Obama Continues To Impress

[bk1983]

What about this guy's story?


Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun


Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
By IRA STOLL, Staff Reporter of the Sun | January 26, 2006
SHARE|PRINT|EMAIL
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

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

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

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

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."

The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a U.N. investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the U.N. investigation.

The State Department recently granted visas for self-proclaimed opponents of Mr. Assad to attend a "Syrian National Council" meeting in Washington scheduled for this weekend, even though the attendees include communists, Baathists, and members of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood group to the exclusion of other, more mainstream groups.

Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.

"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines outside Iraq.

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.

"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."

more at link

Sorry but I dont find 1 source from Saddam's regime to ever be credible.

 

[DiveCon]

Sada's story was never able to be confirmed

 

[bk1983]

I didn't degrade you. YOU degraded another member of this board calling him a chickenhawk.

I merely asked you a question.

Want to tell me who I am partisan to, btw? I didn't agree with decision to invade Iraq and you won't find me saying otherwise on this, nor any other message board, but you WILL find that I disagreed with it and why in quite a few places on THIS one.

But I'm not going to blind myself to the facts just to support that opinion. I can make that opinion stand on its own.

Saddam had WMDs, he used them, and there are tons unaccounted for with the UN, and we didn't know otherwise until we were actually in country.

And kudos to you for having been there done that.

Well I didnt take "willfully blind partisan hack" to be a compliment from you. And the chickenhawk comment I made was done out of me getting heated. I have had people online who have never been in combat in iraq tell me for the last 4 years they know more about the situation there then me. That does get on my nerves from time to time, I am working on it

 

[DiveCon]

Well I didnt take "willfully blind partisan hack" to be a compliment from you. And the chickenhawk comment I made was done out of me getting heated. I have had people online who have never been in combat in iraq tell me for the last 4 years they know more about the situation there then me. That does get on my nerves from time to time, I am working on it

ya know, it IS possible that someone NOT there could know about something YOU didnt deal with because THEY had contact with those that DID
isnt it?

 

[bk1983]

ya know, it IS possible that someone NOT there could know about something YOU didnt deal with because THEY had contact with those that DID
isnt it?

Of course its possible, but the mere masses who I have dealt with online did not have these supposed connections. They were just telling me stuff they heard on the news, or whatever the popular opinion was at the time. If someone had greater intelligence for whatever reason then I would have no problem with that. At one time everyone was saying how the Iraqi's just love us and view the military as liberators. My experience with the majority of the people are for the most part they seem to have good intentions. But the nice one's have the genuine factor as a car salesman. They loved us while handing out candy and water to the people, they would share their stories with me and family photos. Then later on that week or night I would catch these same "friendly people" trying to plant an IED or launch mortar attacks from outside our gate. I also find it to be comedic that people think the sunni's,shia,or kurds will ever get along, talk to the 3 groups and you will see what I mean.

 

[Gunny]

Well I didnt take "willfully blind partisan hack" to be a compliment from you. And the chickenhawk comment I made was done out of me getting heated. I have had people online who have never been in combat in iraq tell me for the last 4 years they know more about the situation there then me. That does get on my nerves from time to time, I am working on it

Don't feel lonely. I just had your backup tell me the fact I'd been there didn't matter.

However, I disagree with it from either side. No, being there doesn't make us experts on everything Iraq. However, it does give us an edge from our respective perspectives. I will also point out I have not been in Iraq during this current war/occupation/political debacle. I was in the First Gulf War, and have been to Kuwait on more than a couple occasions since, throughout the 90s. I retired in 2000.

The fact is, WMDs are a nonfactor, IMO. The President of the US was legally justified in resuming hostilities with Iraq the first time he violated the ceasefire agreement he signed, and each and every time since.

I don't like the WMD argument for the main reason that only after-the-fact confirmation proves; albeit, inconclusively that he did not posess many if any operational WMDs at the time of the invasion.

However, we did not invade in 91 for several political reasons, and for a very important strategic one: Saddam was the wedge between the Sunni and the Shia. Deposing him created the exact factional infighting with the fighters being supplied by Saudi Arabia and Iran that was predicted then. That strategic situation had not changed from 91 -03.

So, I believe Bush had legal justification to invade, but also believe the decision to invade to be the wrong one. It upset the balance of power, and it engaged us on another front while we we were already engaged in a war in Afghanistan. IMO, one does not voluntarily open a second front.

 

[bk1983]

Don't feel lonely. I just had your backup tell me the fact I'd been there didn't matter.

However, I disagree with it from either side. No, being there doesn't make us experts on everything Iraq. However, it does give us an edge from our respective perspectives. I will also point out I have not been in Iraq during this current war/occupation/political debacle. I was in the First Gulf War, and have been to Kuwait on more than a couple occasions since, throughout the 90s. I retired in 2000.

The fact is, WMDs are a nonfactor, IMO. The President of the US was legally justified in resuming hostilities with Iraq the first time he violated the ceasefire agreement he signed, and each and every time since.

I don't like the WMD argument for the main reason that only after-the-fact confirmation proves; albeit, inconclusively that he did not posess many if any operational WMDs at the time of the invasion.

However, we did not invade in 91 for several political reasons, and for a very important strategic one: Saddam was the wedge between the Sunni and the Shia. Deposing him created the exact factional infighting with the fighters being supplied by Saudi Arabia and Iran that was predicted then. That strategic situation had not changed from 91 -03.

So, I believe Bush had legal justification to invade, but also believe the decision to invade to be the wrong one. It upset the balance of power, and it engaged us on another front while we we were already engaged in a war in Afghanistan. IMO, one does not voluntarily open a second front.

I agree on the point you made regarding Saddam's influence on the Sunni and Shia. We are trying to play moderator between the factions, and no matter who we help one side or another will always claim we are being unfair and biased. The United States cannot equally represent all the parties in the current civil and regional war. So no matter what we do, we are angering another faction within.

 

[Zoomie1980]

God this is so fucking classic.

Two of Bush's own top WMD inspectors, Kay and Duelfer, said no WMD was found, the country has been gone over with a fine tooth comb for 6 years, every Iraqi scientist has been interrogated....

....and some two time bush voters says she read something "in the news somewhere", but can't remember what it was, but she's certain we found WMD.

The "war" (it was never a war...) was NEVER about WMDs. That was just something used to sell it to masses.

What it was, was a STRATEGIC move to SURROUND Iran and set up two puppet governments to ISOLATE Iran, and at the same time, establish major us Airbases from which to project power into resource rich Central Asia in order to DENY ACCESS to this region to India and China and to provide a counterweight to Russian aggression to rebuild the Soviet Empire....

This is what Iraq AND Afghanistan are REALLY about. It's old Soviet concept known as Geopolitik. Look it up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

well if they were they are just "stories" all the credible reports have the same conclusion NO wmd's. chemical muntions have been found which some republican senators have taken upon themselves to label as WMD but that was done for political purposes and debunked by intelligence officials. even the white house denied that those reports and findings are any indication of WMD presence.

Actually, the stories were that the reports had deliberately hidden information about WMDs found, so it's a little silly to triumphantly point to reports as trumping the stories when the stories are that the reports were less than forthcoming.

On the other hand, this is from the people who looked right at reports listing WMDs found, and translated that into "NO WMDS!" because there were fewer than expected. So I'm not really expecting anything resembling coherence or rationality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So your supposed news report that you didn't pay a great deal of attention to is the reason why you dont have a clue. Try investigate the matter further so that you have a greater understanding. Dont blame the left for the CIA and White House findings, go find out yourself.

Actually, you crass, ill-mannered boor, I was having an idle conversation with someone I like - who certainly wasn't you - about whether or not we remembered there being something in the news recently. I was not discussing your favorite, spittle-flecked anti-Bush conspiracy theory, nor was I discussing ANYTHING with you, and now, I never will, because you are clearly unworthy of EVER commanding that much of my attention.

I can't decide at this point whether or not your utterly uncalled-for, raving hostility is because you don't get laid, or the reason you don't get laid. Either way, congratulations for being my fastest troll ignore on the board so far.

FLUSH!

 

[Cecilie1200]

God this is so fucking classic.

Two of Bush's own top WMD inspectors, Kay and Duelfer, said no WMD was found, the country has been gone over with a fine tooth comb for 6 years, every Iraqi scientist has been interrogated....

....and some two time bush voters says she read something "in the news somewhere", but can't remember what it was, but she's certain we found WMD.

That's right, it IS classic. Two people idly discuss whether or not there was a recent news article, and two foaming, wild-eyed BDS attack dogs lunge in, having some sort of epileptic fit at the chance to savage someone for DARING to defend Bush, despite the fact that that wasn't happening.

Maybe you should wait until I try to prove something, let alone try to prove it to YOU or even to address it to you, before you go off the fucking deep end hollering about how "that doesn't prove anything". Because believe me, chica, when I'm ready to seriously prove something to you instead of just chatting with my friend, you'll know it by the flat of my hand upside the back of your thick blockhead.

Now you and your butt buddy, BK, get your ignorant, dipshit asses to Lunatic Limbo, because neither one of you is worth the leavings in my soiled Kleenexes.

FLUSH!

 

[DiveCon]

DefenseLink News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

 

[editec]

Chemical weapons are NOT weapons of MASS destruction.

The only weapons which really live up to that scary title of weapons of MASS destruction are nuclear weapons.

Yeah, yeah, I know the United Nations calls chemical weapons mass destrutive, but they're not.

 

[WillowTree]

That's right, it IS classic. Two people idly discuss whether or not there was a recent news article, and two foaming, wild-eyed BDS attack dogs lunge in, having some sort of epileptic fit at the chance to savage someone for DARING to defend Bush, despite the fact that that wasn't happening.

Maybe you should wait until I try to prove something, let alone try to prove it to YOU or even to address it to you, before you go off the fucking deep end hollering about how "that doesn't prove anything". Because believe me, chica, when I'm ready to seriously prove something to you instead of just chatting with my friend, you'll know it by the flat of my hand upside the back of your thick blockhead.

Now you and your butt buddy, BK, get your ignorant, dipshit asses to Lunatic Limbo, because neither one of you is worth the leavings in my soiled Kleenexes.

FLUSH!

well doggone Cecille,, you are one fine little lady,,

 

[WillowTree]

Chemical weapons are NOT weapons of MASS destruction.

The only weapons which really live up to that scary title of weapons of MASS destruction are nuclear weapons.

Yeah, yeah, I know the United Nations calls chemical weapons mass destrutive, but they're not.

did you send the UN a memo?

 

[DiamondDave]

Yeah... Sarin, etc... not weapons of mass destruction... no different than a vial of arsenic to dump into a cup of coffee

WoMD are not just nukes....

 

[Navy1960]

I have a very serious question for my democrat friends, I did ask my daughter this very same question as she was a very big supporter of President-elect Obama during the election and now. The "Change" message, do you find it surprising that he has for the most part is rebuilding a Clinton Administration and was this what you had in mind when he was talkng about bringing "Change" to Washington? I ask this only because in my mind , I was always under the impression that this message meant he was bringing all new faces into the Executive Branch so I find it some what surprising that he would bring back what can admittedly be a few people with some questionable issues in their collective pasts to draw attention away from what is going to be a very tough first few years for him to get the economy righted. While I am impressed with his choice for Treasury Sec. , I'm a bit confused as to the switch from the campaign as least from what I can see.

 

[Navy1960]

Chemical weapons are NOT weapons of MASS destruction.

The only weapons which really live up to that scary title of weapons of MASS destruction are nuclear weapons.

Yeah, yeah, I know the United Nations calls chemical weapons mass destrutive, but they're not.

The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period March 16–17, 1988, during the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons (CW) were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja, killing thousands of people, most of them civilians (3,200-5,000 dead on the spot and 7,000-10,000 injured[1]). Thousands more died of horrific complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[2]

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death by gas was often slow and painful. According to Denis Winter (Death's Men, 1978), a fatal dose of phosgene eventually led to "shallow breathing and retching, pulse up to 120, an ashen face and the discharge of four pints (2 liters) of yellow liquid from the lungs each hour for the 48 of the drowning spasms."


John Singer Sargent's 1918 painting Gassed.A common fate of those exposed to gas was blindness, chlorine gas or mustard gas being the main causes. One of the most famous First World War paintings, Gassed by John Singer Sargent, captures such a scene of mustard gas casualties which he witnessed at a dressing station at Le Bac-du-Sud near Arras in July 1918. (The gasses used during that battle (tear gas) caused temporary blindness and/or a painful stinging in the eyes. These bandages were normally water-soaked to provide a rudimentary form of pain relief to the eyes of casualties before they reached more organized medical help.)


Estimated gas casualties[35] Nation Fatal Non-fatal
Russia 56,000 419,340
Germany 9,000 200,000
France 8,000 190,000
British Empire (includes Canada) 8,109 188,706
Austria-Hungary 3,000 100,000
USA 1,462 72,807
Italy 4,627 60,000
Total 88,498 1,240,853

Poison gas in World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really?

 

[del]

The "war" (it was never a war...) was NEVER about WMDs. That was just something used to sell it to masses.

What it was, was a STRATEGIC move to SURROUND Iran and set up two puppet governments to ISOLATE Iran, and at the same time, establish major us Airbases from which to project power into resource rich Central Asia in order to DENY ACCESS to this region to India and China and to provide a counterweight to Russian aggression to rebuild the Soviet Empire....

This is what Iraq AND Afghanistan are REALLY about. It's old Soviet concept known as Geopolitik. Look it up.

how's that working out for the USSR?
oops

 

[Chris]

I have a very serious question for my democrat friends, I did ask my daughter this very same question as she was a very big supporter of President-elect Obama during the election and now. The "Change" message, do you find it surprising that he has for the most part is rebuilding a Clinton Administration and was this what you had in mind when he was talkng about bringing "Change" to Washington? I ask this only because in my mind , I was always under the impression that this message meant he was bringing all new faces into the Executive Branch so I find it some what surprising that he would bring back what can admittedly be a few people with some questionable issues in their collective pasts to draw attention away from what is going to be a very tough first few years for him to get the economy righted. While I am impressed with his choice for Treasury Sec. , I'm a bit confused as to the switch from the campaign as least from what I can see.

It is a change from incompetence to competence.