Iraqi WMD mystery solved?

[sgtmac_46]

According to former Iraqi Vice Air Marshall, George Sada, Saddam Hussein moved his WMD stockpiles to Syria in 2002.

Sada contends that Saddam took advantage of a June 4, 2002, irrigation dam collapse in Zeyzoun, Syria, to ship the weapons under cover of an aid project to the flooded region.

"[Saddam] said 'Okay, Iraq is going to do an air bridge to help Syria," Sada recounted. Two commercial jets, a 747 and 727, were converted to cargo jets, in order to carry raw materials and equipment related to WMD projects, Sada said. The passenger seats, galleys, toilets and storage compartments were removed and new flooring was installed, he claimed. Hundreds of tons of chemicals were reportedly included in the cargo shipments.

Being one of Saddam Hussein's former generals, George Sada might have an inside track. He certainly had access and was in the right place.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

According to former Iraqi Vice Air Marshall, George Sada, Saddam Hussein moved his WMD stockpiles to Syria in 2002.



Being one of Saddam Hussein's former generals, George Sada might have an inside track. He certainly had access and was in the right place.

Listen, if Hussein didn't USE them even to save his regime and ultimately his life, than what sort of threat were they? Don't give me that he'd give them to terrorists - that was suicide and Bin Laden, et. al. hated him almost as much as they hate the U.S. I'm sorry, but, IMO, you are grasping at straws. Whether you think we should be in Iraq or not, the evidence that the Admin. grossly exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq is indisputable for those willing to see it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I thought we "knew" they had them, knew where they were, and it was the main reason for switching gears from the pursuit of Osama to a ground war in Iraq. I mean, I remember Dubya commenting on this, General Colon telling the UN about them, detailed satellite photos of blurry gray spots and cigar shapes that were "obviously" tankers, missiles, etc. So, the Iraqi's managed to fool both the Brits and the US, and were telling the truth back at the wars start?

Wow. Guess Georgie made a mistake. Think it's too late to give it all back and say "sorry"?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Listen, if Hussein didn't USE them even to save his regime and ultimately his life, than what sort of threat were they? Don't give me that he'd give them to terrorists - that was suicide and Bin Laden, et. al. hated him almost as much as they hate the U.S. I'm sorry, but, IMO, you are grasping at straws. Whether you think we should be in Iraq or not, the evidence that the Admin. grossly exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq is indisputable for those willing to see it.

So you're assertion is that it, now, doesn't matter if they DID have them? Seems the standard keeps changing.

I'll tell you what it mattered. Part of the conditions set for the cease fire of the first Gulf war was those having to do with destroy WMD. If he still had them stockpiled, and was still researching nuclear weapons technology, then he was STILL at war with the US, as he was violating the conditions of the first cease fire. If we have no intention of holding someone like Saddam to the standards of their agreement, then we should resign ourselves to the dustbin of history.

Now, there is no 'grasping at straws' if Saddam DID have WMD, as that was the point (or was alleged to have been the point). We have information about what happened to the WMD. If Saddam did maintain WMD, your 'exaggeration of threat' is entirely irrelavent. The threat was EXACTLY what it was said to be....a rogue dictator who maintained his WMD inventory, in preparation of his release from sanctions.

That the enemies of the Administration parroted "Where's the WMD, where's the WMD" I thought it might be interesting to discuss what some of Saddam's hi-ranking Generals have said about where the WMD is. Of course, if we do locate the WMD, those same people will simply say "Doesn't matter, we still went to war for the wrong reasons" because they really don't care what the evidence is.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I thought we "knew" they had them, knew where they were, and it was the main reason for switching gears from the pursuit of Osama to a ground war in Iraq. I mean, I remember Dubya commenting on this, General Colon telling the UN about them, detailed satellite photos of blurry gray spots and cigar shapes that were "obviously" tankers, missiles, etc. So, the Iraqi's managed to fool both the Brits and the US, and were telling the truth back at the wars start?

Wow. Guess Georgie made a mistake. Think it's too late to give it all back and say "sorry"?

First of all nobody 'switched gears' from a 'pursuit of bin Laden'. That's a myth perpetrated for political reasons. We have been, are continuing to pursue bin Laden.

Second, the evidence suggests that Saddam continued to maintain WMD until the 11th hour, and then HID them. Hardly 'He didn't have them'. Hiding your toys, is not the same as not having them in the first place.

The truth is that those who dislike the administration, could care less about the WMD. If we found it, they would complain, if we didn't find it, they had even more to complain about. If we can conclusively show what happened to it, and that it was hidden, it's irrelavent to those people. However, there are those who haven't already made up their political views years ago, who might find it interesting to know that there is growing evidence to suggest that Saddam's WMD went exactly where many already said it went.....Syria.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

So you're assertion is that it, now, doesn't matter if they DID have them? Seems the standard keeps changing.

I'll tell you what it mattered. Part of the conditions set for the cease fire of the first Gulf war was those having to do with destroy WMD. If he still had them stockpiled, and was still researching nuclear weapons technology, then he was STILL at war with the US, as he was violating the conditions of the first cease fire. If we have no intention of holding someone like Saddam to the standards of their agreement, then we should resign ourselves to the dustbin of history.

Not at all. We knew that the majority of Saddam's WMD had been verifiably destroyed (98%) and the other two percent could be attributed to bad record keeping - ours. Listen, these folks cherry picked their intelligence in order to get a war. Either Iraq was a threat or they were not. History has shown that they WERE NOT.

I truly do not understand apologists for this Administration and its propoganda. The information is out there for those without a political ax to grind. These SOB's lied their behinds off. They were not mistaken, as Fox and assorted right wing media would have you believe - they lied.

He "hid" them in Syria? What threat were they then? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer". Folks LEFT and RIGHT need to read it. Party loyalty is DESTROYING our great Republic. Fiscal irresponsiblity is JUST FINE if a Republican does it. Pissing on the Constitution is just fine if it's done in the name of freedom.

Folks, get a freakin' backbone! Sure we were attacked on 9/11, but the Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave to see that we we were so willing to trade Freedom for Security and to wage Agressive War.

I have never been so disappointed in my countrymen as I am now. We should be immune, or near to it, from propaganda and fear mongering - but apparently not so. Words cannot describe the anger and contempt I have for these lying SOB's who manufacture intelligence to scare the population.

If there were any possible way for me to believe otherwise, I would withhold judgement. There just is no way. SGTMAC, you strike me as a very intelligent, if party line individual. If you would research the build up to war from a non-partisan perspective, I believe that you would have to come to the inevitable conclusion that these people exaggerated and even outright fabricated intelligence in order to get the American people to back a war they had ALREADY decided upon. The information is out there.

 

[michaeledward]

Whew, that's a relief.

Now we can look to the Adminstration to switch back to destroying those Weapons of Mass Destruction when 'Spreading Democracy' in the Middle East turns out to be the disaster it is on track to be.

Hopefully, the American Public will not notice that they have spent more than a Billion Dollars a week to put someone name 'Grand Ayatollah' in charge of Iraq.

History has shown that people named 'Grand Ayatollah' tend to be not very responsive in the democracy department.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sarge, I have to respectfully disagree. Seems Gov. Bush himself made some public comments about neither knowing nor caring where Osama was. Then, there is a more simple formula to look at here. Compare the resources used to topple Sadamn, the shoddy telegenic, the expenditure in manpower to that currently in play in Afghanistan, the last known location of OBL. The focus shifted from hunting down Osama to forcing Sadamn to yield to finding and destroying WMD to toppling an evil dictator to nation building. All the time while contractors and corporate interests get fat on the trough.

In the mean time, Osama's still out there, still alive, and still giving orders. The general American Public has forgotten the guys in Afghanistan, and some even think it was Sadamn, not Osama who attacked on 9/11.

I'm just glad that now, what is it, 2 years or 3 years later we might finally have an idea where those WMD went, after being so certain where they were when this whole ugly forever war was started by the war hawks.

So, will we be tackling Syria next for WMD, or Iran for nuclear missiles? Hmm....decisions decisions. Which has the most resources and is most in need of a McDonalds?

 

[Ray]

The assertion that the WMDs were moved to Syria is not new. It's also not widely circulated in the media I read/watch. I've gathered it's probably not true (although it could be).

There's only one way to be sure. But I think we should put off an invasion of Syria until after the Iraq military action and upcoming Iran invasion.

 

[Bigshadow]

Not at all. We knew that the majority of Saddam's WMD had been verifiably destroyed (98%) and the other two percent could be attributed to bad record keeping - ours. Listen, these folks cherry picked their intelligence in order to get a war. Either Iraq was a threat or they were not. History has shown that they WERE NOT.

Let's not forget Iraq was a threat! Albeit, not to us. Saddam happened to be a threat to one single nearby neighbor. As a matter of fact according to the terms of the surrender, his missiles could not have a range of no more than 98km. This would in fact protect this one particular neighbor but not ALL of Iraq's neighbors. To me it is quite clear what this war is over, it isn't so much about protecting the USA, but our "friends" in the middle east. In my opinion, Iran is next, for the very same reason.

 

[Bigshadow]

In the mean time, Osama's still out there, still alive, and still giving orders. The general American Public has forgotten the guys in Afghanistan, and some even think it was Sadamn, not Osama who attacked on 9/11.

IMHO, They are not interested in finding him, or at least capturing or killing him. That is their fear card. As long as they can keep him caged and Afghanistan is THE poppy exporter, they are ok with that.

It is funny how the government and media have convinced the majority of people that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack. I couldn't tell you how many people I have spoken to who HONESTLY BELIEVE Saddam masterminded the attack and that is why we are in Iraq. :rofl:

 

[michaeledward]

It is funny how the government and media have convinced the majority of people that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack. I couldn't tell you how many people I have spoken to who HONESTLY BELIEVE Saddam masterminded the attack and that is why we are in Iraq.

It's not funny at all.

One needs only look at the President's speeches. When discussing the 'Plan for Victory in Iraq', President Bush references 911 early and often. Look at the State of the Union address. The first half of which dealt with the foreign policy fiasco in Iraq. How often did the President reference 911?

One of the bloggers at Huffington Post set up a clever video called "911 Beat the Clock", guessing how quickly the President would link 911 to, well, everything.

If you say something often enough, even the people who don't pay attention will eventually hear it.

 

[Bigshadow]

It's not funny at all.

Well, I didn't mean it quite like that. It is a serious issue. Those same people think goverment (especially ours) is infallible and all their motives are altruistic. This mindset is common with people inside the goverment, military, etc. I guess it needs to be otherwise there is a conflict of ideals.

The citizens who believe this, NEVER questions the actions of the government or their political parties, their mindset is the government knows best. They are "sleeping". One must question everything.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Not at all. We knew that the majority of Saddam's WMD had been verifiably destroyed (98%) and the other two percent could be attributed to bad record keeping - ours. Listen, these folks cherry picked their intelligence in order to get a war. Either Iraq was a threat or they were not. History has shown that they WERE NOT.

HAHAHAHA. Seems you didn't read my post. This wasn't the administration saying that Saddam hid his arsenal, it was one of SADDAM's GENERALS.....who knows more about the issue than anyone on this board. So what say you about that, other than....'I don't care, because my mind is made up' or 'don't confuse me with the facts, when my theories are so much more palatable.' I guess we grab on to truths, that we refuse to let go of, even when further evidence is presented to the contrary.

What, in essence, you are saying is that it doesn't matter to you whether Saddam maintained large stockpiles of WMD. That, the standard of proof for the administration is 'just a little more than anything we could possibly find'. If we found one nuclear device, the standard would be two. 1,000 canisters of nerve gas, the standard would be 2,000.

At least be honest that you don't care if he had WMD, there is no standard that would be enough.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Whew, that's a relief.

Now we can look to the Adminstration to switch back to destroying those Weapons of Mass Destruction when 'Spreading Democracy' in the Middle East turns out to be the disaster it is on track to be.

Hopefully, the American Public will not notice that they have spent more than a Billion Dollars a week to put someone name 'Grand Ayatollah' in charge of Iraq.

History has shown that people named 'Grand Ayatollah' tend to be not very responsive in the democracy department.

Funny, none of this comes from the 'administration'.....though, I guess anyone who disagrees with you is 'the administration' right?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sarge, I have to respectfully disagree. Seems Gov. Bush himself made some public comments about neither knowing nor caring where Osama was.

Misquoting is not the same thing at all. What Bush said, because I heard him say it, was that finding bin Laden was irrelavent to dismantling al-Qaeda. You can twist that all you like, but you can't really alter what he was saying. Context is everything (or distorting context, on the part of some).

Then, there is a more simple formula to look at here. Compare the resources used to topple Sadamn, the shoddy telegenic, the expenditure in manpower to that currently in play in Afghanistan, the last known location of OBL. The focus shifted from hunting down Osama to forcing Sadamn to yield to finding and destroying WMD to toppling an evil dictator to nation building. All the time while contractors and corporate interests get fat on the trough.

Apples and oranges. Afghanistan is not Iraq, and the resources able to be brought to bear in a mountainous region like Afghanistan are limited. Large mechanized divisions are useless in Afghanistan. We've never stopped looking for bin Laden and his Captains.

In the mean time, Osama's still out there, still alive, and still giving orders. The general American Public has forgotten the guys in Afghanistan, and some even think it was Sadamn, not Osama who attacked on 9/11.

You may have forgotten, but that's an entirely different issue. As for bin Laden, again, nobody has 'forgotten' about him. You can not show me one single bit of evidence to show that we've done anything less than everything possible to find bin Laden, short of physically rooting up Pakistan and Iran.

I'm just glad that now, what is it, 2 years or 3 years later we might finally have an idea where those WMD went, after being so certain where they were when this whole ugly forever war was started by the war hawks.

Again, you don't care. Because those who dislike the administration never cared about the WMD, it was a convenient issue to criticize, but even had it been found, the decision would have been criticized regardless. Of course, contrary to what many of you like to proclaim, this information doesn't come from 'the administration' it comes from one of Saddam's former Generals.

So, will we be tackling Syria next for WMD, or Iran for nuclear missiles? Hmm....decisions decisions. Which has the most resources and is most in need of a McDonalds?

Gee, Bob, sorry if I brought up a little discussion of the truth. If it doesn't matter where large amounts of WMD were sent, if it's irrelavent to you, then we won't discuss it further. It did seem kind of important, but if it's all just trivia to you, I won't mention another word. I'd hate to inconvenience people with such irrelavencies as the hiding of large amounts of WMD. Not when we have bigger agenda's, like Cheney shooting his hunting companion.

 

[Cryozombie]

He "hid" them in Syria? What threat were they then? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

This is the only thing you said I will disagree with JR. ASSUMING this isnt fantasy, and he did hide them in Syria, it doesnt mean they werent a threat. Just not a threat AT THAT MOMENT.

If the Gvmt comes and takes my guns, but I hide some at my friends house, those guns may not be a threat to you when you walk into my house, but they are when I go pick em up and walk into someone elses.

 

[sgtmac_46]

This is the only thing you said I will disagree with JR. ASSUMING he did hide them in Syria, it doesnt mean they werent a threat. Just not a threat AT THAT MOMENT.

If the Gvmt comes and takes my guns, but I hide some at my friends house, those guns may not be a threat to you when you walk into my house, but they are when I go pick em up and walk into someone elses.

Your analogy is completely appropriate. I'm stunned by the 'so-what' attitude of otherwise reasonable people. As if this is just inconvient trivia.

According to the General, he figured the Americans would come, not find the WMD, and he could regain power....then recover the WMD from Syria. He never had any intention of being captured or losing power.

Now, if someone's argument is 'even with WMD, who cares' then so be it. But if their alleged argument is 'Where's the WMD?' then we may have some idea. Is that what happened? That remains to be seen, but it's hardly irrelavent trivia.

 

[Flatlander]

According to former Iraqi Vice Air Marshall, George Sada, Saddam Hussein moved his WMD stockpiles to Syria in 2002.



Being one of Saddam Hussein's former generals, George Sada might have an inside track. He certainly had access and was in the right place.

I'm curious, are we suggesting that George Sada is credible? Based upon what?

Again, you don't care. Because those who dislike the administration never cared about the WMD, it was a convenient issue to criticize, but even had it been found, the decision would have been criticized regardless.

Unfounded supposition. If, if, if, but, moot point. Beyond which, what is the relevance of this statement to the argument?

I guess we grab on to truths, that we refuse to let go of, even when further evidence is presented to the contrary.

Apparently.

 

[michaeledward]

Funny, none of this comes from the 'administration'.....though, I guess anyone who disagrees with you is 'the administration' right?

Slow down, and read my post. I did not say, or intuit, or imply that your claims came from the Administration.

I do note that you don't source the material. You give a generals' name. Kinda like the name of the general on the documents requesting yellowcake from niger.

The United States was tossing "Bricks" of 100 dollar bills at every Saddam General they could find to locate Weapons of Mass Destruction. Literally millions of dollars in bribes were offered and paid out to find the weapons. We came up with a whole bunch of nothing.

David Kay. - Charles Duelfer. Do those names mean anything to you? These guys could have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to secure one tanker truck of weaponized anthrax. Seems to me your General was a sucker for not getting the money.

And you flatter me to acknowlege that my opinion is the same as Mr. Kay and Mr. Duelfer. But, what would they know, right?