Skip to comments.BREAKING US to admit officially that Saddam WMDs were moved to Syria in a report to come !!!!!
Posted on 04/11/2008 8:33:43 AM PDT by drzz
click here to read article
I think you give them too much credit. I don’t believe that they REALLY believe their lies. It’s all been a fully orchestrated smear campaign to destroy Bush-Cheney, from the first day in their “stolen” office.
I recall having made this theoretical determination back in early 2002 with conservative friends.
They could find the WMD in Monica Lewinsky’s apartment and the media wouldn’t report it.
Thanks for the info. You are very knowledgable about this.
You’re good! I’ve been looking for those previous posts! Thanks!
No surprise, this is what happens when you telegraph an invasion months in advance. And it begs the question, why aren’t we kicking the crap out of Syria right now. 6 years in, this “war on terrorism” has become really half-assed.
One can logically understand this just by reviewing the statements of Putin abou the US invasion of Iraq. He doesn’t blame the US for doing what it did. He says the US really shouldn’t have done it but based on the intel it was somewhat ‘understandable’ so to speak.
I’m convinced that was part of an agreement not to blow Russia in the water.
They had special operations people there moving stuff. Whether it was in volume significant to do damage is besides the point.
Iraq had some and knew they had to get it out of there. And Saddam’s goal was to reconstitute this as part of seeing sanctions ended. So if the US did not topple him, the sanctions would have ended and Saddam would right now be sitting on tons and tons of WMD.
Does that matter to a liberal/leftist/moonbat? Nope.
This was said some years ago.
This report is nothing new.
I guess we’re the only ones who actually READ the stories posted on FR.
Thank you for those.
This has all been known for years here on FR.
So, let me see. The Israelis conducted an air strike into Syria and blew up the WMD’s that Saddam did not have. Hmmmm. I wonder how the Dim’s will spin this one.
> 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.
Geez, who would have guessed? A few minutes with Saddam on the waterboard would have told us where and when, long ago.
1 a: a small usually walled and often paved area open to the sky and adjacent to a building : court b: the grounds of a building or group of buildings
2: the grounds immediately surrounding a house that are usually covered with grass
3 a: an enclosure for livestock (as poultry) b (1): an area with its buildings and facilities set aside for a particular business or activity (2): an assembly or storage area (as for dry-docked boats) c: a system of tracks for storage and maintenance of cars and making up trains
4: a locality in a forest where deer herd in winter
Rumsfeld himself said quite openly in press conferences years ago that this was happening. I recall his comments about Saddam’s WMD’s being moved to Syria, that the US could see convoys and such by satellite, even before we went into Iraq.
So why didn’t we invade Syria too (”with us or against us” Bush Doctrine), because we didn’t have the “excuse” of “enforcing UN resolutions” like we used to put together the Coalition for Iraq?
At any rate, if I have to choose between a highly successful secret operation that, say, destroys Iran's nuke capabilities, yet have the administration blamed for "failing," or, like Clinton, have the administration "credited" for succeeding when in fact it failed (and we get a 9/11), I'll take the former every time, and damn public perceptions.
For example, it's not well known that Weinberger and Reagan allowed news of a "successful" SDI test to leak out---when in fact the test failed. But they wanted the Soviets to tremble. On the other hand, they never once mentioned a highly secret program to feed the Soviets crap technology that would break only after passing all the tests. Reagan never once took credit for that, even in his diaries or memoirs.
Practically speaking, we could not “invade” Syria without Russian cooperation which will come when heck freezes over. Syria is a key Russian client and Middle East proxy. And a toolbox of useful idiots to keep Mideast turmoil going with expensive Russian weapons they buy with Iranian oil money. Does this all make sens? I didn’t think so, it doesn’t have to.
I’m sure Condi Rice the Russophile would have been advising Bush on how to stroke the Bear to keep them from aggressively interfering with us in Iraq and to try to get them to cooperate with the rational world (which the Russians have yet to enter on other than a self-interest level) on containing Iran.
Besides, Syria is small fish compared to Iran. The Israelis could neutralize Syria in about 30 minutes (maybe 15) if push comes to shove.
Very interesting thread/comments (read all 174 posts). Thanks to all posters/linkers/researchers/educators.
Charlie Sheen is the subject matter expert for the 9/11 controlled demolition. Look at his own career and marriage...s.
My gosh... The chariots of the gods exist...
I new the egyptians had alien vistors.
“Why has this taken so long? Why didnt the CIA report this before?”
Because no one has presented IRREFUTABLE evidence, yet..
No matter how much of Saddam’s blustering and historical evidence we provide, the “Bush Lied” meme.
Wasn’t there a book out called The Link or something?
That linked Saddam to Osama/Al Quida.
SIMPLE really...since the wmd’s were blown up, there’s no proof of their existence!
I actually had a liberal blame Rummy for selling Saddam wmd’s then said they never existed, IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH!
Thank you for giving me some insights!
There is a very very recent report that does that....
I have to admit that I am fairly skeptical of this story. It reminds me to much of the stories from the Balkan’s where we found no mass graves and therefore stated that the bodies must have been moved (since we obviously couldn’t have been wrong about the massacres in the first place /s). So, unless I see hard evidence that WMD’s were moved to Syria then I see no reason to give this story much credibility.
We can’t rely on Fox. Keep bumping it until Drudge runs with it, then FNC will be forced to cover it.
Look, there have been dozens of stories confirming the FACT that Saddam had an aggressive weapons programme. And we know for a FACT that he had relations with terrorists, Sunni and Shiite alike, including al Qaeda.
The bottom line is, we had every reason to fight to this war, and we need to win it. The American people get stupid and lazy from time to time, especially when their trusted media sources inundate them with bad news from the front lines. We have to combat those media sources. We have to keep bringing this information to the forefront, as tedious as it may seem. New lies trump old facts. We have to make the old facts new again to trump the new lies. Over and over again, if need be.
This story is the whole ball game. We know Saddam was a terrorist enabler. We know he had weapons capable of destroying American cities. Those two facts are the only things that matter, which is why the left so relentlessly attacks them.
Keep proving those facts to be true and the American public will support the war. They’ll have no choice.
We can’t let this report fly under the radar. It’s way too important. We need to keep fighting and winning this war. And to do that, we need to keep justifying why it’s being fought. Saddam was a terrorist. Saddam had strong connections to terrorist, including those who attacked us on 9/11/2001. And Saddam had weapons capable of doing far worse than anything we’ve ever seen.
Don’t stop saying it. Don’t stop proving it. The left has been relentless in their efforts to dismiss those fact. We have to be every bit as relentless in proving them... over and over again, if need be. This is the war at home. We have to do our part.
How about the fact that he killed tens of thousands with them, spent hundreds of millions of dollars to produce them for decades (all completely verfiable), and then -- all of sudden, after we gave him an 18 month head-start before the invasion -- they all disappeared.
Only a leftist could believe he never had them. And even leftists don't believe that. They say it because it benefits then politically. Nobody with half a brain honestly believes he never had these weapons. Nobody.
So he had them. That's a fact, documented by UNSCOM and his financial records. So where did they go? If not the neighboring Ba'athist regime in Syria, where?
We have not had a competent domestic war President since FDR.
He knew full well that full press censorship and 24/7 government propaganda were essential victory requirements, he accomplished both by EO, and he was right to do so.
They should have shouted from the rooftops about this until it was heard. That's how the DNC turns fiction to fact every day of the year.
Or someone very dense.
I believe that he had them but so far the evidence that I have seen suggests that most of them were destroyed in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. He certainly tried to maintain programs enough that he could return to building them without much delay and some small amount of WMD’s were found. However, I believe that most of the stuff that was found turned out to be of first gulf war vintage. So, unless we find solid evidence that he had the sort of ongoing weapons program then I think we have to admit that we may have misjudged what weapons he had. This isn’t a crime - intelligence work is largely intelligent guessing and Saddam certainly acted like he had such weapons. But the theory that Saddam acted like he had a large WMD program in order to deter Iran makes sense to me. I don’t see how we could have been in control of Iraq for as many years as we have now and not have found solid evidence and reliable witnesses if Saddam was running the sort of extensive program that we thought he was before we went into Iraq.
I’m not at all surprised as I’ve had the same experience. When I called the guy on his inconsistency he attempted to change the subject to “war for oil”. When I pointed out that we could have had Iraqi oil for cheap were we to just buy if from Saddam instead of removing him he shut up.
Some of us have known this all along. But it’s too late now. The Bush presidency has been fettered by its lack of fortitude in defending the war. The press has used that weakness to attack him night and day for years. Perception has become reality - the public now believes “Bush lied to take us to war.” That’s what’s crippled the party to a large extent. Reporting that “Oh! Hey! He actually did have weapons!” is useless now, except for historical validation...which counts for nothing. The classic “where do I go to get my good name back?” quote comes to mind.
Rarely does a moonbat just shut up, congrats! ;)
Usually they began ranting that you’re just a tool of the vast right wing conspiracy and so forth.
They’re convinced Bush flew the planes into the WTC and pentagon.
If ObamaNATION OF ISLAM declared he was the anti-Christ, they’d say Bush was hodling his family hostage or something.
How do you answer this question: If the goal was to invade Iraq to stop WMD going to terrorists, then was the war failure?
How can we claim a victory in Iraq, if we let WMDs get into the hands of the Syrians and terrorists?
I have the rare experience and pleasure of having shut one up them. That feels good. I tend to wear these moonbats down with facts until they go away.