WMD in Syria.

[NewGuy]

A reprint for those who don't want to look in the 5 page thread by a different name to find the info. I am going to delete it from there so it is not redundant:

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
NewGuy, debka.com looks like an interesting site, but I couldn't find the reporting about weapons into Syria. I clicked on the history of the US-Iraq war, then I went to day 1, then clicked "in full" and I came up with nothing. Its such a big site you'll have to give me a direct link.

From http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=448 on 3/24/03:

The state of play is far from cut and dried on the western front as well. Although joint American and British forces were in control of western Iraq, including the big H-2 and H-3 air bases, by Saturday midday, still ahead of them is the major task of occupying and cleaning up the Iraqi-Syrian border sector, the site of hidden Iraqi stores of surface missile batteries and unconventional weapons systems capable of reaching Israel. DEBKAfile’s military sources report these weapons are maintained on transporters and can be whisked at a moments notice over the border into Syria and out of reach, although it is only a matter of time before they are destroyed even there.

From http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=456

DEBKAfile’s military sources reveal that, in a further attempt to prevent Iraqi missiles secreted in eastern Syria from reaching western Iraqi for launching against Israel, American special forces took control of the highway connecting Al Qaim in western Iraq to Abu Kamal in southeast Syria. At the same time, the main highway from Mosul to Syria via Sinjar was left open to traffic – possibly as a hint to Saddam Hussein and his sons that they still have the option of escaping to Syria and thus bring the war to an end.

Then this: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=464, http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=465, http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=466, http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=471, http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=515

There was one with all the information compiled with all of the maps and such in the first or second week, but I couldn't seem to find it. These ought to get you started.

 

[NewGuy]

More to fuel the syria thing:

The Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s disclosure in a Channel Two TV interview Tuesday night, December 24, of information that Iraq is hiding some of its chemical and biological weapons in Syria to keep them from UN inspectors, is of relevance to this objective. Although he stressed that the information needs verifying, Sharon’s choice of this moment to make the information public will be taken in Damascus as a hands-off warning against interfering with the Turkish advance into Iraq.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=228

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

And, we cannot forget this:

Thursday, 30-Oct-2003 1:31PM Story from United Press International
Copyright 2003 by United Press International (via ClariNet)

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

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence officials Wednesday released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been transferred to neighboring Syria.

The officials, in the first assessment of its kind, said the transfer occurred during the weeks prior to the U.S.-led war against the Saddam Hussein regime.

Middle East Newsline reported the U.S. assessment was based on satellite images of convoys of Iraqi trucks that poured into Syria during February and March. U.S. intelligence officials say the trucks contained missiles and WMD components banned by the U.N.'s Security Council.

http://www.softcom.net/webnews/wed/ap/Uus-iraqiwmd.RLj__DOT.html

 

[NewGuy]

No comments PJ?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I think its interesting and I'll keep it in mind. However, I don't know how credible all the sites are. When I get some freetime I'll start looking through them.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
I think its interesting and I'll keep it in mind. However, I don't know how credible all the sites are. When I get some freetime I'll start looking through them.

Here's a background on the one source that softcom lists, UPI.

http://www.upi.com/history.htm

They seem to have been established for a pretty long time.

Here's the background on Debka.

http://www.debka.com/doc/about.php

A much younger group respectively but they seem to have established a good independent base of journalism.

 

[jimnyc]

In my opinion, Debka is beyond reproach with their news reporting. They aren't biased in anyway at all and have lots of inside scoops from around the world. Fair and balanced. Again, just my opinion.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by jimnyc
In my opinion, Debka is beyond reproach with their news reporting. They aren't biased in anyway at all and have lots of inside scoops from around the world. Fair and balanced. Again, just my opinion.

I wholeheartedly agree. Their credentials are backed up by undisputed fact that sometimes only comes to light years later.

Most of the time, the most wacko stuff that appears really seems so because they are the only source reporting it. -Then you find others jump on the bandwagon when it is politically advantagous for some politican, and a few years down the road, the facts prove debka right.

I go there first for anything involving the mid-east.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I go there first for anything involving the mid-east.

Exactly, that's their strong point.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

After reading through Debka, they seem to be a great site. I'll add this into my list of sites I check everyday for news.

On the Syria point, it seems very likely they were moved there, but I don't see any info on how much was moved there. Right now I see this as a possibility along with that the weapons could have been destroyed in the first place, buried, or the scientists just didn't make the weapons. Of course it could be a combination of all 4.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
After reading through Debka, they seem to be a great site. I'll add this into my list of sites I check everyday for news.

On the Syria point, it seems very likely they were moved there, but I don't see any info on how much was moved there. Right now I see this as a possibility along with that the weapons could have been destroyed in the first place, buried, or the scientists just didn't make the weapons. Of course it could be a combination of all 4.

Read ALL the references.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
After reading through Debka, they seem to be a great site. I'll add this into my list of sites I check everyday for news.

On the Syria point, it seems very likely they were moved there, but I don't see any info on how much was moved there. Right now I see this as a possibility along with that the weapons could have been destroyed in the first place, buried, or the scientists just didn't make the weapons. Of course it could be a combination of all 4.

Here's a question for ya PJ. If it is proven that Bush was right and Iraq did possess WMDs that were moved into syria or buried or destroyed, would you still feel that Bush has betrayed you? Would you still have a strong sentiment to vote against him even though he was truthful in everything he presented to you? Just curious.

I just know alot of the Democrats and liberals out there just follow party lines and rhetoric so they plan on voting against Bush anyway. But ive noticed that you tried to make a case for Kerry the other day based on the fact that you felt you couldnt trust Bush. So im wondering if this would change your stance at all.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Here's a question for ya PJ. If it is proven that Bush was right and Iraq did possess WMDs that were moved into syria or buried or destroyed, would you still feel that Bush has betrayed you? Would you still have a strong sentiment to vote against him even though he was truthful in everything he presented to you? Just curious.

I place the blame on the Bush admin and Tenet. Obviously everything they presented wasn't truthful, Rumsfeld said they knew where the WMD were, "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."
If it were possible that the Bush admin was totally right on everything presented, then I would admit I was wrong, apologize, but my opinion of the misleading is only a part of why I'll be voting against Bush.

I just know alot of the Democrats and liberals out there just follow party lines and rhetoric so they plan on voting against Bush anyway. But ive noticed that you tried to make a case for Kerry the other day based on the fact that you felt you couldnt trust Bush. So im wondering if this would change your stance at all.

I never follow party lines. On every issue I look at the facts and decide my position. Its possible my stance could change, but that is as likely as satan waking up on a cold morning.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
On every issue I look at the facts...

...and then make the decision which is in the worst interest of America, cuz it's an evil empire.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
...and then make the decision which is in the worst interest of America, cuz it's an evil empire.

nah, its only a FEW of you bad eggs that cause us to look evil.

 

[deaddude]

"...and then make the decision which is in the worst interest of America, cuz it's an evil empire."


Not all liberals believe that America is an evil empire and not all concervatives think its perfect, most people are somewhere in the middle, just a few steps to the left or right, some are just alittle farther to the side than others.

A Liberal is just an advocate of change, if the changes they want happen they often swing to the right and become moderates or conservatives.

 

[Annie]

Gee Palestinian Jew, even Kerry isn't that sure of WMD:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/023bxpts.asp

"We May Yet Find Them"
Watching John Kerry tackle the issue of weapons of mass destruction.
by Hugh Hewitt
04/29/2004 12:00:00 AM


AFTER TRAIN WRECKS on Meet the Press and Good Morning America, John Kerry took his tattered credibility to the friendly confines of Hardball, where a sympathetic and compliant Chris Matthews did his very best to help Kerry make it through at least one interview without wandering into bizarre asides, prolix dependent clauses, and baffling hedges.

Chris Matthews failed. On the bizarre side of the ledger, Kerry ended the interview by bringing up the fact that Karen Hughes had been born in Paris. Matthews was confused by this sudden turn of events and first indicated the interest that accompanies the revelation of a genuinely important fact, only to retreat into a forced laugh when Kerry indicated that he had made a joke.

The exchange of importance involved the invasion of Iraq and the WMD controversy. Here it is in its entirety:


Matthews: If there was an exaggeration of WMD, exaggeration of the danger, exaggeration implicitly of the connection to al Qaeda and 9/11, what's the motive for this, what's the "why?" Why did Bush and Cheney and the ideologues around take us to war? Why do you think they did it?

Kerry: It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue, and--we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear: Who knows if a month from now, you find some weapons. You may. But you certainly didn't find them where they said they were, and you certainly didn't find them in the quantities that they said they were. And they weren't found, and I have talked to some soldiers who have come back who trained against the potential of artillery delivery, because artillery was the way they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew they could deliver. Now we found nothing that is evidence of that kind of delivery, so the fact is that as you peel it away I think it comes down to this larger ideological and neocon concept of fundamental change in the region and who knows whether there are other motives with respect to Saddam Hussein, but they did it because they thought they could, and because they misjudged exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with.


Kerry's answer is a jungle of dependent clauses and asides, but it deserves intense focus. Put aside the obvious reference to the left's theory that Bush took out Saddam to avenge Hussein's assassination attempt on the first President Bush, as well as the reference to the "neocons," which is verbal comfort food to the anti-Semitic loons in the audience. Let's take Kerry seriously for once.

Kerry acknowledges that WMD may yet be found. This admission destroys the left's critique of the war and months of "Bush lied!" rantings from the MoveOn.org swamp. Kerry knows what everyone with a memory knows: which is that Saddam had WMD and the world agreed he had them. Perhaps they were destroyed, perhaps hidden, perhaps trucked to Syria, but he had them. Thank you, Mr. Kerry, for your only contribution to the public's understanding of the war to date.

No sooner does he admit that the entire attack on Bush's credibility is a contrived, election-year stunt, then he goes on to fumble the issue by suggesting that only WMD in artillery shells matter to us, and that artillery was the only means available to Saddam to deliver WMD.

Two points, minor and major.

The minor point is that Saddam attack the Kurds in 1988 using chemical weapons delivered from planes. Kerry's statement that "artillery was the way they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew they could deliver" is flat wrong. It is also easy to spot, and easy for the public to understand since they remember SCUDs hitting Israel in 1991.

The major point is that WMDs alarm us not only or even primarily when they are in artillery shells but when they are in the hands of terrorists. Had Chris Matthews been interested in actually asking a question that would have obliged the senator to show some thought, he would have inquired as to how much ricin is too much, or how great a biological threat has to exist in the lab before we take action.

Kerry's answer tells us that he fails to grasp the crucial issue of this campaign: the threat to America has changed, and our response has to change with it. Sure, he gave up a huge issue by admitting that WMD may yet be found in a transparent attempt to position himself against the possibility of their discovery before November, but more important than that admission is Kerry's display of what can only be called ignorance of the threat.

We should not be surprised. In his long career, Kerry has misjudged the threats posed by the Vietcong, the Soviets, the Sandinistas, and just about every other enemy the United States has faced. Now he has misjudged the threat posed by WMDs. Is America going to elect a "hear no evil, see no evil" president in the middle of a war that could go on for years to come?


Hugh Hewitt is the host of The Hugh Hewitt Show, a nationally syndicated radio talkshow, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard. His new book, In, But Not Of, has just been published by Thomas Nelson.



© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Gee Palestinian Jew, even Kerry isn't that sure of WMD:

LOL, that because Kerry is a stupid bastard who has to keep all his bases covered, speaking his mind isn't something Kerry normally does.

 

[Annie]

Gee, I thought it might be because of this:

http://reviewappeal.midsouthnews.com/news.ez?viewStory=21379

or this:

http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_3462.shtml

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
LOL, that because Kerry is a stupid bastard who has to keep all his bases covered, speaking his mind isn't something Kerry normally does.

And yet your still gonna vote for him.