New Proof Iraq's WMDs Are In Syria

No Pam the WMD "story" was never a "lie" except maybe in the minds of public or media.
The president apologized that the intelligence reports were "wrong" a move which had many in the intelligence community foaming at the mouth.

US Satellite Intel is not somthing that news outlets generally have access to, and only a percentage of the smuggling in the area is even investigated.

Don't discout this report.

Ex Iraqi General Georges Sada will drop the straw that will break the proverbial camel's back in coming weeks.

Thanks for the heads-up. I will keep my fingers crossed even while holding on to a pinch of salt. If this story happens I would stand on my head for 2 hours.

No evidence -- check.
No verifiable sources -- check.
No ability to check assertions -- check.

I call shenanigans. The Bush administration crowed its knowledge and certainty of Iraqi WMDs for months before the invasion and then was shown to be little more than thugs and liars before the world when the claims were shown to be verifiably false.

Rather than believe that the figurehead of the neo-con right could be so completely and unequivocally wrong, there have been wack-job conspiracy theories ever since we took Iraq claiming that the weapons were smuggled into Syria, buried under the sand, or secreted away by some elite militia. But there's not one shred of evidence, not one source that can be verified, and not one argument put forward that can be independently checked out. Instead, after all these failings, we're just supposed to take your word for it.

The whole of the US military and government tasked billions of dollars to finding these fabled weapons and to no avail. But you know where they are.

Sure.

Please see my new article, coming soon, entitled "New Proof Iraq's WMDs are in Secret Bathist Moon Base -- Iraqi revelation proves US faked moon landings, staged Holocaust."

Bartman... No Pam the WMD "story" was never a "lie" except maybe in the minds of public or media.
The president apologized that the intelligence reports were "wrong" a move which had many in the intelligence community foaming at the mouth.

US Satellite Intel is not somthing that news outlets generally have access to, and only a percentage of the smuggling in the area is even investigated.

Don't discout this report.

First you got my name wrong and then the rest of your facts wrong. The WMD story was always a lie.

I beg your pardon Pamela, or Ms. Drew, I was trying to be cordial.
LIE is one of those journalism red flag words that sparks libel suits.
Give me somehting I can answer better than "no it wasn't" Refute my facts or something.

Actually Pamela, before we went in we had several satellite photos that were released to the media claiming that there were portable chemical weapon labs and we tracked them into Syria and at one point we lost them. It had been suggested from before we went into Iraq that many weapons were transferred to Syria. This is not new info and its not surprising. Its not like Saddam didnt know we were coming.

Also, with satellites, we can see trucks, planes, etc. We do not see inside them. That information must be gathered with additional sources, such as men on the ground.

Additionally, it would not be very hard to hide WMD's in a country like Iraq. Have you ever tried to find something buried in a desert? Its not exactly the easiest thing to do, even with satellites.

If you have evidence to provide that these stories are "lies" please present them. Otherwise, we can let rational thought take over and investigate to see if there is any truth to the claims.

That information must be gathered with additional sources, such as men on the ground.

...or the Iraqi National Congress, which wasn't at all trustworthy, but knew it had a friend in Judy Miller and the Bush Administration.

If you have evidence to provide that these stories are "lies" please present them. Otherwise, we can let rational thought take over and investigate to see if there is any truth to the claims. Point taken. First, provide any evidence that there's any truth to these claims, and then we'll investigate whether that evidence is valid. As is, what I see is the same old claim that has been debunked on numerous occasions. All dissembling to the contrary, if there were any hard evidence that WMD had been smuggled into Syria, it would already be public knowledge. The Bush administration has been so quick to trumpet "evidence" that has proven incorrect, one can hardly assume that firm proof and vindication for the administrations claims would have been a "state secret."

Portable chem labs turned into trucks which produce hydrogen for weather balloons. That we would lose the "greatest threat to mankind" with our 24/7 surveillance of pre-invasion Iraq is a bit incredible.

The truth remains that after extensive investigation and widespread access to all the major players who would have been in any position to know anything about Iraq's supposed stockpiles of WMD, we still haven't turned up a thing.

But let me go ahead and lay out the entire story for the curious who wonder just what the author's been smoking. Supposedly, in 2002 former Russian intelligence head and KGB general Yevgeni Primakov went to Iraq to supervise the removal of all of Iraq's WMD so that American forces wouldn't be able to reveal Russia's complicity in Hussein's crimes. The Russian Spetsnaz removed all the WMD to Russia and Syria in hollowed out Boeing jets and trucks, allegedly making some 56 trips. What was the motivation for this duplicity? Well, you know those crafty Russians.. can't be trusted... former communists, and all that. Even though their involvement in the oil for food scandal was already common knowledge, apparently they wanted to "conceal" it, along with purported weapons deals and military training they are said to have delivered to the tightly controlled former Iraqi regime. That and wanting to give America a black eye by leaving nothing for Bush's troops to reveal after the invasion of Baghdad.

And George Bush? Ever the example of restraint, Mr. Bush was well-aware that revelation of WMD in Syria would require a new invasion of yet another Middle Eastern country, and the revelation of Russia's part in the hiding of Iraq's stockpiles of WMD would result in yet another Cold War. Eager to avoid both, he held his peace.

Supposedly touting these facts are Bill Tierney, disgruntled former WMD investigator whose "knowledge" of the locations of Saddam's WMD have so far resulted in exactly nothing being found, every senior member of every Western, European and Asian intelligence agency who have held their separate peaces for God knows what reason, and Georges Sada-- whose book sales and position in the current Iraqi government have nothing to do with his assertions.

Now if you can get over the hump of having to believe that there's a vast conspiracy of intelligence agency officials and other folks "in the know" to keep these facts hidden, there's only a few remaining problems that have to be surmounted: If Bush's invasion of Iraq were justified by WMD, and we had proof positive that Russia and Iraq had smuggled those WMD into Syria, why wouldn't we have presented that proof and forced Syria into an accounting? We've only been longing for regime change in Syria for decades. And although we're apparently very tight with Putin's Russia, the idea that Russia would play that sort of dangerous game for the purpose of giving America a "black eye" seems a stretch. And, finally, if the aim of every arab country has been the destruction of Israel, and given that Israel is currently invading and destroying southern Lebanon, the reluctance to use these WMD against their traditional zionist foes seems to be a restrained response that defies the sort of description that conservatives have traditionally given of any arab regime.

And, of course, there's the lack of any verifiable evidence. Anecdotes? Sheeesh. We're up to here with anecdotes. We're drowning in anecdotes. There are plenty of people who are willing to state that a friend of a friend of a friend who's cousin knows a guy who worked with a dude who roomed with the pilot of one of these WMD-planes, but unfortunately there hasn't been much in the way of any actual... you know... evidence.

So if there really were WMD stockpiles in pre-invasion Iraq, and they did go to Syria, I'd think that all the sabre-rattling would be justified. I sincerely hope we produce the evidence... but I won't bother holding my breath until we do.

This really seems like nothing more than post facto justification for claiming "We gotta DO something about Syria!" A claim that simultaneously "vindicates" a bungling administration while casting aspersions on any opposition parties that rightfully think America has headed far down the wrong road-- roughly 60% of the American population.

I have not seen nor heard anything that debunks the charges, from various sources, that the weapons were moved to Syria. If there is enough information to prompt an inquiry I would be in favor, however, good luck getting that through the UN and investigating in Syria. Well just add that with the questioning of Syrian leaders about the assasination of the former leader of Lebanon. As you should well know, presenting evidence to the UN in an attempt to force any country into doing anything does exactly nothing.

However, I am not in any way suggesting in that we attack Syria and see no reason to even hint in that direction at this time.

That's where your problem lies, FL... you take the claim that they were moved at face value, and then demand that someone provide proof that they weren't. You're putting the cart before the horse. Show that there's evidence that 1) they existed, and 2) they were moved, and then we'll talk about whether yet another investigation into Iraq's supposed WMD is justified. Right now all this is is baselss speculation (and I'm doing it a kindness by not just calling it blatant propoganda).

And regardless whether you personally see this as sufficient reason to attack Syria, nevertheless there are many conservatives who think exactly that

That is exactly what the investigation is for. Take our criminal justice system for example. People make allegations, if the crime is serious and there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant an investigation, we do it. But usually it does not take much more than a claim to atleast get people asking some questions.

I do not demand people prove that they werent moved at all, but photos and testimony were provided to support the claim and I have not seen information that nullifies those photos or the testimony. Im saying it needs more investigation and more evidence.

I understand that many conservatives may want to attack Syria although I have not heard anyone state that other than maybe some users here or callers on talk radio. I do not speak for them and they do not speak for me.

Well before some investigations happen, the prosecutor has to go before a grand jury. There has to be preliminary evidence. This is what we are waiting for in this promised scoop.

No, the grand jury decides whether or not there is sufficient evidence to go to trial, not if an investigation is done.

FL_Independent, not that I'm doubting this:

Actually Pamela, before we went in we had several satellite photos that were released to the media claiming that there were portable chemical weapon labs and we tracked them into Syria and at one point we lost them. It had been suggested from before we went into Iraq that many weapons were transferred to Syria. This is not new info and its not surprising. Its not like Saddam didnt know we were coming.

but could you provide a link to this story? I definitely don't remember any such reporting. I do remember that Colin Powell had some cartoon drawings of "mobile chemical labs" which he presented as evidence of Hussein's WMD programs to the United Nations, but I don't remember any such reporting about them having been moved to Syria and then lost. A link to this reporting would be very helpful, particularly since you are holding this story out as truth and then asking others to disprove it.

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

I had watched several reports on Fox and CNN regarding it at the time where they showed some of the satellite imagery. At the time some of the trucks went into underground bunkers or into large building complexes, which at that point we lost them since they could have unloaded and dispersed items at any time to any number of vehicles.

I did a quick search and found the following articles thought I cannot necessarily vouch for these particular sources as I am finding them on the fly.

CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria

A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites

Syria Storing Iraq's WMDs

Now I realize this does not make these items true, but I do believe it is entirely possible, even probable. All I'm saying is I think it deserves some scrutiny, as well as the way our government handles the investigation.

FL_Independent - thanks for the links. They provide some interesting information, although I wouldn't exactly consider them objective or particularly reliable. If the information which is purported by these questionable sources were true, it would certainly make the questions about the intelligence produced prior to the invasion of Iraq more complex and interesting. Given, however, that these stories are not new, I have to wonder why they apparently haven't been taken seriously by the government, who obviously has an interest in any story which might go to prove that they are not either incompetent or dishonest. Perhaps one might infer that the government has indeed been investigating the story and that the government is getting ready to release the results of its investigation. Perhaps Kai's source is someone within the government who is "leaking" the information to Kai in order to give him a worldwide exclusive on the impending release. That seems doubtful to me, but I've been wrong about such things before.

If that's not the case, though, and this is as dodgy as it appears to be, I'm not sure I understand at all why you would feel that this version of the story, rather than the version which goes "there were no WMD, and we know that because we looked really hard for them and didn't find them," should necessarily be proved untrue by people who choose to believe the version which is logical, reasonable, and which has been acknowledged by the government.

Well, looking hard for something and not finding it doesn't mean it wasn't there, and it certainly doesn't mean it wasn't moved. This is something that may never be proven either way.

Despite Finding No Evidence of it, because it cannot be irrefutably estabshed that it did not occur, I conclude that not only was it possible but that it probably happened!?

Now I realize this does not make these items true, but I do believe it is entirely possible, even probable.

This is close to saying that the claim that aliens seeded life on earth is not only possibly true but probably true, because no one has been able to prove otherwise.

Did you read your own first link? Despite trying to bend over backward to make the news sound plausible in the way the Washington Times is famous for tilting the news, it simply does not support your conclusion it was probable, in fact even your own source says the opposite:

"Arguing against a WMD transfer to Syria, Mr. Duelfer said, was the fact that all senior Iraqi detainees involved in Saddam's weapons programs and security "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria." ...Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place,"

From other accounts:

But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never "a piece," said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

The most logical conclusion to draw is that the evidence to date strongly supports the conclusion that no significant amount of WMDs were transfered to Syria and probably none at all. Sure its possible, but a lot of things are possible but still extremely unlikely. The fact that we have searched for years and found zero material evidence to support the theory and lots of evidence to disprove the theory leads any rational person to the conclusion that it probably did not happen.

I had watched several reports on Fox and CNN regarding it at the time where they showed some of the satellite imagery. At the time some of the trucks went into underground bunkers or into large building complexes, which at that point we lost them since they could have unloaded and dispersed items at any time to any number of vehicles.

Yes the cutting edge reporting of FOX and CNN. The problem with this backward logic is that I can report that the moon was seen to be made of cream cheese then charge you with disproving it.

These reports follow a pattern of baseless claims and fictional reports. Just two months ago their "bogus science" expert "exposed" global warming as a hoax and slammed Al Gore for being politically motivated with the movie. Now that the nation wide viewers are melting that's just forgotton and on to the next bit of fiction. Let's keep score with the bad claims and take the new "reports" with a grain of salt.

Brad
Nice response. I would think the main problem is we cant investigate anything in Syria. So theres not much we can do. Sure we can send in some spies but I think lately we have been very limited on our Arab infiltrating abilities than we had been 20 years ago or compared to other races. By the same token the UN cannot get anywhere with Syria either. They have been wanting to question several members of Syria's elite power for, what 2 years now, regarding the assassination of Lebanon's former leader. Aint happening.

@Catch22 & Pam
Well since those particular sources are not to your liking (of which the Washington times, fox, and cnn have atleast some credibility) , we can dismiss those. And whatever sources you say you like we can dismiss cause someone else doesnt like them and thinks they are biased. In fact, you know what, no news organization, in print, or tv, or radio, or anywhere can be trusted to provide any useful or factual information so now everyone must find out everything for yourself and see it with your own eyes. Lets be a little realistic here.

Catch22
Lets also draw a more logical conclusion here. Do we have any hard evidence in any way that aliens exist? No. Do we have hard evidence that Saddam ever had WMDs? Yes. Is it unreasonable to suggest he might not have destroyed them and hidden them in Syria? Not in the slightest. And if you would have read what I wrote, I said I found those on the fly and didnt really look at those too much, they were not my original sources.

Pam
It is not backwards logic if you provide some proof that seems to substantiate your claims. I do not have access to all of the information and either the military did not share with the news organization what it was or the news organization decided not to share with the viewers. But I have to give a small amount of trust to the military that they have reason to believe the evidence points in that direction. There are still plenty of good individuals in the military (for all those who hate this administration) who are part of the investigation and I have to trust they dont want to waste their time, money, and lives chasing a lie instead of doing their job. We have to give these people just this little bit, while we review what they do and how they do it, or government and society doesnt work.

When you have a top member of Sadaam's military machine making the claims, it seems to me to be reasonable to look into it.

I personally am not convinced that he is right. (I do think he believes it himself but that means very little). I AM convinced that it merits further investigation and I have seen NOTHING that refutes his claims and have seen other claims that support him.

You ask why anyone should look into this, and I think I have answered that for you.

FL Independent...Pam...It is not backwards logic if you provide some proof that seems to substantiate your claims. I do not have access to all of the information and either the military did not share with the news organization what it was or the news organization decided not to share with the viewers. But I have to give a small amount of trust to the military that they have reason to believe the evidence points in that direction. There are still plenty of good individuals in the military (for all those who hate this administration) who are part of the investigation and I have to trust they dont want to waste their time, money, and lives chasing a lie instead of doing their job. We have to give these people just this little bit, while we review what they do and how they do it, or government and society doesnt work.

For starters you got my name wrong. Next, there are vast numbers of people withing the government and military services who do not endorse the official story on this or other subjects. The fact that FOX reports anything has no inherent likelihood of being factual. The bulk of the world, the UN investigators and a large percentage of the Congress disagree with the Administration claims here. The Administration has proved it will fake intelligence to serve its aims and FOX has demonstrated blind allegiance. The only solid conclusion is that whatever the President claims FOX will support.

Well then I guess I should just take your word that Fox doesnt report the truth in anything it does. And since I highly doubt you have taken a poll on the rest of the world, I dont think you can quite make that claim.

While you may like to believe that the Adminstration faked the intelligence, I dont believe anyone has presented evidence to support that theory. Sure you will say come on, blah blah blah. For something this important you better have some real hard evidence to back up your claims.

And since I have heard many talking heads and hosts on FOX news disagree with the President on many items, it seems your "solid conclusion" does not even rank as high as a shaky conclusion.

Pamela, get over it. Some people will consistently use the short version of your name just because they don't feel like typing the rest of it out. He got your name right, just didn't complete it.

there are vast numbers of people withing the government and military services who do not endorse the official story on this or other subjects.

Do you have a definition of what you consider 'vast'? I am not really trying to play symantics here, merely pointing out that using this fuzzy term here is designed (intentionally or not) to invoke an emotional response. I agree with you that there are numbers within government that do not endorse the official story. You seem to imply that they all believe something specifically different and I would have to disagree with that (if in fact you think that).

The fact that FOX reports anything has no inherent likelihood of being factual.

Truth is that the fact that ANY news organization (yes, even al jazeera!!!) reports on something has no inherent likelihood of it being factual. (Think of Dan Rather and his famous documents for example). Fox News seems to be the target of your scorn in a large number of your posts and I do find that amusing. :-)

The bulk of the world, the UN investigators and a large percentage of the Congress disagree with the Administration claims here.

I would like to see your evidence of this claim. I suspect it is merely your gut feeling, not necessarily a fact.

The Administration has proved it will fake intelligence to serve its aims and FOX has demonstrated blind allegiance. The only solid conclusion is that whatever the President claims FOX will support.

First I would love to see your evidence that the Administration has proven it will fake intelligence. I would think this would be something that would be very useful and it sounds to me like it would be illegal. I suggest you hire a lawyer and take action.

I see you are continueing to attack FOX news here. LOL, I have seen FOX report things that were far from supporting the administration, but I can see how you might get that impression if all you do is read the Democrat talking points rather then actually watching the network. See, I believe that a large portion of the journalist community in the country have a liberal slant. I have seen polls (of the journalists themselves) that back this up. (I know you will ask for this proof, I will see if I can find it. Again.) I developed this belief from actually watching a wide variety of news programs and reading a wide variety of news from many different sources. I go out of my way to read stories I may not agree with. I want to know and see what they have to say to be sure that I am thinking correctly. How can I be sure I am right if I don't know the arguments against my beliefs or thoughts after all.

Is what Fox does really journalism?

Is what 60 minutes does really Journalism? Perhaps we need to put together a poll?

FL Independent...Well then I guess I should just take your word that Fox doesnt report the truth in anything it does. And since I highly doubt you have taken a poll on the rest of the world, I dont think you can quite make that claim.

That is misquoting me. daweb was correct when he said no news source is inherently truthful. My point here was that you used the "news" report as proof. It isn't proof it is a media report; daweb is right with his points here that it applies to all.

While you may like to believe that the Adminstration faked the intelligence, I dont believe anyone has presented evidence to support that theory. Sure you will say come on, blah blah blah. For something this important you better have some real hard evidence to back up your claims.

Google the Downing Street Memo, The WMD's in Iraq, Joseph Wilson and the Niger yellowcake. Those are off the top of my head. This isn't a political attack, but a fact. The intelligence was fixed around the policy. There is no debate here.

And since I have heard many talking heads and hosts on FOX news disagree with the President on many items, it seems your "solid conclusion" does not even rank as high as a shaky conclusion.

You may be right because I don't follow them closely in their on air coverage, nor any other American television "news" sources. I do track the books and articles the FOX team and others write. My area of expertise is biotechnology and all the politics science and spin around the GMO "foods".

In that category and a few other policies I've researched carefully Milloy, Fumento and O'Reiley have been in lockstep with Bush and totally inaccurate in their representations. You may be right that my judgement was too sweeping based on my sampling. I'll concede the point to you, who seem to be more faithful viewers and better able to call that.

Fox News seems to be the target of your scorn in a large number of your posts and I do find that amusing. :-)

Actually I have scorn for all the televised "news" reports, except on local issues where it's perhaps not in depth or challenging but reasonably tied to reality. I see the bulk of the American media including "liberal" sources like the NYTimes equally able to distort and misreport. FOX was just put out there by someone else here and I grabbed them. I do believe their spin is an artform a notch higher than the rest, but they are definitely not alone earning my disdain.

It's like the politicians, I take shots at Bush because he's in the White House. I believe he's the worst President in history but not because of his party.

I don't see Bill Clinton as measurable different from Bush Sr. and don't like Hillary anymore than Bill Frist. I see the whole lot of them as dirty, rotten scoundrels and party labels as a way of keeping us squabbling so they can keep stealing.

Good point Greg. I think this KAI guy is full of it. Wouldn't this article be putting his "sources" at risk? People in the intelligence community really frown on leaks. Also, why would the U.S. wait 3+ years to finally disclose that the weapons were taken out of Iraq? It's not like they would blow any ones cover. They could just say that a captured Iraqi officer leaked the info. This really is just propaganda.

Also, why would the U.S. wait 3+ years to finally disclose that the weapons were taken out of Iraq?

You forget, this is an election year. Not that it matters much. This administration is a joke on the WMD issue in general. But it would be a nice bone to throw to the diehards on the right.

Actually, all of you are wrong. They found Dick Cheney's handwriting on some newspaper again :p

Great article, backs up what I've known/thought for a long time now.

How exactly does completely unsubstantiated claims back up what you know?

If you only focus on what you want to believe and ignore everything else, everything will back up what you think.

Moore provides notes and sources that can at least be checked and verified true or false.
Sheehan doesn't make so many factual claims as say "I think this is bad." I don't think anyone doubts her authority on her own opinions of matters.

No one of any consequence buys into the conspiracy theories.

Show me evidence. Show me statements by reputable individuals that can be verified. Show me anything that supports this other than the unsubstantiated assertions of a random newsvine columnist.

This is called skepticism. It's something you neo-cons* could stand a little more of. After all, no one went to war on the advice of Sheehan or Moore.

* You're the one who started this whole "libs" thing here.

sources that say Iraq had WMDs? how about
Iraqi Nuclear physicist and expatriateKhidhir Hamza or Mahdi Obeidi

Great. Except both of those books describe events and developments before the 1991 war. Hamza escaped Iraq in 1994 and Obeidi's memoirs describe the development of gas centrifuge technologies which were not only declassified by the United States during the Cold War, but still depended on the highly inefficient means of fuel production used in the Little Boy bomb. Given that Iraq never acquired sufficient stocks of uranium ore to build a single weapon after the 1991 gulf war, this too represents an interesting tale, but ultimately one of exactly zero significance to the topic at hand.

Neither of those books claim that Iraq had working WMDs in 2003

Iraq never acquired sufficient stocks of uranium ore to build a single weapon

Convince me.

Neither of those books claim that Iraq had working WMDs in 2003

Gotta give you that one.
Actually I think Sada was the guy who appeared in a television interview (can't remember the reference I'll see if I can find it.) and said that all that technology was moved in 1998-99. before the war.

Moved to where?

Uranium is difficult and expensive to extract.
U-235 (Uranium capable of achieving a super-critical state) occurs in 7 parts per 1000 unrefined Uranium Metal.

The Little Boy bomb contained 60kg of Uranium 235, which equates to 8571 kilograms of uranium metal pre-refinement or 10,107 kg of exceptionally high grade yellow-cake.

This amount of uranium is very difficult to acquire on the international market without attracting attention and assumes the existence of 100% perfect refinement facilities in Iraq. Even if Iraq had managed to acquire this quantity of Uranium and had possessed the ability to refine and manipulate it into a weapons grade material and had possessed the technical know how to assemble that material into a bomb we still have one more question to answer:

Why didn't Saddam use this newly acquired super-weapon against the invading US military?

It doesn't take a genius to look at the Pre-invasion press coverage and realize that Bush wanted Saddam out of power, his government in ruins, and a US friendly democracy running Iraq. With the overwhelming likelihood of spending the rest of his life on the run or in the Hague on war-crimes charges, wouldn't Saddam use every means at his disposal to fend off the United States?

The only rational conclusion we can reach is that - if Saddam had access to a nuclear weapon - it would have been used against the invading US forces

The absence of a nuclear attack on the US military is the final and clinching proof you seek.

The bottom line is that Uranium is fairly tightly controlled on the international market. Buying enough Uranium to build a U-235 fueled bomb is hard to do. Buying it clandestinely is even harder. The overwhelming odds are that we would have gotten wind of this purchase. Given that Bush was raked over the coals for his famous 16 words in the State of hte Union, the administration's failure to disclose vindicating proof of Iraq's Uranium ambitions demonstrates a total lack of evidence for an Iraqi nuclear program.

The failure of Iraq to use nuclear weapons against the United States military demonstrates the total lack of nuclear capabilities of the 2003 Iraq regime.

There seems to be some smart readers here. Nice!

No evidence -- check. No verifiable sources -- check. No ability to check assertions -- check.

I think this definitely counts as propaganda.

(*)Amen. The evidence is right there -- obvious in the last paragraph.(**):

Unfortunately I'm unable to reveal my sources as this is a very touchy and volatile subject, but as facts are revealed to the mainstream media in the coming weeks, more truths will be revealed, and the proverbial chemical smoke surrounding this explosive story will begin to clear and expose the deadly reality currently hiding in Syria.

-J

(*)SARCASM

(**)/SARCASM tag

Ballew74...I wonder why this is so hard to believe. How long did Iraq have to move out the WMD's prior to the war? I think that there were weapons and it is not so far fetched to believe they moved them to Syria. I hope in the future this story comes out and does prove true. But I am sure some people would still deny it, know matter what.

There are several reasons these stories are hard to believe.

First is that most of the world's weapons were sold to these countries by Americans like Rumsfeld and Cheney through GE and Halliburton and offshore subs. They know who bought what and always have.

Second, with sattellite intelligence the world is a small place and surveilence goes 24/7. If Americans wanted to find weapons movements they coud run time lapse images for the region or borders and see the stuff moving at some point. Not all WMD's would be carried out in a picnic basket.

Third is the timing, here we are coming up on midterm elections with Bush's poll numbers in the crapper and Osama's deputy tape doesn't give him a bump so we have the distraction of another war and news the weapons are suddenly found. Now this adds the benefit of making Syria an ally of the evil Saddam and on the list for justified attack.

Rove's strategy treats the American public like they have the IQ's of pumpkins. This is all as ridiculously simple as it seems. They are a cadre of liars who have lied every step of the way.

The strategy is to ignore failures and keep claiming next time we'll get it right. That's good for every election cycle.

Actually Pam it is not hard.

First is that most of the world's weapons were sold to these countries by Americans like Rumsfeld and Cheney through GE and Halliburton and offshore subs. They know who bought what and always have.

True and since we know what they have and have not seen what is required to destroy and account for them we would know if they still had the weapons.

Unfortunately you overestimate the capabilities of satellites. If that were true every other country in the world that has satellites would know everything we were doing too. There are plenty of ways of getting around satellites and they cant look everywhere all the time.

This again is not true. It is not a new story. It was originally reported before we even went into Iraq. Here is one such article discussing this. There are many more.

Please do not confuse your suppositions of what you feel is fact with actual hard evidence.

FL Independent Actually Pam it is not hard.

For starters you got my name wrong. Next the story is nothing like the headline. The story is about the Bush bungling.

Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material. Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said. "That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there." The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.

This isn't news. They left the weapons unguarded and surprise, the $#%^ disappeared. To revive this now as WMD's in Syria, seriously makes me wonder what you're thinking. I used your source.

This "new" Syria story is a ROVE JOKE. That means it's not funny for anyone who focuses on facts..

Well Pamela,

As I said, it was not news the story is old. You can find 3, more relevant, links Here. That one particular link may not have been the best example.

As for all the other points I guess you didnt have else to say on the other points I mentioned. If you do, please provide the links to prove that Karl Rove made this up as a joke. I would like to see the facts you are so focused on. That way you dont have to wonder what Im thinking and I dont have to do the same about you.

Pamela, you need to realize that Satelite technology can NOT do all the things you saw every week on Alias.

Why is so hard to believe?

This cartoon helps illustrate part of the reason (warning must be member or watch ad).

Of course, the biggest reason not to believe is that no concrete evidence has been shown to support it. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars looking for WMDs, used thousands of experts and searched for over 3 years and this kind of unsubstantiated theory is supposed to be believed from a guy who hasnt been in power since the first gulf war who is hawking books and has everything to gain from selling his theories, yet provides no real evidence?

My question to you, is how do you find it so easy to believe based upon so little? Would you believe it if didnt fit with your political and ideological outlook? Sure its theoretically possible it might be true, but even its completely true, it still doesnt support the case made for war against Iraq which included tons of WMDs, manufactureing facilities and phantom mushroom clouds. Even if were true that a few WMDs were found would that make everything perfectly justfied and all better?

So basically you feel the administration has cried wolf too many times so when something is true (and not saying this is) then we no longer believe them. Thats valid. They have more screwed up a great many things in Iraq since the war was "won." I am one of the first to saw they have so botched and mismanaged efforts after we got Saddam its amazing the Iraqi's arent killing our soldiers in the streets. But then again, I am not there seeing what is actually going on. Neither are you. You, just like me and everyone here, only get the information the media feeds to us.

As to how many effort, expense, man power, etc that we have spent towards actually looking for WMD's I do not know, and my guess is you are make assumptions on it, but you are probably relatively correct. However, again, it was reported before we initially went in that several caravans of trucks left Iraq and went into Syria. All the events surrounding that movement at the time was highly suspicious.

How do I find it easy to believe? It fits in with Saddams MO and would make perfect sense. It is something that I would very possibly do if I was in Saddams place at that time. Additionally I am sure I can bury things in the desert of his country (which is very big) that no one would find for decades. After all the pyramids were buried for several hundred years before anyone found them and they are quite large.

Would I believe it if it didnt fit into my political outlook? I couldnt possibly tell you that. I generally take things on a case by case basis, look at the facts and elements of what happened, who is involved etc and draw conclusions based on the best evidence I have at the time.

Even if it were all true, would it justify things? No not really. I dont think we should have gone in when we did. I felt military action was necessary since resolutions meant nothing and after all the resolutions and 12 years of nothing getting done, which set a really bad example. But I do not think it was necessary at the time. However, that is all moot for the most part because we are there and we need to make sure we get it right otherwise it will become a terrorist hotbed and be an even worse problem in the near future. We have no choice at this point.

After everything is stable and secure there, I think we can afford the time and luxury to wax academic about how we got in there and all that. But right now we gotta make sure it gets done right so we dont create a bigger problem for the future.

After everything is stable and secure there, I think we can afford the time and luxury to wax academic about how we got in there and all that. But right now we gotta make sure it gets done right so we dont create a bigger problem for the future.

Unfortunately we may be waiting a long time indeed before everything is stable and secure.

How does speculation about WMDs perhaps being shipped to Syria help make sure things are done right? Assuming Syria has some WMDs what does the US do about it? Do we invade Syria if they have WMDs from Iraq? Is that the solution to all of our problems? When do we invade North Korea or China or...?

Please KAI, change the headline. You don't offer ANYTHING here to justify the headline. It's not even journalism when you do this. This is like a hopeful diary entry.

Maybe just a misspelled word. Instead of n-e-w, it's actually spelled n-o.

He was probably on the CIA payroll, being the chief advisor to Allawi, who was a US intell agent.

Now, consider the source himself. He has a book he's promoting. He has his own website to book speaking engagements. His co-author was with Charles Colson's think tank. He gets promoted on right wing sites like Newsmax.

All in all, he is probably as credible as Ahmed Chalabi.

The incident of 8 May should be enough to shut up the WMDers. Rumsfeld arn away from this story with his tail stuck between its legs.

I have this bridge over in Brooklyn at a good price.

Tell me more.

That depends entirely upon which Bush you're talking about. President Bush? Well... not directly, no.

Greg - I think you posted this in the wrong thread. Iraq, Syria, and the whole deal with WMDs have literally nothing to do with Colbert's Wikipedia joke.

Do you really not see that the repeatedly harping on the existence of unproven WMDs is a form of wikiality?

Anyway, that's what I think. And I don't mean to make light of this issue. I take it dead seriously.

With comments like this one, can there be any doubt that people are fashioning their whole belief system on hearsay?

Well Newsvine isn't, strictly speaking, a Wiki -- but ok, I see your point.

Now that you've made that clearer, I can see how that might be a valid point.

"There... are... FOUR LIGHTS!"

Yes Picard, there are 4 lights.