Report: Saddam transferred WMD's to Syria

There was never any doubt.

I heard this from covert types many times and wondered why they didn't try to act on the intel instead of waiting for the 18 wheelers to get over the border.

I was told that they didn't know the volatility of the chemical/biological contents going across the border so they held off.

Shame.....

On to Damascus, then, eh..

Saddam was a major Islamophobe himself, equating Islam with violence and war, in regards to the Mother of All Battles Mosque, with its Scud-missile minarets, Kalashnikov ornamentation, and Koran written in blood.

On the other hand, George W. Bush clearly was determined to take Saddam down, from the first day of his presidential campaign and on. I have grown weary of the debate as to whether that was a good thing or not. The worst thing about this acrimonious and highly public dispute is how people who wish Saddam & Sons were still in charge of Iraq have provided the rest of the world with all manner of grist for the America-hating mill.

Oh, ABSOLUTELY this happened. And it happened during the 3-week hiatus in no-fly-zone overflights that Saddam worked out with Kofi Annan. More than 1,800 eighteen-wheelers were witnessed going across the border into Syria by the Mossad, which then squelched its own report. Interesting that Kofi suddenly termed the overflights "illegal" and then when the world confronted him about it Saddam recanted.

This was on a Thursday. Saddam then says that on the following TUESDAY overflights may resume. On Monday the last of the 18-wheelers crossed the border into Syria.

And I'm standing in front of the TV for three weeks yelling, "They're moving the WMDs, you dopes!!!!!"

Defectors to the US from Syria have told the government exactly where the three large underground vaults are that house these weapons.

Now ... that's the case "for".

The case "against" would be that if they had 'em why hasn't Hizbollah used those weapons against Israel, or is it because Damascus knows it would be a smoking, radiating ruin in two hours if they did it.

The other thing on Isreal's side is that jet stream moves west to east, and curves generally south to north a little in this area, and if there's a nuclear detonation in Israel, Damascus and Tehran will be contaminated with proximity 1 radiation in no more than 36 hours.

But, did Saddam move that stuff? Yes. To Syria.

And that includes the 47,000 gallons of VX nerve gas they claimed to have destroyed and then "couldn't find the paper work" on.

I hate to say I told you so. Well, I don't hate it that much! [weg]

Also unfortunately, this report, even if proven to be 100% indisputably and incontrovertibly complete and true, will carry not one iota of weight with those who view America as the ultimate villain in this scene. If anything, it will further convince them of their inherently self-contradictory view of Bush as both evil genius and moron.

Makes sense to me. We know Saddam was working on them and weapons of mass destruction are a valuable commodity in the Middle East. Besides, the Syrians are Baathists as well.

Yeah, but if this gets out, the Saudis will drop oil prices to the USA by about $50/barrel, because what they REALLY fear is that the Shi'as will take Mecca and Medina. And one reason that the Syrians don't want the cat out of the bag is that it's just fine with them for the Saudis to be softening up the USA by bleeding it for every cent it can get at the tank, while they all set up shari'a banking to make sure the petrodollar usury profits stay in Islamic hands (if you think there's no "interest" in shari'a banking I've a bridge to sell you).

Meanwhile, this is bad news for the Left and anybody that wants to get out of Iraq, because if the evidence is absolutely incontrovertible, no amount of screaming from the cheap seats is going to hack it here.

The good news is that it becomes an INTERNATIONAL problem and splits the OIC down Sunni-Shi'a lines, and the dominant Sunnis then shift their weight (at least temporarily) to the West for protection.

And ... quel surprise ... that only makes us more dependent on foreign oil, now cheap again, the tactic that Woolsey says the Saudis have used against us five times in the last 20 years ... or, every time Americans get real interested in alternative energy or get scared about the global climate change bullet many think has already left the chamber.

I'm not a bit surprised. After all, why would a demon-possessed, Hitler-admiring muslim like Saddam want his death implements to fall into the hands of the infidel? Ole Infidel might do something terrible with them - like destroy them!

"No, maybe the Syrians can use them to destroy everyone of those dirty infidels and Joos, just like I was planning on doing!"

This information would vindicate President Bush now wouldn't it. The death of the Anti-War/Bush mantra. The uselessness of the UN, if not exposing its complicity beyond the Oil for Food Program. Let us not forget the fine endeavors of our own illustrious Press. Yes, that Pres,. the one who reversed course after 12 years. Just in the nick of time. It seemed someone was going to do something about it and well, we just cannot have that now can we?

I'm not a bit surprised. After all, why would a demon-possessed, Hitler-admiring muslim like Saddam want his death implements to fall into the hands of the infidel? Ole Infidel might do something terrible with them - like destroy them!

"No, maybe the Syrians can use them to destroy everyone of those dirty infidels and Joos, just like I was planning on doing!"

DEATH TO THE JOOS! DEATH TO THE INFIDEL! DEATH TO EVERYBODY EXCEPT WHO I SAY!

I clearly remember the head of the inspection team saying after we toppled Saddam that the WMD's most likely went to Syria after they couldnt uncover any.

Yawning....this so annoys me because I've been saying this for YEARS! And now you watch, some folks are gonna pretend and react like it's a BIG NEWS FLASH.

Without using any proof and just relying on good ole common sense - lets ponder...

hmmmm. The UN "warned" Hussein for how long before they actually got in there? How much time lapsed between the warnings and Pres. Bush releasing the dogs of war?

Does anyone really think we would find anything by then? (nevermind, obviously some did)

OK...Now relate this:
You're a drug dealer with coke & meth stashed in your home. What do you think YOU would do if the DEA agents give you a call and say "hey, we've heard and have a few pictures too, that you have illegal drugs in your house. You know, we're gonna come in there and search in 2 months 1 week and 4 days at 3 o'clock! If we find anything..."

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

What more proof do the anti war people need than an entire village of gassed Kurds? They got it on FILM!!!!!!!

If I remember correctly, I could swear I've seen spy or satelite footage of the UN entourages entering Iraqi facilities and Iraqi truck convoys leaving out the back practically. OOOps, did I give something away?

Report: Saddam transferred WMD's to Syria

We've known this for years. It's old news.

Defectors to the US from Syria have told the government exactly where the three large underground vaults are that house these weapons.

Now ... that's the case "for".

by Morgaan Sinclair

Not after our experience with the Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi defectors who told us about the "huge stockpiles" that were just waiting for us to find them in Iraq. No one is going to believe this if it comes from a group with an axe to grind against the Assad government. It doesn't matter if the reports are true.

In any case, does it matter? Saddam is dead and so are his sons. If the WMD were moved they're at least five years old now. Are they of any use to anyone? Do they have a "use by" date attached to them? Would Assad use them against anyone? Surely he has more brains than to do that! He would be signing his own death warrant. He's not the martyr type.

Living Victory said:
There was never any doubt.

Maybe it's the Reagan-era in me, but when it comes to Jerusalem Post, my motto is: "Trust, but verify."

JP has carried some stories that ended up being baloney before. I'm not saying this one is, but I'm not jumping on the "See I told ya so" bandwagon just yet.

Let me see the actual report, and let me see this story reported by a credible US news agency (yes, I see the oxymoron in that phrase ... much like "peaceful Muslims" or "Military intelligence" ...)

Never underestimate the self-imposed ignorance of the lib-tards! (and their pandering press) The fact that Saddam had WMDs was proven when he used them against the Kurds. The collusion of the UN's greedy General Secretary was well known. The satillite images were known by the US government, very shortly after they were taken. An independant source documents over 9,000 minor WND (chemical mortor & artillery rounds) found during OIF. Yet the liberals "caterwaul" that there were no WMD!
I was a supporter of President Bush until he made public his willingness to surrender our sovereignty, by promoting the "Shamnesty Bill". Now that the press & the sufferers of BDS have crippled our ability to effectively fight the WOT, they'll FINALLY "award" some credibility to satillite info we've had for 5 years.
I mourn for my nation, willing to suffer outright treason, by a very vocal minority! All for the "cause" that it's "politicall correct".Our polititions are willing to surrender our borders, to invaders, even though 65% of the nation disagreed at the first vote, then 85% disagreed at the second!
Do they even represent us anymore??? Radar, MI GOE, US Army `73-`75

Well, said, NamFrank.

And thank you for your service.

GOOB: "Also unfortunately, this report, even if proven to be 100% indisputably and incontrovertibly complete and true, will carry not one iota of weight with those who view America as the ultimate villain in this scene."

RESPONSE: I had the same thought. The verdict has been rendered....the narrative has been written: "Bush lied"! Nothing in the universe, least of all the objective truth, is going to change that.

MORGAN SINCLAIR: "...the Saudis will drop oil prices to the USA by about $50/barrel, because what they REALLY fear is that the Shi'as will take Mecca and Medina."

RESPONSE: Not a chance. Oil prices are to remain high for the foreseeable future.

Wasn't there a symposium over at Front Page Magazine about this a few months ago?

I can't find it now.

Anyone remember?

Cornelius ...

I hope you're wrong ... but then I'm not totally convinced I'm right, either. But I still think there's a good chance that faced with a Shi'a state in Iraq on its border -- one with nuclear weapons -- they will either have to rely on US military power or fork over Mecca and Medina to Ali Khomenei.

That is a powerful incentive. Of course, the Wahhabi infiltration of the USA with nearly $1 trillion in Islamic financing, some of it at Ivy League universities, much of it spread out around Capitol Hill and in Islamic "charities" and subsidized mosques, makes me think that the Al Sa'ud always planned to make the USA its second home. We are so softened up now on so many levels, this shouldn't be all that hard to do.

Godefroi ...

Try http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=EACB624F-680F-4296-9D12-49C458BF38C1

There are multiple articles. Use this search string:

Syria + Saddam + WMD

I clicked on the link and there is virtually nothing to this article. What gives?

Anyway, it's not news to me. The intel about the the success of the Russian Operation Sarindar conducted by plain clothed Spetznaz officers and by two retired Soviet generals is out there for anyone interested in knowing about it. Israeli intelligence had the sat photos and the eye witness accounts of a defector from Syria who saw it all, including where it was stored. An Iraqi general we captured also verified this had indeed happened.

I believe Saddam intended to use the chemical and biological agents. Why else would he have had his Army equipped with chemical suits? I also think that the vast amount of this was of Russian provenance and the Russians never intended it to be captured. Saddam owed Russia/the Soviet Union many billions and this stuff was the collateral. He didn't truly "own" it; the Russians did. They knew the jig was up and it was time to pull the plug, so they removed it. And Saddam had no power to stop them, because he had no power to repay the Russians what he owed them.

General Georges Sada (I think that is what his name is) told us this a few years back. His voice was drowned out by the braying of the donkeys (the Democrats). I keep saying they certainly picked the correct animal to represent their party. :-)

Two things about muslims is their unwillingness to use their brains for improvement on their living conditions - they use the labor force of slaves and dhimmis for most of that. They suck the 'juices' out of their dhimmi and then toss the away as garbage. And their willingness to take things that we do invent and transform them into weapons for their imperialistic cause, for their want of killing infidels and not caring if it kills them too.

What too many don't realize is that we really need to keep ALL nuclear technology from them. The Pakistanis have it, but it is just a matter of time before the roque elements have it in their hands if they don't already. Especially since the roque elements are usually those in power in muslim countries.

Fred ...

If you don't like that article, there are others at FPM. Use search engine.

There has been a STEADY STREAM of information about this since November of 2002, there for the searching.

I have said this from day one.
Saddam had 12 years of threats from the UN (yeah,sure) and the US that we were going to make him give up his WMDs.
We found his MIGs buried in the desert,
http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=2357321&epmid=1&partner=Google
You tell me he didn't bury WMDs, or as we know, truck them to Syria...?

Morgan Sinclair,

I have indeed followed this issue even before the invasion, which is why I am aware of Operation Sarindar. I was merely commenting on the fact that the link was to a very, very brief announcement. Those who indeed are not aware of the Russian removal operation who went to that link would have not even found a skeleton to sink their teeth into. It may be that the Israelis will be forthcoming with a larger report? That is the impression I have.

One thing I am struck by ever since this began before OIF is the concerted efforts of several countries and a sitting President's cabinet and intelligence agency to squelch this information. At the time the CIA, the Bush Administration, and the State Department were stuffing this stuff down and acting to slander the reputations of the people who bring it to light, it was speculated that we did not want to embarrass the Russians for fear we would lose their potential cooperation over the Iranian nukes programs. No one with half a brain at that time (several years ago) believed Russia would be helpful there, and indeed this has come to pass. In fact, Russia is an important ally of the Iranians now.

Therefore, since we have nothing to lose now that Russia is on the other side there should be no real reason to squelch the story about how the Russians removed their WMD's into Syria and Lebanon.

Well, the local liberals here will never believe that report. They will claim that Bush wrote it. Bush lied people died, that's all there is to it.
They will probably hold a 'don't believe that report', candlelight vigil on our one freeway overpass. Above all, Bush must not be vindicated, lest liberals lose their focus and fall into dis-array.

The case against this is:

why would Saddam not use this intel as a bargaining chip for life imprisonment instead of being hanged?

Only actual stockpiles, unveiled in Syria, will convince.

The rest is weightless chatter.

Old article at Intelligence Summit but very relevant today.
http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/saddamcbn.php

"This information would vindicate President Bush now wouldn't it. The death of the Anti-War/Bush mantra."
-- from a posting above

Not exactly. Such information, if true, would support the wisdom of the invasion that was intended to find and seize, or destroy, whatever weapons of mass destruction were to be found, by scouring Iraq. But since everyone was given to believe that such weapons, or weapons projects, did exist, there is no shame, and should be no embarrassment, about voting to give the President the authority to use military force in Iraq.

But this does not "vindicate" or justify what happened less than a year after the initial invasion. By the end of February 2004 Iraq had been scoured for weapons (to the satisfaction of David Kay), Saddam Hussein had been captured, his two sons had been killed, his regime's leading figures had been, in a witty game of Fifty-Two Pick-Up, captured or killed) but now there was a new goal, an ill-thought-out goal, a goal both impossible of attainment -- the transplanting of "democracy" to a country which, because it is Muslim, and therefore, filled with Believers in an alien creed that also includes a politics, and that politics in part includes the idea that the legitimacy of the ruler depends not on the will expressed by those he rules, but by the closeness with which he adheres to the will of Allah, as expressed in the Qur'an, and glossed by the Hadith and the Sira.

Not only was this messianic idea impossible of achievement, but it was related to other ideas, including that of importing American-style economics into a region where governments are routinely viewed as the sole sources of wealth, and the way to get rich is to seize, for yourself, your family, your tribe, your group, control of the government, and then distribute, to your friends and family and tribe, a large share of the national wealth that, in any case, tends in the Muslim countries most often the result of an accident of geology.

Furthermore, the Administration hardly understood the gulf between Shi'a and Sunni, its origins, its duration, its depth, preferring to see it as something that had recently come about because of Saddam Hussein, and with him gone, that fissure would be gone. There was no understanding of how deeply the Kurds believed they would not, could not, trust the Arabs to treat them fairly, and having enjoyed autonomy for a dozen years, they now wanted independence, and were certainly intent on regaining control of some northern cities arabized by Saddam Hussein.

There was no understanding of what was likely to happen to the Christians, now that Saddam Hussein's iron control had disappeared. He, who had seen the Christians as a group that to him posed no threat, was content to use them, either as his trusted household staff (tasters, drivers) or in positions where, like Tariq Aziz, they could be useful in dealing with the outside world.

There was no understanding or even recognition of the smaller groups, as the Turkomans, or the Yazidis (everyone has quickly forgotten the Muslim massacre of 450 Yazidis that took place in Iraq within the year), the Mandeans (whose ancient libraries have been destroyed by Muslims).

But, above all, there was no understanding that the enterprise in Iraq, once the WMD had either been located or not been located, was dedicated to goals that are exactly, for Americans and other Infidels, the wrong goals. We need not to unify Iraq but to allow Iraq to become a constant source of Sunni-Shi'a tension and, ideally, open hostilities, that will soak up not American men, money, materiel, and attention, but that of the Iranians and the Saudis, and other Shi'a and Sunnis, who will find themselves sending men, money, arms, to Iraq to help co-religionists, and will also find that such hostilities will affect their calculations in countries where Shi'a numbers are sufficient to threaten local Sunnis --as in Bahrain (70% Shi'a, but with a Sunni ruler), in Dubai, in Kuwait, in Yemen, in eastery Saudi Arabia, in Lebanon, even in Pakistan, where Sunni terrorists have been attacking Shi'a for years.

The reason that there will never be "reconciliation" in Iraq is because, in Islam, the texts and tenets tell Muslims that in their battle with Infidels, there are only two possible outcomes: that of Victor and that of Vanquished. And this lesson, or this attitude, does not suddenly disappear when there is an ethnic fissure(Arabs against non-Arab Muslims, as the Kurds or Berbers or blacks in Darfur, and resentment by those non-Arabs at Arab supremacism, for which, they may not realize, Islam is a vehicle) or a sectarian one (that between Sunni and Shi'a Arabs).

If it is true -- and it has long been reported -- that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD that he, or the Russians, transferred quickly out to Syria for safekeeping, that helps to justify the original invasion. It does not justify what became the American policy, the American goal, months after that original invasion, and that some may feel was a naive attempt to find some other justification, because of the embarrassment of not finding WMD in Iraq, for the continued American presence.

Indonesia blocks access to youtube and myspace because of Fitna movie.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i2lzeugbM6aUajPDYkYhVuHgyziQ

And the rapper, saladin, who tried so hard to look like van Gogh's killer is now suing because he was mistaken for him.

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2008/04/fitna-trial-saladin-vs-geert-wilders.html

WMD SEARCH TIP: I think you might look in the Bekaa Valley, in some caves and under some houses located at #765 May Peace Be Upon Him lane........

The problem with this report, if assumed to be true by the Bush Administration, is that there will next be a roadmap for democratizing Syria. Out here, Hugh points out the wisdom of leaving Assad in power, but with a back channel warning that he can be taken down if Sunni disaffection with the Alawites are exacerbated.

But that's not how the administration is likely to view it. Instead, they are more likely to push for democracy in Syria, noting that disrupting the Alawite domination there would destroy the logistical support that Hizbullah currently gets, since the Sunnis would now be running things, and then, there will be a huge attempt to have a Sunni democracy sans the Ikhwan. Only problem here is that since the Sunnis are 80%+ of the population, there won't be any major internal pressure on them (unlike the Shia in Iraq, who would get opposed by Sunnis and Kurds) to not make it a Sunni theocracy.

Bottom line: if the Hizbullah backing regime in Damascus is overthrown, what one will get is an al Qaeda/Hamas clone in an Ikhwan regime instead. Which would do even more wonders for the stabilization project in Iraq.

Hugh ... a question, and it really is a question, not a statement.

If we leave now, I think Iran will own the southeast, Turkey will invade "Kurdistan" and Al Qaeda will take Baghdad.

No matter how you slice it, Islamists will feel that they won. And that will only embolden further attacks on us.

Also, the oil wealth of Iran in the hands of Islamists threatens us with very great instability, worse by far than the $3.60 a gallon we'll be doing by June 1.

I don't pretend to know what we should do. But I am worried that if we leave under any conditions other than a stable government and an oil supply out of the hands of radicals, we are in for a very great deal of very bad stuff.

This is not even to touch the fact that our invasion took a female population of Iraq and threw it from 1970s liberality into the 7th century. I don't feel we can just walk away from these women, whose lived with have doomed with our incompetence.

WDYT?

Hugh takes still another opportunity to advance his long-held premise that chaos in Iraq is somehow innately in the Western interest. Such chaos could play out exactly as he predicts - an extended Sunni-Shia conflict effectively dissipating the energies of the Muslim world.

Or - JUST AS LIKELY - it could result in outcomes totally inimical to the interests of the West, i.e., the emergence of an Iranian super-state...or a faustian bargain inside Iraq between the most fanatical element of Sunni and Shia...squeezing out moderates of both confessions and the Kurds.

One need only look at the close cooperation today between Iran and Sunni groups like Hamas and PIJ to comprehend that a radical vision with like-minded goals can easily transcend the very same Shia-Sunni theological divide that Mr Fitzgerald insists is so irreconcilable.

We need not to unify Iraq but to allow Iraq to become a constant source of Sunni-Shi'a tension and, ideally, open hostilities, that will soak up not American men, money, materiel, and attention...
by Hugh

The Middle East has been soaking up American money since the Camp David Accords were signed.
Unless we are prepared to withdraw ALL American military from that region and bid farewell to the Saudis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis and everyone else who claims to be our friend, can this ever happen? Wait until the flow of oil from countries other than Iraq is affected. Watch how this will quickly become an American problem, with the world telling us that America "has a duty as the world's sole superpower" to protect the free flow of oil from the ME to the oil-starved industrial countries and to guard against financial turmoil in other countries that would result from a cutoff of oil. After all, the US is the champion of world trade.
Oil is their ace in the hole to play against the president who wants to bid an unfriendly farewell to the region.

It's worth noting that all of the UN resolutions demanded that he destroy his WMD *under the presence of UN inspectors*. It was Saddam's obligation to comply with the UN demands, not our obligation to play a game of hide and seek with the WMD.

Saddam never did comply with these resolutions. In fact, he wanted to keep the world guessing and bargaining on his terms. He also stated that he had plans to reconstitute developing chemical, biological, even nuclear weapons. But his strategy backfired thanks to President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and other true leaders.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page6.shtml

Lastly, the UN was bought by Saddam via the corrupt oil for food program. As such, Saddam knew that the UN wouldn't enforce anything. And Saddam wrongly calculated that we would not have the backbone to topple his regime minus the UN.

Cool Ghoul ...

Yeah, apparently Saddam told his jail guard that he didn't expect the US would actually invade.

Apparently, the move of WMDs in November 2002, was a precaution related to whether the UN would send UNSCOM back in, with massive force, after the passage of 1443. After 1443, the Security Council got extensive time for "inspections" and Saddam had to have the WMDs out of the country before that happened. So, across the border they went, then Blix goes in and gives him a clean bill of health, gets to be smug toward Colin Powell, and the US invades anyhow. Then there are no WMDs to be found.

Great. Just great.

I have long wondered what Vladimir Putin knows about all this and how many levels of deniability he may have allowed himself about this transfer. I know nothing for certain except that Putin should not be trusted whatsoever and that he has a deep antipathy for, and atrocious understanding of, America. He could hardly be called a friend of Israel either.

talk about a shell game... do we now invade Syria to remove their WMD or threaten them and then they move it somewhere else...And any reason why these same WMD do not return to Iraq at some later date? Wait, I'm sure the CIA or ODNI have some thoughts on this...

Morgaan Sinclair,

Perhaps this is merely rhetorical in nature, but this once again demonstrates how our own sensibilities and governance structure literally work against us when dealing with an enemy such as this.

While we pursue means to avoid conflict and confrontation, the enemy uses this to their advantage. For example, we attempt to work via the UN to obtain international support. As a result, the enemy corrupts the process through bribes and other alliances in order to block.

We give final warnings and announce our intentions; while the enemy is granted time to scheme and thwart the entire process.

We seek to minimize the loss of life. The enemy seeks to maximize it. (I still maintain if we had more unity to fight this enemy, the enemy would have less incentive to kill women, children, etc... They do this largely to create political pressure for us to withdraw.)

We seek ways to peacefully coexist, the enemy doesn't.

We seek an open-free society, the enemy exploits this as a vehicle to infiltrate.

Cool Ghoul,

Yup. I think the ultimate problem here is that Islam has a double classification: religious and political, because in Islam there's no difference.

So they play political games, launch a worldwide war unconnected to any specific state, and then when there's blood all over the marketplace, they retreat behind religion and scream Discrimination! and Islamophobia. Added to this is the rank cowardice of peaceful Muslims who are only to glad for the feckless infidel to spend itself into bankruptcy and die on the moral high ground for the very people who'll do nothing to save themselves.

But there there are the other real evils: shari'a finance, shari'a law (read: keep the last form of slavery, against women, going for as long as possible), and the spread of Wahhabism, Salafism, and Talebanism by veiled threat of violence and/or messsing with the oil supply.

Yeah, we're in trouble. The linchpin is oil. And the other big problem is that the Left has lied to the point most Americans believe what they're saying.

As for me, I have no idea about solutions except this:

THE ONLY WAY TO EVER DEAL WITH A BULLY IS TO GET OFF THE GAMEBOARD.

This, they teach, even in psychology courses. And the reason why is that a bully, by nature, never plays fair. They don't care if what they do is wrong. They don't care if they look like asses. They don't care about anything but their own gratification, and they get a charge out of seeing others squirm in fear.

So, you banish them from the playground. Because the nature of a sociopath is that they only thing that is real for them is impact on THEM, not YOU.

And doing that would mean several uncomfortable things: The USA has to put aside HUGE R&D $$$$ to fund alternative energy research and implementation. The average American will not suffer, just have to learn new habits. But that's a national commitment.

Even if WE get off oil, there are still the burgeoning economies of India and China to consider, but at least they, not we, would then be seen as the Evil Ones of the planet.

But if WE get off oil and then sell the technology to others, we are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay up the exchange (as they say in chess). Because at least then WE do not have to give away $1.25 billion a day to the people who are trying to kill us.

Then we have to get real: halt immigration from Muslim-majority countries; stop bringing them into our colleges; stop allowing Salafist imams into prisons; stop allowing all foreign funding and sponsorship of American mosques; vet all student groups and Islamic organizations for ties to terrorism (you can do the same for environmental groups, too); and convince the IPCC and other organizations that OIL PRODUCING AND EXPORTING COUNTRIES, WHICH HAVE TAKEN THE LION'S SHARE OF PROFITS, MUST PAY THE LION'S SHARE OF THE COST OF WORLDWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP.

NOBODY is talking about that last one. And that will put a hole in oil profits by the Wahhabis the size of Japetus.

As a follow up to my previous post...

In short, our sensibilities and governance structure presume a reasonable populace. An unreasonable enemy, who doesn't share a similar value system with humanity, shouldn't be granted the same deference.

Islam should be banned by reasonable people everywhere. It simply doesn't share a similar value system or respect for human life. Until identified and banned by reasonable people, this enemy will continue to wreak havoc on humanity at large.

Absolutely nowhere or under and circumstances should we allow these maniacs to develop or maintain wmd.

I never doubted that Saddam transferred these weapons to Syria; and lets not forget that he was threatening action against us, so we weren't about to take him at his word.

I am so thankful that this lunatic is gone, and I'm thankful to those who gave of their lives to bring this evil man to justice. Hanging him was way too kind.

This is one of the better threads that has emerged in recent weeks. Many of the posters here clearly have a deep understanding of ME geopolitics.

Morgaan Sinclair presented a new element into the discussion I hadn't seen before:

"The other thing on Israel's side is that jet stream moves west to east, and curves generally south to north a little in this area, and if there's a nuclear detonation in Israel, Damascus and Tehran will be contaminated with proximity 1 radiation in no more than 36 hours."

Excellent observation. Think Chernobyl. The possibility of radiation blow-back would certainly give pause to rational people. Even assuming that Islamic plotters recognize and understand this problem (it requires adopting a Western understanding of cause-effect), one might wonder whether it would even be a factor in the thinking of those who are so blinded by their own ideology that they are bent on destroying Israel at any cost, even if it means the loss of several millions of their own people.

one might wonder whether it would even be a factor in the thinking of those who are so blinded by their own ideology that they are bent on destroying Israel at any cost, even if it means the loss of several millions of their own people.

Notice in the picture on Drudge today that Ahmadinejad's zebibah is getting more prominent.

If we are so hell bent on leaving Iraq, then let us leave by way of Syria. It is not like Syria is any better Country to have WMD than Iraq is it?

We leave Iraq, and Iran closes the Gulf. Afcrapistan becomes isolated and out flanked with tenuous supply lines over Pakistan. But we need to send more troops there.

A brilliant plan.

If one was ever going to apply the Domino Theory, the area from The Atlantic to the Pacific composed of Muslim lands is the place.

Running away always sounds like a good idea until you run out of breath. Only to find the adversary is still gaining on you and growing in numbers.

Hugh takes still another opportunity to advance his long-held premise that chaos in Iraq is somehow innately in the Western interest. Such chaos could play out exactly as he predicts - an extended Sunni-Shia conflict effectively dissipating the energies of the Muslim world.

Or - JUST AS LIKELY - it could result in outcomes totally inimical to the interests of the West, i.e., the emergence of an Iranian super-state...or a faustian bargain inside Iraq between the most fanatical element of Sunni and Shia...squeezing out moderates of both confessions and the Kurds.

One need only look at the close cooperation today between Iran and Sunni groups like Hamas and PIJ to comprehend that a radical vision with like-minded goals can easily transcend the very same Shia-Sunni theological divide that Mr Fitzgerald insists is so irreconcilable.

Posted by: Cornelius

------------------------

And you've taken yet another opportunity to reject a much more sane idea that Hugh presents, and much less costly in both money and lives than bringing democracy to Iraq and spending US blood and money on a bunch of ungrateful Mohammadans that will never turn into what you hope for.

I never heard Hugh say chaos in Iraq would erase the Islamic Jihad, but it's pretty clear that it would hinder in in some way shape or form, for each sect would indeed provide resources and footsoldiers to oppose the other, which does infact spell out to less resources and footsoldiers used against infidels.

"Moderates" as you say, you mean the same "moderates" like the awaekning council that is bribed not to kill US troops trying to help them? An Iranian superstate could be eliminated in an afternoon if the US decided on it. A bargain between Shia and Sunni ? Sure they work together when it suits them both and sure they have a common enemy, a common glue, but still, who's going to supervise a pack that both parties will live up to? Theyre Muslims, and they've been doing this nonsense for 1400 years. It's about time the west has the good sense to leave them alone and if it feels threatened, erase the threat like the US did with Iraq and Hussein.

Al Qaeda has threatened Iran several times with all out war if so and so happens....these people can't trust their own families let alone hated shia heretic and sunni fanatical oppressors.

Hughs assessment at least is sane. No soldiers of the west should be dying for an impossible utopian dream, especially in a plan staged by folks that are driven by political correctness and have no understanding of Islam as it really is. US and western money shouldn't be used to benefit a people that can't shake of Islam. The only way to help Muslims is through de-islamification, otherwise you're left with Somalia on a mass scale.

What Hugh hits on is very accurate and precise. The utopian dream in Iraq does nothing to stop the Islamic Jihad in any way. Iraq already enshrines shariah in their consitution, they'll never accept Israel, and they'll never see non muslims as anything other than the rest of what Mohammadans see non muslims as. The Chritians and others continue to suffer under this new "democratic Iraq".

Iraq and Afghanistan in effect eliminated Irans biggest enemies on both fronts,(they didn't get along very well then) China squashed their Islamic uprisings. Just about everyone is benefiting from Iraq except the Americans.

Time to get off the Bushlite.

The US is good at winning battles and wars, not democracy projects, nation building and attempting to export that which will be soundly refused by the Islamists ultimately.

I hope I'm not repeating anybody, but this story is not showing up in any other news services that I can find. A Google search using "Saddam" and "WMD" found some old articles. NewsMax is not carrying anything.

Notice in the picture on Drudge today that Ahmadinejad's zebibah is getting more prominent.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen

You're right! Scary.

For those who might want to frame this photo or keep it for future reference, it can be picked up from http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080408/i/r2980530186.jpg?x=400&y=275&sig=.AJFyNFF4ZGOQmlx9cj3Ag--

That's really strange news, sort of. Georges Sada's book "Saddam's Secrets" has Copyright 2006. Stuff like that really makes you think. Is news really news or is it just something published at some convenient time for whoever controls those things.

An unsourced sentence predicts that a forthcoming report will claim that Saddam moved WMD's to Syria five years ago?

Hey, good enough for me. I'm convinced.

I guess 3 trillion dollars and 4 thousand U.S. soldiers' deaths is worth building new bridges, roads, power plants, water treatment plants, and schools for our good friends and strong allies, the Iraqis. I guess we should stay there indefinitely, until the Iraqis give us permission to leave. I guess we should stay there until Iraq is a tolerant multicultural democracy, and until the Sunnis and Shi'a "just get over their differences", and until the Iraqi people love the U.S. President more than they love Osama Bin Laden (or Muqtada al Sadr if you're a Shi'ite); no matter how many more of our soldiers the Iraqis kill, no matter how many more billions or trillions of dollars it costs us (while the Iraqi government has billions of dollars in their bank accounts sitting idle).

Because...

Because a claim will be made that Saddam had WMD's. Because the Iraqis, like all people everywhere, share our Judeao-Christian values. Because "progress is being made". Because we need to "win their hearts and minds". Because we need to "stay the course". Because we can't "cut and run". Because we have to "win" (just don't ask yourself what that means) over there in order to be "secure" over here, even though we leave our borders open and our immigration policy lax, over here.

I guess it makes perfect sense after all.

And now this comes up in an election year. Anyone with any commom sence has known that the weapons were moved asap. Saddam bluffed and lost. America had to act, and should have destroyed any resistance what so ever. Our tenative responce to Iraq has allowed Iran, Syria,Lybia,Eygpt and the palies to think their invinsible.

Eastview,

What caught my eye was Ahmadinejad's horns.

special_guest,

Weren't the Iraqis supposed to use their oil revenues to pay the U.S. for their "liberation" from Saddam's clutches? I guess they didn't sign off on that part...

Is Iraqi WMD Moving like Shifting Sands?

It is a very late discovery; Isn’t it?

The Neocon policy of fallacy and deceit was skilfully built up to wage a war against Iraq and secure its US Mega bases there. This war was prolonged on the pretext of finding the Saddam’s WMD but it proved beyond doubt that it was hoax and there were no WMD found.

As this humiliation was not enough; that US has now started seeing WMD in suspended mirage reflections in the Iraqi deserts. And this WMD mirage is shifting like shifting sands and shifting dunes into Syria.

Of course; shifting sands have no boundaries.
------------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for None

Such poetic BS, AK; and speaking of hoaxes, Islam is the biggest hoax to hit the worlds stage since Muhammad proclaimed himself a prophet.

Muhammad the Hoaxster!

This report will not make one bit of difference.
the saddam tapes as well as many itaqi generals and syrian defecters even one who mapped where it was buried where ignored by the media its not in there agenda.
saddam tapes translated where totally ignored why has bush not pushed it the fact is hes hideing something theres no other reason with all the attacking against him hes now saying though knowing the truth there was no wmds .

The comment about oil prices and what Saudi can do about them has another element as well. The value of the dollar is part of the $100+ number. I don't think it is a one-to-one break but I am sure if the dollar when back to it's older value we would see the price at the pump come down. How much hard to say. I would not be surprised that it would be in the .50 to .75 per gallon figure.

The only reason I say this is because oil is a commodity and people will adjust the price if dollars are worth less than before. Oh, another factor is worldwide demand is rising that has to be part of the number.

I look at it as two separate issues.
1. Topple Saddam's regime due to his refusal to destroy his wmd in the presence of UN inspectors
2. Rebuild Iraq and help to build a democracy.

I'm in favor of the first, but ambivalent on the 2nd.

I don't think that all people of Iraq are evil. But I do believe that islam is evil. On the one hand, I do want to help the innocent people overcome their circumstances. If I were there, I'd certainly hope for a helping hand to overcome the islamic maniacs. On the other hand, it may not be realistic. Or at least not as a military operation.

Our military could wipe out their entire population. And it would be an easier operation than what we're now trying to accomplish. But, since we are a more civilized culture, we value life and want to limit civilian casualties - even at the expense of our own soldiers. The enemy knows this of us - and is exploiting this. Unlike us, they want to maximize the loss of life.

One way that would counter the Islamic influence would be to send Christian missionaries by the ten thousand. That is the only way to insure that Iraq will become a democracy.

On the flip side, in Europe it is turning into an Islamic region as we speak. One of the main reasons is that they have rejected the Christian tenets and are leaving themselves open to the opposite of what civilization has held important for 2000 years.

A Khokar,

Speaking of mirages, I'm sure I saw Mohammad flying around on Buraq last night, but it might have been something I ate, probably the mushrooms...

The media and the left are busy preparing the 'spin' on this when it comes out. I just hope and beg that we have some fantastic documentation on this.

Syria's, Iran's, and the U.N.'s complete silence on this subject has been good enough for me to show guilt.

My only question is, by the IDF and U.S. keeping this information to ourselves what did it gain us in diplomatic blackmale, and who did we protect by not showing certain countries participation in the WMD?

I am going to assume that we 'protected' Russia and China, but why? And what will we get in return? Or is this why China suddenly shared Iranian nuclear information with the IAEA?

Will we start seeing other countries 'miraculously' share information or start cooperating?

What is wrong with the truth for once?

Speaking of mirages, I'm sure I saw Mohammad flying around on Buraq last night, but it might have been something I ate, probably the mushrooms...

Posted by: Lex

LOL!!!

SNEAKYZIONIST: "Al Qaeda has threatened Iran several times with all out war if so and so happens....these people can't trust their own families let alone hated shia heretic and sunni fanatical oppressors."

RESPONSE: On the contrary, much of Al Qaeda's leadership - Sunni Salafists to be sure, have received sanctuary in Shia Iran after the fall of the Taliban in 2001. This cooperation - similar to that between Iran and Hamas (and Hezbollah and Hamas for that matter) - is proof that radical Sunnis and Shias can and do work in close coordination with one another against perceived common enemies.

As for Bushlite, I'm no great proponent of the 'Democracy project'....but I do believe that the current Iraqi government is certainly preferable to one composed of Al Qaeda, Al Sadr, or both.

Why doesn't Bush stand up and defend himself, and America, by throwing this evidence back in the faces of the "Bush lied" crowd?

Hell, we knew this information a long time ago-it was just never confirmed...until now.

I heard this from covert types many times and wondered why they didn't try to act on the intel instead of waiting for the 18 wheelers to get over the border.

I was told that they didn't know the volatility of the chemical/biological contents going across the border so they held off.

Shame.....

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at April 8, 2008 7:17 AM
-------------------------

now you understand why the Bible states that Damacus will be turned to ash...........

lori B,

"...a credible US news agency..."

lol O.k. This has to be the best joke of the year. Hands down.

Just might become a fulfillment of Isaiah 17:1, Where Damascus becomes a ruinous heap…
Miss firing of WMDs anyone? Or, "Everyone gather round I’m going to show you this once and only once". Interesting what is playing out in the ME. Actually all over the world.

"Let me see the actual report, and let me see this story reported by a credible US news agency"

The New York Times, maybe? Baaaaaa haaaaa haaaaa! SNORT SNORT!

In the beginnig of the war, I have seen maps from Syria, where the WMD were stored.
I hope, that I stored it on my other computer.

After removing Saddam, we should have set up a Communists Government. Then everyone would have been happy.

Sorry, but I remain (very) skeptical. It would take significantly more than a few lines in the Jerusalem Post to change my mind. The report hasn't even been released yet-no one knows if the evidence presented will be convincing or not, and I'm certainly not qualified to speculate on its contents, although I'm inclined to think that if the evidence was very convincing, it would have been released before now.

If any convincing evidence that Saddam still had any serious stockpiles of WMD had been discovered up to this point, the media would have reported it, regardless of their "agenda"-if only for the ratings and publicity.

This story of Saddam's confessions didn't get nearly the publicity that was warranted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page6.shtml

I hope that the wmd/syria connection gets fully vetted.

Cool Ghoul,
Like you, I don't believe that all, or even many, Iraqis are evil. However, I do believe they are too complacent. It's hard to believe that there are no Iraqis who know what is being planned and when attacks are to be carried out against their own people as well as US forces. Their silence speaks volumes. If they aren't willing to risk their own lives for freedom then why should anyone else have to risk his or her life on their behalf?
The Iraqi people are the reason I now favor pulling out. The fact remains our mission has been accomplished. Saddam, Uday and Qusay are dead. The Baathist regime has been dismantled. An elected government runs Iraq. Their future is in their own hands.
John McCain points to Germany and Japan as models for our future in Iraq. Well, US soldiers weren't in Germany to deal with Baader-Meinhof or any other gang. They were there to guard Germany and most of Western Europe from a Soviet-led invasion. Nikita Khrushchev said "we will bury you". Who in the Middle East is looking to bury Iraq? If Iraqis fear an Iranian invasion, you couldn't tell it by their behavior.

SNEAKYZIONIST: "Al Qaeda has threatened Iran several times with all out war if so and so happens....these people can't trust their own families let alone hated shia heretic and sunni fanatical oppressors."

RESPONSE: On the contrary, much of Al Qaeda's leadership - Sunni Salafists to be sure, have received sanctuary in Shia Iran after the fall of the Taliban in 2001. This cooperation - similar to that between Iran and Hamas (and Hezbollah and Hamas for that matter) - is proof that radical Sunnis and Shias can and do work in close coordination with one another against perceived common enemies.

As for Bushlite, I'm no great proponent of the 'Democracy project'....but I do believe that the current Iraqi government is certainly preferable to one composed of Al Qaeda, Al Sadr, or both.

Posted by: Cornelius

----

Cornelius: You left out the part where i said this below. It's no secret Sunni and Shia will work together when it suits them, you're not telling anyone anything new, and again, regarding your statement about Al qaeda leaders in Iran after 2001 invasion of Afghanistan....I'm already aware of that also, as most people here are.

"Moderates" as you say, you mean the same "moderates" like the awaekning council that is bribed not to kill US troops trying to help them? An Iranian superstate could be eliminated in an afternoon if the US decided on it. A bargain between Shia and Sunni ? Sure they work together when it suits them both and sure they have a common enemy, a common glue, but still, who's going to supervise a pack that both parties will live up to? Theyre Muslims, and they've been doing this nonsense for 1400 years. It's about time the west has the good sense to leave them alone and if it feels threatened, erase the threat like the US did with Iraq and Hussein. "

That's what i said before your quote. I never made the argument that sunnis don't work with shia, as you can see here above.

As for your prediction of an Al Qaeda controlled Iraq, or an Al Sadr controlled Iraq, re-read what i said as the response is in the paragraph i already typed the first time, and quoted again now above. If you need a hint, it's the last sentence.

So again, refer to my entire post not just a paragraph.

Regards

Cornelius, also, Al Qaeda on the contrary to what you're saying DID infact threaten Iran with war....so much for unity even after Iran aids and abetts its staunch "friend and ally" Al Qaeda....

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D1B901E0-A9E5-4D3A-937B-7B5262BBE82C.htm

here's another

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/09/1974136.htm

Regards

It will be a good thing if this is true, however the Iraq war was still a bad idea. Desert wars in the Middle East have always turned quickly into an insurgency war. Insurgencies are expensive and unwinnable.

The cost of the war is 1 Trillion dollars and rising, which could tank the US economy. George W. Bush should have invested in redirecting the American economy away from oil, bombed Saddam occasionally to keep him in line (as was done with Libya), and directed a serious Cold war against Islamic Jihadism.

This is not hind-sight, since this is what need to be done now. Giving Jihadists a direct hot war feeds into their religious narrative. We need to frustrate their economies, give support to their neighbors, suppress radicals in Europe and most of all, end our dependency on their oil.

Without the oil, the Islamic world will have little relevance. It's all about shifting from oil.