmanship in other areas. What makes you think they’d be too smart to house Saddam’s WMDs?

flipflop on April 7, 2008 at 10:55 PM

April 19, 2007
The questions that need to be asked about those WMD

Melanie Phillips

In 2002, an allied intelligence agency surreptitiously recorded a North Korean discussion about what to do with the Iraqi nuclear scientists if Saddam was deposed. The discussion took place in Damascus, Syria. A simple look at a highway map shows that the highway from the Euphrates to Al Qaim Syria was the fastest route to move large quantities of uranium ore, drums of feedstock gas, and thousands of P-2 centrifuge parts….
The satellite confirms that uranium centrifuges are operating in Syria. Syria has no known nuclear program, not even a power plant. Nor does it have a natural supply of uranium ore. Why then, are the Syrians running nuclear centrifuges?

It is reasonable to suspect that all of Saddam’s nuclear research, scientists and equipment have been relocated to his fellow Baath party members in the nation of Syria. Indeed there is no other explanation to explain the disappearance of what Saddam himself talked about on his tapes; a massive and robust program to make an atomic bomb.

TheBigOldDog on April 7, 2008 at 10:58 PM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

I hope to make you eat those words. The above was reported over a year ago by the reputable Melanie Phillips and I passed it on to you as a tip. That’s why I’m able to access it so quickly. Now, it looks like it was dead-on.

TheBigOldDog on April 7, 2008 at 11:02 PM

TheBigOldDog on April 7, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Good question………

Seven Percent Solution on April 7, 2008 at 11:02 PM

flipflop

Hey, being 1/4 the military power of Iraq, knowing for a year we are coming

So you would take a bunch of chem weapons and equipment and suffer a sure death?

And for all of their alleged miscues – they are still around are they not?

I live here in the Gulf, Syria is not the bad boy as perceived by the west, not agreeing with it – just demostrating that they have indeed a great deal of sophistication

remember Syria = No Oil – they do not have the revenue base as Iran and Saddams Iraq Had/Have

EricPWJohnson on April 7, 2008 at 11:06 PM

And for all of those who thought that Saddam was a practicing Baathist is about as accurate as Hitler was a practicing Christian…….

EricPWJohnson on April 7, 2008 at 11:07 PM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

That’s a harsh and unfair comparison. These rumors may be inaccurate or even wishful thinking, but they aren’t poisonous Trutherism.

Vote Sauron 08 on April 7, 2008 at 11:09 PM

Let’s see a show of hands……who thinks Iraq has a WMD program today?

Hello? Anyone?

Limerick on April 7, 2008 at 11:15 PM

EricPWJohnson on April 7, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Good points all. That they’re still around, I think, is more a tribute to their ability to play the plausible deniability game. It’s damned hard to conclusively pin anything on them, even the allegations of political assassination and manipulation in Lebanon.

Maybe my taking a swipe at their gamesmanship was off the mark. That they’re willing to gamble, I think, is pretty clear.

flipflop on April 7, 2008 at 11:15 PM

Who is to say that the building was designed by NorKorComms, and that some or all of the stuff inside came from Saddam?

All the way to the end Saddam was betting on

a) That the UN would prevent an invasion, and his deposing.

b) When that failed, he was betting on the fact that trying to find him would be a difficult task, and that if he could remain underground, he might be able to outlast the Americans.

c) When that failed, he was betting on the idea that, one way or another, he would survive long enough to escape (or be released) so that he could return to power.

With this in mind, when it became evident that nothing was going to prevent an invasion, why wouldn’t he move the stuff to a “neutral” country? The goods remain safe, and, in the event that he gets nabbed, denying them to the “evil bushitler” provides a little consolation to him…

Tremor on April 7, 2008 at 11:21 PM

This has been a Rumsfeldian known known for a loooooonnnnnggg time in certain circles. The Bush admin gets an F in by book for being so skittish about releasing this info to the public.

funky chicken on April 7, 2008 at 11:21 PM

The “no WMD’s” in Iraq theme is so entrenched in the media
and pretty much around the world that it is going to take
some serious, ironclad evidence to come back now and say
“here it is” and have anyone believe us.

This statement in the 2004 NY Times op-ed by Mahdi Obeidi referenced above:

“Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jump start the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly… Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.”

Parallels Saddam’s statements to FBI agent George Piro who
was assigned to interrogate him after his capture:

“He told me he initially miscalculated…President Bush’s
intentions.He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998…a four-day aerial attack,” says Piro. “He survived that one and he was
willing to accept that type of attack.” “He believed the US would invade?” asks Pelley, “No, Not initially,”answers Piro.”

Saddam still wouldn’t admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, “for him, it was critical that he
was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from
invading Iraq.”he tells Pelley.

HE ALSO INTENDED AND HAD THE WHEREWITHAL TO RESTART THE WEAPONS PROGRAM. “SADDAM STILL HAD THE ENGINEERS. THE FOLKS
THAT HE NEEDED TO RECONSTITUTE HIS PROGRAM ARE STILL THERE.”SAYS PIRO.”HE WANTED TO PURSUE ALL OF WMD… TO RECONSTITUTE HIS ENTIRE WMD PROGRAM. ” THIS INCLUDED CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS,” PIRO SAYS.

FBI agent George Piro, 60 minutes interview Jan. 28,2008

The Iraq Survey Group (Duelfer Report) also backs this up
with their findings that Saddam still maintained the expertise and most of the dual use technology to restart his
WMD program when the UN would have backed off.

For someone like Saddam with his past history, who was supposed to have disarmed and had over 16 UN resolutions put against him to do so,to still have this capability to produce WMD’s shows just how dangerous he was.
Combined with his ties to terrorism,genocide of his own people,attempt to assassinate a US President,and firing on our aircraft,it was the right thing to do to take him down.

I am with ALLAHPUNDIT when he says “I am … how you say? Ah, yes: Skeptical.”

The last time we found WMD’s (in a large quantity)in Iraq
is when Santorum came forth with the early 1990′s sarin/mustard gas shells.Ended up not being the breakthrough
we thought it was going to be.

If it is true it would be great,but I think we did the right thing taking Saddam out whether it is or not.

Baxter Greene on April 7, 2008 at 11:31 PM

The Bush admin gets an F in by book for being so skittish about releasing this info to the public.

funky chicken on April 7, 2008 at 11:21 PM

They were skittish because the war caused why it was meant to prevent: the scattering of the weapons, materials and knowledge into even more dangerous hands. You don’t really think they were going to publicize that do you?

TheBigOldDog on April 7, 2008 at 11:31 PM

I never had any doubt they had a WMD program. Just because we didn’t find it doesn’t mean anything. I think the fact that we didn’t find it – or at least we didn’t plant anything to find there – shows that we are pretty honest.

It would not be difficult to hide the important parts. . . and we certainly gave them plenty of time and notice.

ThackerAgency on April 7, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Let’s see a show of hands……who thinks Iraq has a WMD program today?

Hello? Anyone?

Limerick on April 7, 2008 at 11:15 PM

DEAD ON!!!

This is the point that all the”Iraq was a big mistake”pundit’s don’t seem to get.

Saddam was not disarmed until the American Soldier went over there and did it.

Baxter Greene on April 7, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Horsepotatoes on all this.

WMD was the excuse. I am 100% behind taking Saddam to the gallows, and his country along with him, but ‘WMD’ was the biggest bunch of crapola the Bush admin could come up with.

Look at the damn map. Afghanistan on the right, Iraq on the left, Iran squeezed in the middle. THAT was the reason for Iraq. Only one problem. Just like his daddy, GW got cold feet. He ‘reached across the aisle’. He listened to the cynics crying and GOT FRAKKING COLD FEET. He was stuck with the WMD crapola. If he just would have layed out the strategy in the first place…squeeze Iran until the boil bursts, then this whole war would have been over long ago.

You all keep on staring at the looking glass. The strategy, of giving Iran two fronts to fight on, was a sound one. Too bad we chickened out when the bodies starting hitting the floor. Now we get to nation build. Yippie! Political correctness knocked ol John Wayne right outta the saddle.

Limerick on April 7, 2008 at 11:41 PM

I still have a serious problem with the theory that Saddam’s WMDs were handed over to Syria: In a word, Why? Why on Earth would Saddam risk an invasion that he must have known would end his rule and his life in order to keep his WMDs, and then, at the very moment when he needs them most, instead of using them, he sends them to another country! This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. On top of that, there is no indication that he tried to use his knowledge of their whereabouts in trade for his life after he was captured and tried and sentenced to hang. If he did send those weapons to Syria, then he is nothing less than a Syrian martyr and one of that nation’s greatest modern heroes.
Again I ask: does this make any sense? Saddam was evil, yes, but he was no madman nor Muslim nor fanatic about anything other than Saddam and his sons. His actions as ruler of Iraq, however reprehensible, are understandable in context. Even his invasion of Kuwait made sense after it was revealed that the US Ambassador inadvertently gave him the green light for the invasion. Whether he had WMDs or not in 2002-3, it has been suggested that he believed it important to make sure Iran believed he had them because he believed that the UN would stay America’s hand. Iran, OTH, would only be deterred by WMDs, not the UN. A colossal error, but again, a cold political calculation.
If the WMDs are in Syria, it would make much more sense to me that they were sent there without Saddam’s orders or knowledge. We already have one account that chemical weapon stocks were destroyed under his nose; that makes this scenario much more believable to me.

Lancer on April 7, 2008 at 11:42 PM

I still have a serious problem with the theory that Saddam’s WMDs were handed over to Syria: In a word, Why? Why on Earth would Saddam risk an invasion that he must have known would end his rule and his life in order to keep his WMDs, and then, at the very moment when he needs them most, instead of using them, he sends them to another country! This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever

Almost as much sense as having unilaterally destroyed his known (and tagged by the UN) stockpiles unilaterally without documenting it, after he kicked out the inspectors during the Clinton Admin? Like having destroyed them without bothering to have it witnessed so he could have the sanctions lifted? Yup. Makes no sense.

TheBigOldDog on April 7, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Correction to my above post: “…it has been suggested that…” should be worded more strongly-as Baxter Greene points out, Saddam himself said it.
My main points still stand.

Lancer on April 7, 2008 at 11:46 PM

TheBigOldDog:

Your point is well made, but one nonsense explanation makes a poor alternative to another nonsense explanation.
His subordinates undercutting him still seems the most likely (or “sensible”) explanation to me.

Lancer on April 7, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Lancer on April 7, 2008 at 11:46 PM

By the way, I think the big point you’re missing is he had assurance from Russia, France and Germany the US would never invade – that they would prevent it. He might be forced to open to inspections (which he was to a certain degree) but not invaded. So he got the stuff out until the heat was off. He miscalculate as he did when he invaded Kuwait. Saddam wasn’t a strategic genius. He badly miscalculated what the US would do twice and the second time cost him his life.

TheBigOldDog on April 7, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Lancer on April 7, 2008 at 11:50 PM

As I said above, I think you missed what the dynamics were at the time. Russia, France, Germany and China were bought and paid for he never believed for a minute the US would actually invade alone.

TheBigOldDog on April 7, 2008 at 11:55 PM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Oh come on now. There may be nothing to the notion that Iraq sent its WMDs to Syria, but to compare it to Trooferism is just silly. Why?

1) 9/11 has been heavily studied, and all the troofer theories thoroughly disproved. Conversely, while the Syrian WMD theory has little supporting evidence, it has certainly not been disproved.

2) Troofers are generally motivated by anti-semitism and/or anti-Americanism. Syrian WMD theorists are generally motivated by the riddle of what did happen to majority of the Iraqi WMD stockpiles.

3) Trooferism requires the belief in a vast conspiracy within the American government, which generally leaks secrets like a sieve. Syrian WMDism requires the believe in a small conspiracy among senior Baathists between Iraq and Syria, both of which have proven track record of keeping secrets.

18-1 on April 8, 2008 at 12:07 AM

This is consistent with the article below that is from over two years ago…

Iraq’s WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
BY IRA STOLL – Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006
URL: http://www2.nysun.com/article/26514

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein’s air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

“There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,” Mr. Sada said. “I am confident they were taken over.”

Mr. Sada’s comments come just more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam “transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.”

…continued…

Red Pill on April 8, 2008 at 12:09 AM

SaintOlaf on April 7, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Is north korea some sort of impenetrable fortress or something?

It’s a Korean cultural thing. They think of him like a father figure and will fight to the death for him. That, and they’re too weak from hunger to stage a coup. Which brings me back to Kafir’s sure-fire way to bring down Kim Jong Il:

Drop crates all over North Korea. In the crates, place some food, an explosive, and a map to a target. Explain that if the target is hit on a particular day, then another crate will be dropped. Then make good on the promise. The norks that do not eat the explosives by mistake will do the job that two years of “six-party talks” have failed to do.

Kafir on April 8, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Why on Earth would Saddam risk an invasion that he must have known would end his rule and his life in order to keep his WMDs, and then, at the very moment when he needs them most, instead of using them, he sends them to another country! This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. On top of that, there is no indication that he tried to use his knowledge of their whereabouts in trade for his life after he was captured and tried and sentenced to hang. If he did send those weapons to Syria, then he is nothing less than a Syrian martyr and one of that nation’s greatest modern heroes.

How effective would Saddam’s bio/chem weapons be against prepared American military personnel? I think it obvious the most effective way to use the weapons would be to hand them over to his terrorist allies. And of course if he was trying to ship them to Hamas they would have to go through…Syria…

Of course a good counter argument to that is why then instead wouldn’t he hand them over to Abu Ayyub al-Masri and thereby sending the weapons out to the rest of Al Qaeda? Wouldn’t a series of WMD attack on the US be a more effective terror weapon then a series of WMD attacks on Israel?

Your second argument is to my mind a rather strong one.

18-1 on April 8, 2008 at 12:24 AM

Unless some Syrian scientist or military figure defects and has convincing evidence of the transfer, this is more familiar, and unconvincing burbling of the same old covered pot or probabilities.

Unless the lid comes off, it remains meaningless, if stochastically-interesting noise.

profitsbeard on April 8, 2008 at 12:50 AM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Which proves you are not a Conservative, but we all knew that already.

WoosterOh on April 8, 2008 at 12:58 AM

Red Pill,

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

I had dinner with General Sada when we brought him in for a speaking engagement to UNCG a while ago.

He was very well spoken and direct to the point which enabled me to get a lot of information from him concerning
the Iraq War.

I asked him about the WMD transfers and he stated without hesitation that they were transfered and remarked many times
how surprised he was that so many people in America did not
consider Saddam a threat.

He stated he was personally involved in many discussions with Saddam about how to attack America(Poisoning the water systems was one that he mentioned) without it being traced back to Iraq.

I didn’t spend a lot of time on this since I was more concerned with his opinions in dealing with Al-qaeda,militias,and our troop levels.

Without concrete proof,I felt talking about “WMD’s in Syria” would go nowhere.

I certainly got a better idea about what was going on in
Iraq from the few hours I spent with him than I have gotten
from years of crap coming from the MSM.

Baxter Greene on April 8, 2008 at 1:00 AM

In a word, Why?

I think this question has already been addressed, but I’ll add my two cents that he didn’t think we would invade. He thwarted the UN sanctions for more than 10 years and planned to do it forever.

You people are still neglecting to understand the entire context that will never be reported. The main reason these Arab states want WMD’s is to destroy the state of Israel. That is the beginning and the end of the reason these people want the WMD’s.

Why do they want to destroy Israel? Because they know that the leader who eventually DOES ‘destroy Israel’ will be honored as a hero across the Muslim world of 1.5 Billion people. Remember Saddam paying the Palestinian suicide bombers?

With that in mind, they are basically all in this together. It would make perfect sense to that end that Iraq would have given their technology to Syria who would be more likely to carry out the destruction of Israel than anyone else. That’s why Israel took out Iraq’s reactor in the 80′s, that’s why they did it again in Syria.

Arabs say WMD’s are for their enemies, but really the only reason they want WMD’s is to destroy Israel. Pakistan would love to be the ones to do it, but their main issue is India. They really do need WMD’s to defend against India. Everyone else in the Arab world only wants one thing. . . destroy Israel.

I have no doubt that Iraq had WMD’s. I have no doubt that Iraq sent SOME WMD’s to Syria. It wasn’t just BOOOOOSH saying it. . . it was the entire international community. I have a harder time believing that everybody was wrong than believing that Iraq was completely clean.

ThackerAgency on April 8, 2008 at 1:16 AM

Allahs not a conservative, nanney, nanney, nanney.

2Tru2Tru on April 8, 2008 at 2:17 AM

I’m also a bit skeptical, mainly because of the North Korea factor. But I’ve believed since before the invasion that hanging the whole casus belli on WMD was a mistake in view of the ample time we gave Saddam to move his remaining WMD assets to Syria.

flipflop on April 7, 2008 at 10:37 PM

We didn’t hang the whole “casus belli” on WMD. Read the resolution that so many Democrats signed off on. There were 15 other reasons besides WMDs that we went in there.

Some other reports floating around have stated that the stuff not only went to Syria, but other countries as well, including some in Europe.

And if in fact some of the stuff was “buried in a hole in the desert” in Iraq someplace, or ib a tunnel complex in mountains in northern Iraq, it’s wise to remember that given the huge size of that country (as big as California) something carefully concealed in some desert somepelace-especially in a specially designed and built underground bunker specifically designed to avoid detection by aerial or satellite or rader surveillance-would be the proverbial needle in a haystack. Some missing private airplanes were lost in those California deserts and mountains a half a century ago, and still haven’t been found.

The Left’s second worst nightmare is thatIraq had WMDs in 2003. We all know what their worst nightmare is…that Iraq was collaborating with al Qaeda prioer to 2001.

Del Dolemonte on April 8, 2008 at 3:01 AM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

LOL!!! That comparison is a tad over the top, don’t you think AP? I think it’s time for a few days off.

labrat on April 8, 2008 at 3:20 AM

Before we jump into another Koolaid drinking contest with the Jihaddists

Lets take inventory

Syria is a bad boy

They have meddled and occupied Lebanon

They have harassed Israel

They have sent some aid to the Jihaddists in Iraq

They have no visible means of support

Lets take our inventory

we are a nation clearly divided by these expensive nation building exercises that occasionally we break out the war machine (ie the surge)

We have not demostrated the will to punish our enemies we embrace them, rearm them and act surprized when they turn on us

repeat if Necessary

Germany (Kaiser)
Japan
Russia/China (Korea/Vietnam)
Afghanistan (Set up Russian Resistance)
Iran (under Shah)
Iraq

What next, send more troops in have a draft or finally conduct warfare in the most biblical old testament sense since thats only what some of these radical countries seem to understand

OR OR OR

We use this as leverage to finally get the GCC to sit down with Israel and the Rich Arab states take the responsibility to educate and liberate the Palestinians from their self imposed delusional situation.

Defuse the Palestinians – give them jobs in all these up and coming companies in Jeddah, Doha, Dubai, Muscat, Riyad, set up investment banking in the Gaza strip give them a path towards a better life

forcing Israel to give up lands in the end was like Wst Germany getting East Germany back all at once

It wasn’t pretty

EricPWJohnson on April 8, 2008 at 4:05 AM

Can anybody tell me why we haven’t taken out that little North Korean lunatic yet?

SaintOlaf on April 7, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Possibly because he has little North Korean nukes in his possession?

Tzetzes on April 8, 2008 at 4:20 AM

One thing is for sure: there is a helluva lot we’re not being told about Saddam’s WMDs. That he just happened not to have any when we went in and took him down just isn’t believable on any level. My guess is, for tactical reasons the info we have on the WMDs is being kept hush hush – until the right time.

Halley on April 8, 2008 at 5:52 AM

Suggested reading: “Saddam’s Secrets” – Gen. Georges Sada.

O/T: On my way to the Vets on the Hill rally, hopin’ to meet some HotHeads.

Tony737 on April 8, 2008 at 6:02 AM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Oh, man. Way harsh.

Did you not read Saddam’s Secrets? Sada provides some authoritative, cogent and sincere testimony.

Provide reasons for your dismissal of a legitimate POV, please.

silverfox on April 8, 2008 at 6:36 AM

there’s a problem: It’s North Korea, not Iraq, that’s supposedly responsible for supplying Assad,

So it’s beyond the realm of possibility that both occurred? Still clinging to the “Bush made it up when he was talking about the axis of evil” schtick?

peacenprosperity on April 8, 2008 at 6:53 AM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

This is allah showing what an enlightened, progressive, new york republican he is.

peacenprosperity on April 8, 2008 at 6:54 AM

Time will tell.

Zorro on April 8, 2008 at 7:00 AM

none of it matters.

They could literally have shipping invoices and video of the WMD’s leaving Iraq into Syria with timestamps on everything and the troofers would still cry foul and dismiss it.

It’s too little too late for some as they simply can’t be bothered with facts when presented them.

MannyT-vA on April 8, 2008 at 8:05 AM

What difference would it make if we did find tons and tons of wmd? What impact would their discovery have on the election? On the great political divide between the left and the right? Would the hags and banshees of Code Pink pack up their soiled, pink rags and go home to their hen-pecked husbands and butch roommates? Would Bush’s approval rating jump from 30% to 60% overnight? Would Pelosi and Reed stand side by side and publicly apologize to Bush for their lies and slander?

I’d say none, nada, of course not, don’t think so, and not a chance.

Rod on April 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM

In 2004, while standing on the Golan Heights with an Israeli friend, I asked him two questions:
1. Did Saddam Hussein really have WMDs? And if so, where are they?
2. What is Yassar Arafat dying of?

His answers were:
1. Yes. Saddam transferred them to Syria thinking that Iraq would win the war with the coalition and he could get them back later on.
2. AIDS.

Now, my friend knows people in the Mossad and Shin Bet. I’m guessing he might kinda sorta know what he’s talking about.

mjk on April 8, 2008 at 8:22 AM

Let’s see a show of hands……who thinks Iraq has a WMD program today?

Hello? Anyone?

Limerick on April 7, 2008 at 11:15 PM

Bueller? Bueller?

slp on April 8, 2008 at 8:43 AM

If reports are accurate that Iraq merged its WMD programs with Syria’s in 2000, then the 5-year-long framing of the question “Did Saddam have WMDs?” is misguided anyhow, and many of the “detail” questions around exactly where which Iraqi WMD components were on any given day become moot.

Incidentally it might explain what the IDF soldier on the Golan Heights had to say to you mjk, and would suggest that the alleged transfer of Iraqi WMD assets to Syria would not be particularly far-fetched (though whether Iraq actually had any WMD assets on their soil in March 2003 is a different question, around which I’ve consistently heard contradictory reports…)

Has anyone in the media explored this aspect of the WMD question? Or are we all still hung up on the one-country, one-WMD-program paradigm?

RD on April 8, 2008 at 8:45 AM

ThackerAgency on April 8, 2008 at 1:16 AM

Your comment is well put, but for one additional point. Saddam was desperate to prevent Iran from both taking out Israel, and then controlling the Arabian Peninsular. He wanted that honour for himself, thus the secondary need for WMDs to keep Iran in line. Once he realized that the game was up, his most logical move would be to transfer custodianship to another Baathist regime who would, in turn, transfer them to Hamas.

OldEnglish on April 8, 2008 at 9:12 AM

Dr. Mahdi Obeidi should be quoted every single day until people start getting it that Iraq was going to revitalize their atomic weapons program as soon as the sanctions were lifted. That’s why Saddam agreed to a new round of inspections. He thought he could answer them and then push back for a withdrawl of the sanctions using France, Russia, and China on the UNSC.

This really should be reported every single day until people get it.

Oh, and Iraqi troops were deployed in a forward operating zone with antidotes and chemical weapons suits for shits and giggles because they thought the US would use chemical weapons against them.

gabriel sutherland on April 8, 2008 at 9:58 AM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

If all you have is the ad hominem, why even post?

snaggletoothie on April 8, 2008 at 10:13 AM

You kidding me??? MSM told me that all those semi trucks headed into Syria before the war were loaded with DATES and DVD PLAYERS. RIGHT??? RIGHT…

pueblo1032 on April 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM

The fact that the regime has fallen, huge cash bounties have been offered to a people who would trade a child for a well used car – and its still a secret?

Didn’t happen

EricPWJohnson on April 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM

C’mon, jump the gun. Just this once.

Weight of Glory on April 7, 2008 at 10:15 PM

Or would that be jumping the shark?

Yakko77 on April 8, 2008 at 11:11 AM

This is the conservative version of Trutherism.

Allahpundit on April 7, 2008 at 10:35 PM

So it’s possible, but unlikely that fire can’t melt steel?

I know you need to drive traffic, but that’s a poor comparison, and somewhat pejorative.

Asher on April 8, 2008 at 11:13 AM

This thread is somewhat pejorative if it represents what a large segment of the population believes.

corona on April 8, 2008 at 11:22 AM

How many times have we heard this and then it never pans out?

RWLA on April 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Yea, I’m skeptical about the satelitte pictures of the caravan of trucks leading to the Bekka valley before the US military invaded Iraq; the experts said that Saddam’s thugs were transporting WMDs but I’m smart enough to know that it was just playground equipment for the Syrian children.

Christine on April 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM

Since it’s comparison day, here’s one.

I believe that if I opened fire 6 times during a gas station robbery and then pointed my now empty .38 at the responding officer, I’ll likely be shot.

And I bet there would be few tears shed over the fact that I had unloaded all my ammunition into the clerk and really wasn’t an immediate threat to the cop that blew me away at the scene.

Asher on April 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM

I am … how you say? Ah, yes: Skeptical.

Wait. What, exactly, are you skeptical about? The assertion that Saddam had WMD? The assertion that he hid or moved them out of the country? The assertion that this report will prove it, or that we’ll ever be able to prove it?

My understanding is that we HAVE found WMD in Iraq. Not nice shiny new ICBMs with nuclear warheads attached sitting on launching pads, no, but WMD nonetheless. That’s what it would take for the Left to admit that he had them. What will it take for you?

misterpeasea on April 8, 2008 at 11:53 AM

We gave Saddam a year to move WMD prepare for the war. The truth will come out and when it does, I want every political defeatist who spoke out against this war brought up on charges of treason.

Conservative_SAHM on April 8, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Why the Bush administration lets the media bludgeon them over this is beyond me. A retired Russian Speznaz(Special Forces) Commander wrote an OP ED article (I believe for the WaPo, but could’nt find it in their archive) detailing his mission in Iraq should the U.S. invade. This link is all I could turn up for now…

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

Plus we KNOW he had WMD because he’s used them. Perhaps we even sold them to him during their war with Iran. Maybe we know of a Russian sale of them to Iraq; but make no mistake, the were known to be there.

Lunkinator on April 8, 2008 at 12:44 PM

And I bet there would be few tears shed over the fact that I had unloaded all my ammunition into the clerk and really wasn’t an immediate threat to the cop that blew me away at the scene.

Asher on April 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM

And the cop would be relieved of duty during investigation.
I forget who made the statement, about the Boy Scout who pushes the old lady out of the way of the truck, and the headlines reads…”Boy Scout batters old lady”.
However they want to twist it…

right2bright on April 8, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Mazztek on April 7, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Yep. And the spetsnaz helped.

fanderbiles on April 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Israel had mentioned this a couple of years ago. All the proof laid out will not convince those that refuse to believe.
Hening on April 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Yep, after all according to the moonbats Chimpy Bushitler and Darth Cheney are “super geniuses” when it comes to “red flag” ops (9-11) and starting wars for oil and to line their pockets but are absolute morons when it comes to anything else, which begs the question, how can they be so brilliant and masterful in planning and executing the 9-11 conspiracy yet according to the moonbats they can’t tie their own shoes?

So yes, even when presented with concrete evidence there were WMD’s in Iraq and they were moved to Syria prior to our invasion the severe BDS the moonbats suffer from prevents them from ever seeing the truth when it conflicts with their warped ideology.

Liberty or Death on April 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Baxter Greene on April 8, 2008 at 1:00 AM

Thank you for posting that.

Red Pill on April 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM

So yes, even when presented with concrete evidence there were WMD’s in Iraq and they were moved to Syria prior to our invasion the severe BDS the moonbats suffer from prevents them from ever seeing the truth when it conflicts with their warped ideology.

Liberty or Death on April 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM

It’s the Dan Rather mentality.

Red Pill on April 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Allah’s wisecrack is why I regretted seeing Ed move to Hot Air.

leftnomore on April 8, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Hey whaddya know, I’m a Right-Wing Truther!

Dork B. on April 8, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Okay, one more time…
Uh, yes tons of them were found:

1) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
In a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq’s former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said.
“This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration’s goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists,” Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in the statement. “It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

2) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

3) 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
“Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable,” Bieniek told Poland’s TVN24 at the force’s Camp Babylon headquarters.
“If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/02/international1018EDT0516.DTL
and:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

4) Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas. “Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 “highly radioactive sources” were also removed.
The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department’s secret laboratories.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

5) Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

thegreatbeast on April 8, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Asher on April 8, 2008 at 11:13 AM

I’ve just had to make peace with the fact that AP likes to be all cynical like the cool kids and that deep in his heart lies the soul of a troll.

TBinSTL on April 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2