Flashback: Chemical Weapons In Syria Include WMDs Shipped From Iraq

Spread the love

Loading

Zip:

The media is fond of saying, without question, that there were no WMDs found in Iraq.

This has always been untrue and easily refuted, if media did anything other than parrot the party line.

The question isn’t about whether there were WMDs. The question has been how have we been letting the media get away with mistating the facts for all these years when ample evidence was there.

As the military reported, after we went into Iraq, chemical weapons, facilities and residue were in fact found, and kept being found for years afterward.

Via NY Post from 2010:

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons arsenal — most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

Note here that the present DNI James Clapper said in 2007 that much of the WMDs in Iraq had in fact been shipped to Syria.

This article notes in detail some of the shipments, that were in fact done with the assistance of Russia:

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

43 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Gee, I thought I already discussed this Greg!

I used to have a friend who worked in Rotterdam.
He sent me translated news when a metal trash-filled tramp steamer from Iraq tested positive for yellowcake.
Turned out the Iraqi businessmen had bought the cans for their metal content and were hoping to be paid for the recyclables in Europe.
This was well after the first Iraqi free election, too, iirc.
So, yeah.

Nice photo. I especially like the imaginative roll-over caption, “wmds being shipped to Syria.”

Can’t anyone think of any other possible reason why a convoy of trucks would have been systematically removing war materials from an Iraqi weapons dump shortly before an imminent U.S. invasion that was a secret from no one?

I really want to believe people are smart enough not to automatically think they’re seeing whatever they’re told that they see. It’s getting harder to believe that.

Gen. Clapper added that there is “no question” that people and WMD materiel were moved by truck convoys into Syria.

Why? Because this guy tells you it’s so? Isn’t this the same James R. Clapper who recently testified under oath before Congress that the National Security Agency doesn’t collect any type of data on hundreds of millions of Americans? As I recall, you didn’t believe him when he said that, and Rand Paul stated that he should resign immediately for having committed perjury.

There sure as hell is a question about the assertion that Iraqi WMDs were spirited away to Syria. There’s no evidence that this happened. Unless you’re willing to accept “evidence” such as the above photo.

@Greg: Can’t anyone think of any other possible reason why a convoy of trucks would have been systematically removing war materials from an Iraqi weapons dump shortly before an imminent U.S. invasion that was a secret from no one?

Obvious to the oblivious observation here. If war was imminent, who in their right mind would get rid of their legal munitions, Greg? Or perhaps you think it was truckloads of the Palace patio furniture?

As noted in the Most Wanted post, current Obama admin play, James Clapper, was saying the illicit munitions were being moved out of Iraq via satellite imagery of non stop convoys way back when. Why to Syria? Could be that’s where the road led, Greg.

So now you don’t even want to believe an Obama appointee? You’re getting to be quite the little island in your own party, guy.

Nice photo. I especially like the imaginative roll-over caption, “wmds being shipped to Syria.”

Maybe this is a result of not knowing much about computers, Greg. But when you name a file which is hotlinked – in this case to the FA image database – a mouse over reveals the name of the file as the author chose to name it. ’tisn’t an off the wall short name. No leader of a nation about to be in a war would divest himself of ammunition and weaponry if he were allowed to have it. And the road leads to Syria….

Then you can include the gutted commercial airliners that Gen. Sada documented were used to transport other materials in addition to the ground convoys. (Note, this is from the Fox interview with Sada. I own his book… something I bet we won’t find on your library shelf, yes?)

A reminder of some of the evidence Powell used, included more than just these satellite photos. Odd that people seem surprised when, after things are relocated out of sight, they aren’t waiting for them when US forces’ boots hit the ground months later, eh?

Obvious to the oblivious observation here. If war was imminent, who in their right mind would get rid of their legal munitions, Greg?

Nobody would be getting rid of their legal munitions. What they would be doing would be decentralizing ordnance away from normal storage points—which would be totally obvious targets for impending air strikes—and distributing it as rapidly as possible to defensive positions where it would be utilized against invading military forces. That’s what the satellite picture most likely shows happening. It’s exactly what would be expected, with an invasion imminent.

I haven’t seen any satellite photos of Iraqi convoys streaming across the border to Syrian drop-off points. I find it highly unlikely that satellite surveillance would have failed to note Iraqi convoys arriving at various Syrian locations. That would have been a subject of enormous interest.

So now you don’t even want to believe an Obama appointee?

Who you can believe isn’t a matter of which side of the fence someone is presently standing on, as I’m sure you full realize. There’s no public figure I believe 100 percent of the time. Sometimes they lie, and sometimes they’re honestly wrong.

A reminder of some of the evidence Powell used, included more than just these satellite photos.

The February 11, 2009 article date is puzzling. A lot of what was taken as “evidence” in 2003 later came under a cloud of doubt. As the article, which I presume actually dates from 2003, concedes, “With no smoking gun, Powell was forced to connect a set of circumstantial dots for the Security Council, reports CBS News Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.” At this point I’ll only consider evidence itself, not the 2003 conclusions that were supposedly based on it. Imaginative dot connecting was used to sell the war, both at home and internationally.

@Greg:

I haven’t seen any satellite photos of Iraqi convoys streaming across the border to Syrian drop-off points. I find it highly unlikely that satellite surveillance would have failed to note Iraqi convoys arriving at various Syrian locations. That would have been a subject of enormous interest.

Greg, let’s say that is true. If there are satellite pictures, then where do those satellite photos show that these trucks went. The satellite photos wouldn’t ‘just exist if the trucks were going to Syria’ they would exist no matter where the trucks went. Where do those photos show these trucks going?

At this point I’ll only consider evidence itself, not the 2003 conclusions that were supposedly based on it. Imaginative dot connecting was used to sell the war, both at home and internationally.

Isn’t that what your guy and his lackey, SOS Lurch are attempting to do now, to ‘connect the dots’ to implicate Syria? I’m watching the tv coverage of Lurch now ‘trying to sell’ his side of the story. It’s his ‘believe me’ attitude that will take us down the road to hell, if we do believe him. what a clown.

Let’s get into a civil war in Syria with no interests of the United States involved. Is that what you are selling Greg?

@Redteam, #6:

Greg, let’s say that is true. If there are satellite pictures, then where do those satellite photos show that these trucks went. The satellite photos would ‘just exist if the trucks were going to Syria’ they would exist no matter where the trucks went. Where do those photos show these trucks going?

I assume that the large convoys dispersed as materials were spread out and delivered to the various defensive locations where Iraqi military strategists calculated that they would be needed and used. I wouldn’t expect them to be re-concentrated anywhere else, since bombing and missile strikes were anticipated.

Isn’t that what your guy and his lackey, SOS Lurch are attempting to do now, to ‘connect the dots’ to implicate Syria?

Secretary of State Kerry is making the case for a limited military response during an open debate in Congress. I find Kerry less worrisome than a number of republicans who advocate far more comprehensive action, and who are obviously looking at this as an opportunity to bring that about. One good thing about the open debate is that the various agendas are being revealed. The dangers of a limited military response are clearly internal as well as external. The Obama administration could lose control, and be unable to resist the pressures for escalation.

Greg, how do you like the photo of Obama in the Oval office with his ‘hand gun’? If he were in kindergarten he would be sent home for ‘playing with a gun’. Kinda childish image, isn’t it?

@Greg: Nobody would be getting rid of their legal munitions. What they would be doing would be decentralizing ordnance away from normal storage points—which would be totally obvious targets for impending air strikes—and distributing it as rapidly as possible to defensive positions where it would be utilized against invading military forces. That’s what the satellite picture most likely shows happening. It’s exactly what would be expected, with an invasion imminent.

You really need to read before you react on a keyboard, Greg. Those were *inspection sites* that were being sanitized before inspectors got there. “Decentralizing?” OMG… We came upon weapons caches, but enough to account for “decentralizing” all this stuff? Get serious. Pie in the sky speculation.

Did you even click on the interview with Sada? Forget that it’s Hannity. I’m with you that he’s a worthless idiot. But I’m not interested in Hannity’s words… Sada’s. And those echo what was in his book. The man knew what was going on during the lead up to OIF. And had you read, you’d know that a lot of cargo was transferred to jets, as well as moving on the ground. I’ll also mention that Sada is related to Assad via marriage. No lack of insight there either.

The February 11, 2009 article date is puzzling. A lot of what was taken as “evidence” in 2003 later came under a cloud of doubt. As the article, which I presume actually dates from 2003, concedes, “With no smoking gun, Powell was forced to connect a set of circumstantial dots for the Security Council, reports CBS News Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.” At this point I’ll only consider evidence itself, not the 2003 conclusions that were supposedly based on it.

The “..spy satellite photos showed a chemical weapons lab surrounded by cargo trucks and a forklift” was not under a cloud of doubt. The “solid evidence” that “…scientists were told to hide prohibited items in their homes; that other items were stashed in cars driven around the countryside to avoid detection; and that Saddam’s son, Qusay, had ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from palaces” was not under a cloud of doubt. The “… intercept in which an Iraqi officer tells a subordinate to erase all references to “nerve agents” from over-the-air, or wireless, communications” was not under a cloud of doubt.

What was under a cloud of doubt, at that time, was Saddam’s ties to AQ affiliated terrorists… which was later proven true by more documentation you refuse to read.. the Iraqi Perspectives Report and the confiscation of the diary and Harmony documents by the ISG. Check… ties to bad guys.

Nor what was shrouded in a cloud of doubt was terrorist camps hosted on Saddam’s soil. Nor was it in doubt that he was purchasing Samoud missiles, illegally, on the black market as even the UNMOVIC findings provided.

Then add Charles Duelfer’s report saying that even in to 2005, the CIA couldn’t rule out the transfer of WMD to Syria.

But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. “ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war,” Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA’s Web site Monday night.

He cited some evidence of a transfer. “Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined,” he said. “There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.”

But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because “the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve.”

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.”

“Nevertheless,” the inspector said, “given the insular and compartmented nature of the regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation.”

What was in doubt was where the WMDS were hidden. And since he was busy “sanitizing” inspection sites, as we saw on satellite photos prior to the run up, that shouldn’t surprise anyone. He was moving things out at Christmas time, and the US OIF forces didn’t arrive until March.

And since by then, the ill informed and gullible – ahem – believed that the only reason the US went in to Iraq was for WMDs, the rallying cry went up that Saddam wasn’t a threat because… gosh darn, what was moved, couldn’t be found. Well duh…

Precisely what in the Powell evidence are you under the mistaken assumptions was cloudy, Greg?

Now, allow me to point you to another article (that you probably won’t read) which shows you how razor thin and not so sharp points against WMD being moved are. And this is from a leftist source, The Atlantic Wire, who recaps the WMD evidence from pro and con sides.

What does the pro side have? Satellite photos documenting the movements, documents seized by the ISG, statements from former Saddam officials, UNMOVIC discovered illegal missiles acquired after 1998 and purchased on the black market. Lots of evidence, but nope… no pictures of Assad at the Syrian border, signing a bill of lading. But even officials at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (where Clapper was working in 2003) documented truck movement to the Syrian border. Why do you think he came up with the idea of Syria as a destination?

What does your naysaying side have? That it’s not “logical” that Saddam would give up his WMDs with a war approaching…. like he’d dare to use proscribed materials on the US military in front of the world, after spending a decade pretending he was adhering to UN resolutions? Don’t think so.

A few other points being spun by the same guy, Kris Alexander?

Why, in 2003, would Saddam give up the worst threat he could make against his people?

Because he’d have to survive as Iraq’s leader after a second battle with the US military. He can make more chem weapons faster than you can bake a wedding cake. No biggie.

Third, the Iraqi Ba’athists and Syrian Ba’athists are far from allies. Syria’s Allawites are minority Shiites and proxies to Iraq’s arch-enemy Iran.

Anyone that has spent a nanosecond studying Islamists and methods know that they align within different factions to fight a common enemy. In the case of Saddam, he had few logical places to send his precious stash. It had to be a place inaccessible to the US and UN, and had to be within a reasonable distance. Certainly not to Iran. Syria was the second mostly likely destination. Shia vs Sunni, my foot. The argument of a novice.

Fourth, from a U.S. military perspective, the transfer would have been impossible to hide.

Newsflash… it wasn’t hidden and was detected. However the US couldn’t do a thing about stopping, detaining, searching or seizing anything. All that’s left if for the amateurs to spin the contents.

In other words, the weight of the former – satellite photos, found caches, proscribed missiles, documentation, former Saddam official statements, etal – far outweighs the “not logical” spin used in opposition.

Oddly enough, the naysayers wanted to depend upon “logic” for Iraq, but all “logic” for Syria – and why there is no reason for Assad to deploy CW – flies out the window.

At this point I’ll only consider evidence itself, not the 2003 conclusions that were supposedly based on it. Imaginative dot connecting was used to sell the war, both at home and internationally.

This is your main problem, Greg. You discard all the “evidence” and prefer to fly with the emotional “it ain’t logical” spin instead. As long as you function on partisan emotion instead of factual documentation, you will remain not credible.

As long as you function on partisan emotion instead of factual documentation, you will remain not credible.

An interesting comment.

I think maybe I’ve had enough argument about events 10 years in the past for one afternoon. We’re really not very likely to change one another’s minds.

Current events are more relevant. Let’s all hope this works out for the best. I think I’m going to direct my attention for the rest of the day to things I actually have some control over.

A round of up those who not only believed that Saddam moved his WMD, but moved them to Syria, was in an article in the Toledo Blade back in 2006, after the release of Sada’s book. It was not one lone Obama appoint that you don’t trust “100% of the time”.

But Mr. Sada’s is only the most recent of a series of accounts by people in a position to speak with authority who say (some of) Saddam’s chemical and biological weapons wound up in Syria.

●Last month Moshe Yaalon, who was Israel’s top general at the time, said Iraq transported WMD to Syria six weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

●Last March, John A. Shaw, a former U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said Russian Spetsnaz units moved WMD to Syria and Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley.

“While in Iraq I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took, and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives,” Mr. Shaw told NewsMax reporter Charles Smith.

●Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong was deputy commander of Central Command during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In September, 2004, he told WABC radio that “I do know for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.”

●In January, 2004, David Kay, the first head of the Iraq Survey Group, which conducted the search for Saddam’s WMD, told a British newspaper there was evidence unspecified materials had been moved to Syria from Iraq shortly before the war.

“We know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD program,” Mr. Kay told the Sunday Telegraph.

●Also that month, Nizar Nayuf, a Syrian journalist who defected to an undisclosed European country, told a Dutch newspaper he knew of three sites where Iraq’s WMD were being kept. They were the town of al Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria, the Syrian air force base near the village of Tal Snan, and the city of Sjinsar on the border with Lebanon.

●In an addendum to his final report last April, Charles Duelfer, who succeeded David Kay as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said he couldn’t rule out a transfer of WMD from Iraq to Syria.

“There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation,” Mr. Duelfer said.

●In a briefing for reporters in October, 2003, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, Jr., who was head of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency when the Iraq war began, said satellite imagery showed a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasion.

“I think the people below Saddam Hussein and his sons’ level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse,” General Clapper said.

You discount “evidence” because it’s not a smoking gun, and instead trend to the “logical” despite it’s illogic, Greg. Please do not continue to babble about “evidence” when you discount all evidence before your nose. This is all partisan emotion for you. And your lack of historic knowledge show that to be the case.

@Greg:

Current events are more relevant. Let’s all hope this works out for the best.

yep, that’s what I say, let’s go knock out Iran before they get the bomb. No, wait, that’s not the topic, it’s Syria and those CW’s al Qaeda is using to try to get us to bomb Assad for them, so they can take over. Go get’em Greg…..

@Greg: Current events are more relevant.

Doesn’t occur to you that current events may be related to past events? Or doesn’t that fit in to the illogic of your “logic”?

@Greg: I assume that the large convoys dispersed as materials were spread out and delivered to the various defensive locations where Iraqi military strategists calculated that they would be needed and used. I wouldn’t expect them to be re-concentrated anywhere else, since bombing and missile strikes were anticipated.

uh huh. We have Sada, Clapper, the ISG, the CIA, Duelfer, Kay, on the ground journalist, Harvey Morris, DeLong, Shaw, Smith, Syrian journalist Nayuf, Powell. All with some sort of documentation, statement of evidence in their hands, including the Syrian border destination.

And then we have Greg’s “assumptions”, all of which goes against the above documentation,. okie doke…. nuff said.

@MataHarley, #14:

The problem, I think, has to do with the meaning of the qualifying phrase, “some sort.” My own assumptions are based on how any military responds when a full-scale invasion preceded by a bombing campaign is anticipated. They move vital war materials out of storage areas where they’re normally concentrated, commonly known to the enemy as “targets,” to the places where they’ll most likely be needed in fairly short order.

Greg, I understand how you got to that assumption. Nothing about it jives with the list of people I mentioned above, and the reasons they came to the far more informed, and evidence based, conclusion. One that is juxtaposed to your assumptions about how any particular military and leader responds. As I said, you are working on “logic” (when it comes to Iraq, but throwing logic out of the window for Syria), and they are working on evidence that points a different direction.

Greg comment #3:

Why? Because this guy tells you it’s so? Isn’t this the same James R. Clapper who recently testified under oath before Congress that the National Security Agency doesn’t collect any type of data on hundreds of millions of Americans? As I recall, you didn’t believe him when he said that, and Rand Paul stated that he should resign immediately for having committed perjury.

I liked thiessen’s rationale on that one:

Outrage is brewing on the Left and Right over charges that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA data collection. But the outrage is misdirected. What is outrageous is not that Clapper tried to protect classified information in an open session, but that Senator Ron Wyden asked him the question in open session the first place.

Wyden, an opponent of the NSA program, asked Clapper in front of television cameras: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Wyden knew the answer. He knew the answer was classified. He knew that Clapper could not answer it in open session. Yet he asked it anyway.

Wyden was either trying to embarrass Clapper, trip him up, or force him to reveal classified information. Whatever the motivation, it was a reprehensible thing to do. And it put Clapper in an untenable position. There was no truthful answer he could have given in open session that would not have revealed a top secret intelligence program.

If Clapper had simply said “I will be happy to discuss that in closed session,” it would have set off a firestorm of speculation, and been seen as a tacit admission that the US was collecting such data. The program would have been effectively exposed.

If he had said “Yes, but I can’t discuss it in open session,” he would have confirmed the existence of the program, and people would have jumped to all sorts of false conclusions that the NSA was reading our emails and listening to our phone calls (which they are not). And Clapper would not have been at liberty to explain what the NSA was actually doing, and the fact that no Americans’ phone calls were being monitored or recorded.

Clapper did not mislead Congress, as some have suggested, because the committee had already been briefed on the program in closed session. Wyden knew the answer to his question. He wasn’t trying to get information — he was trying to expose a secret in open session.

The fact is Senator Wyden should never have put Clapper in such a position. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, with a top secret security clearance and privileged access to classified intelligence, Wyden has a sworn responsibility to protect our nation’s secrets. Instead, he tried to force their disclosure in a public forum.

It was a shameful and reprehensible performance, not from Clapper but from Wyden. That is where our outrage should be directed.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/blame-wyden-not-clapper-for-lie-to-congress-on-nsa-surveillance/

Greg #10:

We’re really not very likely to change one another’s minds.

I have no issue with both sides vigorously advocating their perspectives and laying out their research on the matter; but it’s a pity when you become so entrenched in your beliefs that you refuse to examine sources and information that might trump what you previously thought you knew. Mata has offered links tha are worthy of serious debate and not flippant dismissal. This is not “conspiracy material” but worth further investigation.

I would think that you would be more interested in seeking truth over a partisan narrative that wants to reduce and dismiss the whole iraq war to simple sound bytes and partisan talking points: “no wmd”, “bush lied, people died”.

I’m not saying that the opinion and speculation that WMD were moved out of Iraq is true. But the possibility is not disproven- just dismissed by some critics of the war, like you. If you are serious about this, you would research the linked sources presented by mata with more of an open mind.

I guess I just find it disheartening when someone essentially shuts down and says I’ve already made up my mind and no amount of new information or info that doesn’t support my narrative will dissuade or evolve my opinion further, to one that ultimately arrives closer to the truth than to merely parroting partisan talking points.

I’m sure you perceive this happening amongst some of those you debate with here, on the right.

You’re better than that, aren’t you? 😉

I’m finding great difficulty in typing out a comment from my phone while I wait for my car repair- so sorry for any typos and mistakes.

@MataHarley: Then we have AQI being caught going into Jordan with WMD. Then there were all of those precursors to WMD being stored there. You know, the “pesticides” that with a little bit of chemical altering can be turned into nerve agent including sarin. That one is always amusing when debating the naysayers who say it wasn’t full blown nerve agent ignoring of course that even in their “raw” state those “pesticides” can still be lethal. I’ve yet to have a naysayer take me up on my challenge to let me spray a can of Raid in their face so they can prove their argument.

@another vet, this gets even more Farside bizarre when Assad starts sounding more sane than the US POTUS and Congressional members.

“Whoever accuses must provide proof. We have challenged the United States and France to provide the slightest proof. (US President Barack) Obama and (French president François) Hollande have been incapable (of doing so) even to their own people,” Assad told French newspaper Le Figaro in an exclusive interview.

He questioned the “logic” of claims that his forces carried the August 21 attack outside Damascus, which the US said killed 1,429 people.

“Supposing our army wishes to use weapons of mass destruction. Is it possible that it would do so in a zone where it is located and where (our) soldiers were wounded by these arms, as United Nations inspectors have noted during visits to hospitals where they were treated? Where is the logic?,” he asked.

Describing the Middle East as a “powder keg” whose “fuse is getting shorter”, he warned it would “explode” if Western forces struck Syria. “Nobody knows what will happen (after such strikes). Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread. The risk of a regional war exists,” he warned.

…snip…

Mr Assad accused the US president of being a weak leader.

“If Obama was strong, he would have said publicly: ‘We have no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian State’. He would have said publicly: ‘The only way to proceed is through UN investigations. We therefore refer everything to the Security Council.’ But Obama is weak because he is facing pressure from within the United States,” he said.

Mr Assad said it was too late for dialogue with rebel opponents.

“We are fighting terrorists. Eighty to 90 per cent of those we are fighting belong to Al Qaeda. They are not interested in reform or in politics. The only way to deal with them is to annihilate them. Only then will we be able to talk about political measures,” he said.

The Assad regime asked the United Nations to stop the US from taking military action against Syria, claiming it wanted help achieving a “political solution” to the civil war.

Bashar Ja’afari, Syria’s ambassador to the UN, demanded in a letter that Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, “shoulder his responsibilities for preventing any aggression on Syria”.

He called on the UN Security Council to “maintain its role as a safety valve to prevent the absurd use of force out of the frame of international legitimacy”, according to the Syrian state media agency.

The US, meanwhile, must “play its role as a peace sponsor” rather than “a state that uses force against whoever opposes its policies”, Mr Ja’afari wrote to Mr Ban and Maria Cristina Perceval, Argentina’s ambassador to the UN and the current president of the Security Council.

Dunno… that rhetoric – even if you consider he may be lying – sounds more civilized than what I’m hearing on US soil these days, and that makes me nervous. But fact is, it was Assad who sent a letter to the UN Sec’y General back in March to investigate the chemical weapon attacks. He’s been trying to pull in the UN all this time, been hosting them in the state for the investigations, and still is the one suggesting this has to go thru the int’l community. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture??

@Greg: And what is your vast experiences of military strategy based upon? Are you watching those Road Runner cartoons again?

@Randy: He’s the coyote. Beep Beep!

@MataHarley: Assad’s request to the UN does add to the questions of the slam dunk assertion that he was behind the WMD attack. His portrayal of himself as being against terrorists is quite amusing. He’s by no means a good guy. He didn’t exactly go out of his way to stop terrorists going from his country into Iraq to fight us during OIF. The problem is, you really can’t trust anyone over there. To compound the problem, the situation is very muddled. Even if Assad is lying (which is a possibility), do we even know where the WMD is at right now?

I still believe if someone wouldn’t have made a chest thumping speech about a red line in the sand, this would all be a moot point and no one would care about the use of chemicals that killed less than 1% of the people who have been killed in Syria’s civil war to the extent they do now. Can anyone else see the hypocrisy in that a number of those pushing for military action against Syria without any type of UN investigation are the same ones who demanded Bush get UN approval first and then wait for the inspectors to complete their inspections in Iraq? A definite set of double standards. If this was of such urgent concern, we would have bombed already.

@another vet: AV, very good.
You said:” I still believe if someone wouldn’t have made a chest thumping speech about a red line in the sand,” Yes and the strange thing about that is that Obama usually doesn’t care about ‘what he says’ but he sees this as an excuse to blame Repubs for something and raise taxes and further his goal of the Islamics winning the war in the ME.
No one can be believed on what’s going on over there and we cannot support the ‘good guys’ in the Middle East, there aren’t any.

@Randy, #21:

I spent a year in very close proximity to several popular targets for mortar and rocket attacks while serving in Vietnam. Figuring out what was going on around me and why seemed like a fairly good idea at the time.

On 12 sep 2002 president bush announces to the UN the need to confront Iraq.oNoots don’t hit ground untill 20 mar 2003 6 months and 8 days after bushs speaks of his wish to “confront” Iraqi regieme. 6 MONTHS 8 DAYS.
Question??? “Prior service and those still searving don’t answer”
What is the first step to mission success??? OPSEC aka operational security. You don’t tell your enemy for half a year that your coming to get them. Does the DEA tell crack dealers they are coming. No the evidence would be gone and the crack house would be empty. COMMON SENSE right? I wonder. Well here’s another fact. Basrah the southern most population center of Iraq is 628 miles from the Syrian border on hwy a trip that according to google maps would take 11 hrs plus “driving at a normal speed I assume” anyone who’s been to Iraq will tell you that max speed of the vehicle is the norm there. Aaaannyway that’s the distance and time of travel from most south eastern to the most north western border of Syria.
Ooooh crap I forgot can some one anyone please tell me what chemical weapon was Iraq most feared for huh maybe some one knows. Ok back at it now. Latifiyah chemical facillity “and I’m pretty sure that’s where this picture on the headline was taken” which was outside/apart, of what I remember known as objective dogwood during the invasion, is right around 250 miles from Syria along hwy 12 with a nice little water way next to it. I have details but saving that for a book. USA gotta get paid. Now I supposse it would be physicaly impossible to move thousands of tons of logistics 250 miles in half a year wouldn’t it. Not like the US army was able to move a few divisions thousands of miles in a month and a half after warning orders were issued so there couldn’t have been anything there right. These weapons have been allowed to be moved through self sabotage and I believe continue to be but now from Syria to idk thier western neighbor maybe. Let’s all drop the bs now this whole WMD terrorist great Satan facade has been the cover for religious holy wars on the three major religions. Christians in private say damn Muslims. Muslims curse them as the devil. And Jews say we were here first we ate gods people. The sarin gas and WMD which orginated in Iraq by US support found it’s way into Syria by warning from public threats of invasion into Iraq will now be sent to Lebanon were they’ll eventualy be used on Israel who will in turn nuke some one and will reach it’s climax in the valley of Megido and after all are dead there by the hands of egotistical leaders who wish to bring prophecy to bare for self glorification. Maybe when enough people have been killed GOD ALAH YHVH Santa clause will take your souls at beat the hell out of them the way a father does when siblings fight and with that I say let’s have a beer a few hookers smoke a doob because…. It’s the end of the world as we know it. It’s the end of the world as we know it. It’s the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine

@Greg:

A frightening -yet stunningly lacking in self-awareness – declaration of your leftist tendency for doublethink.

Doubleplusungood

On CNN, David Kay just outright dismissed the theory that the Syrian sarin came from Iraq. He stated the Iraq sarin was ‘low grade” stuff, while Syrian sarin is ‘fist class’ and almost certainly the result of technology given Syria by the Soviet Union.

Tom: On CNN, David Kay just outright dismissed the theory that the Syrian sarin came from Iraq. He stated the Iraq sarin was ‘low grade” stuff, while Syrian sarin is ‘fist class’ and almost certainly the result of technology given Syria by the Soviet Union.

Well that’s interesting, Tom. Because I’m relatively certain there is no investigative findings released yet from those on the ground which identify sarin, and/or any particular grade of the chemical that was involved. So what, pray tell, was David Kay using as a comparison without investigation results to make such a definitive statement? Or did that just slide right on by the pundit’s radar?

Not to mention, Kay’s been out of the front line loop for some time now. It’s been almost a decade since he was in Iraq. The latest CW labs there busted never existed when Kay was around. So how how the heck would he know? Just sayin’

@MataHarley:

I can’t answer your questions on Kay’s evidence. I assume you will agree he is a credible authority on Weapons of Mass Destruction, so his opinion (if indeed that’s all it is) carries some weight. After all, you cited him above in post 11. So I think a clarification was in order, lest someone read into that comment that Kay believes the WMD in Syria are connected to Sadaam’s (I leave the possibility open that his position has shifted on this question over time).

For the record, this is what he said last night: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1309/10/pmt.01.html

MORGAN: David Kay, there is a wild theory and is now more than that that perhaps a lot of Assad’s big stash of chemical weapons is the missing stash that we never found in Iraq was the time he saved it, he shifted it all to Syria. Is that plausible?

KAY: It’s not at all plausible. It’s something I’ve dealt paramountly with over by the last 10 years. Look, he has — Saddam had lousy sarin. It was unstable. It really had lacked a lot of lethality compared to what the Syrians have. Now, the Syrian’s have first class sarin developed with the help of the Soviet Union among other countries. They didn’t need Saddam’s lousy chemical weapons.

MORGAN: Where did they get it? Didn’t they make it all themselves? Do they buy it in from places like Russia, where do they get such a large amount of sarin or whatever it may be?

KAY: They got the basic technology of how to make it and how to made it to rockets, artillery, aerial bombs during the Soviet Union and from Czechoslovakia. The precursors and the chemicals have come from a wide number of states, Western European states included of — and those from the Eastern European area. Once you understand the process and you’ve got it down, the actual manufacturing, I hate to say, is all too easy. Sarin was developed originally in Germany pre- Second World War as an insecticide. It’s an artificial name. It’s the three names of the three scientists that developed it. It’s a very standard sort of chemical process. The Soviets improved it and in fact Syria has the improved product.

I don’t see how anyone can “grade” the sarin in Syria since no real investigation has been made. And even if it was supplied with equipment from Russia so was Iraq. Thier weapons were all soviet in origin with a few generic h/k rifles here and there. Maybe we should ask the Kurds and Iranians gassed if it tasted like low grade sarin. WTF. And I’m telling you I know first hand that the weapons were in Iraq and moved. At the Latifiyah chemical facillity there were hundreds of pieces of logistical eqipment suiting there ready to be loaded. When we first got there the mess hall was one of the first buildings cleared and thier lunch was still on the table. There were buildings that “looked” like grain silos but in side hade fiv hundred gallon pressure cookers and rocket bodies and hollow arty shells. I say bodies because it didn’t have the prupolsion on it but I’m no weapons expert. We also gathered tons of documents and computers that I’m sure had the real truth of it all in them and when I say tons I mean tons. We loaded two hemmts full. But there was also evidence of a shredding buni g party prior to our arrival. I got off track with the first rant “gooood weed” but I’m telling you all. Even the locals around obj dogwood had said the weapons are in Syria. Also most of the foriegn fighters we’d searched had Syrian passports and other documents. And I know that was never really mentioned either that the people who gave us the most trouble before the re surgency weren’t even fro
Iraq

@Tom: I assume you will agree he is a credible authority on Weapons of Mass Destruction, so his opinion (if indeed that’s all it is) carries some weight.

That deserves qualification. I will agree that his input as a higher echelon of the ISG in 2003/04 gave his opinoin credibility as a consideration, but didn’t make it fact. However now, almost a decade later and not being privvy to the latest intel and events, that is not the case. Today he is, IMHO, nothing more than a pundit, drawing on past history and conclusions.

@another vet: Assad’s request to the UN does add to the questions of the slam dunk assertion that he was behind the WMD attack. His portrayal of himself as being against terrorists is quite amusing. He’s by no means a good guy. He didn’t exactly go out of his way to stop terrorists going from his country into Iraq to fight us during OIF. The problem is, you really can’t trust anyone over there.

You can also add to the not-so-slam-dunk the Italian journalist and Belgium teacher hostages who say that they overhead their rebel/FSA captives discussing that the Ghouta attack was by the rebels. Considering that the Italian journalist was a FSA supporter, this doesn’t bode well when even the faithful start questioning the rebel methods.

I’ve never said that Assad is a “good guy”. But then, that requires a baseline, yes? Musharraf, Gadaffi, Mubarek? Bad or good? Doesn’t that entail a perspective from the west, our interests and ideals? When it comes to Assad, he was pro capitalist, allowed for freedom of religion, and was the protector of the Christian minority in his country. Does that make him a “good guy”? Nope. But it sure makes him preferable to the rebellion alternative.

Nope. Can’t trust anyone over there. But when there are two factions vying for power, a little common sense provides a lot of insight as to who is the most evil. And in this case, it sure ain’t Assad.

Now, for you, AV, as well as Tom and Greg. The IDF provided their mapped locations of Syrian WMD (no doubt deliberately out of date for obvious reasons). What should be noted, and keeping in mind the Italian journalist FSA supporter above, just how many of those production or storage locations have significant rebel presence and authority. Ergo, who controls those stockpiles – whether for use or confiscation via OPCW/UN/Russia – is questionable on all levels. Rebels will not be giving up access to Syrian CW capabilities willingly.

Only the brain dead naive would assume that only Syria/Assad had possession of CW. And the same brain dead would refuse to examine motivation of both sides when considering how they were used.

The only exception to the brain dead… i.e. blind Obama devotees and neo cons with a larger agenda… would be those who want to mask their desired war for regime change under pictures of dying children.

@MataHarley
desired war for regime change under pictures of dying children.
Dead children mentioned 6 times in his 10 min speech. Obama doesn’t want any kind of conflict he is a nuttless wonder. A REAL comander and cheif who’s was as outraged as he acts would not have asked for a vote then postponed the same vote Russia or no Russia. I think they are stalling for time so the weapons can be moved again.

Are you all brain dead? There is zero evidence of wmd being moved into Syria. This is a theory, easily dispelled, by those attempting to justify the lie known as Iraq. 1) Saddam’s wmd were dismantled after the first Gulf war. 2) Chemical weapons have a shelf life of 2-5 years, so there’s no way Syria’s weapons came from Iraq. 3) Iraq and Syria were sworn enemies…Why would Saddam give them wmd? Plus, Syria fought against Iraq in the first Gulf war, and Syria is an ally of Saddam’s worst enemy, Iran. 4) Syria has it’s own chemical weapons program, and we knew it. 5) Bush hid Intel from congress which stated Iraq no longer had an active wmd program….see the IAEA reports and our own CIA assessment. 6) No wmd were found in Iraq, other then old worthless degraded goo. 7) There is zero evidence of satellite imagery showing wmd movement. From a veteran who worked at Ft. Detrick, Frederick, Md, home of the military’s bio and chem research division, with a secret clearance, and also home of two 50 foot antennae dishes, monitoring activities over the Atl and Pacific. Stop believing the right wing lies and do your research!!!

stan white
it’s not the right wing lies,
it’s from OBAMA HIMSELF AND SECRETARY KERRY,
and the DEMOCRATS always IN AGGREMENTS,
so, stop blaming the RIGHT WING, THEY ARE ONE STEP AHEAD ALL THE TIME,
and you don’t get it,

Icarenomore
I believe that you know much of what it’s going on,
thank you for your comments
they are very helpful for the PEOPLE searching for the real truth,
best to you,

@stan white:

From a veteran who worked at Ft. Detrick, Frederick, Md, home of the military’s bio and chem research division, with a secret clearance,

Are you saying he ‘revealed some secrets’ ? I wouldn’t think so.
It’s certain that ‘if’ weapons were moved from Iraq to Syria that satellite imagery would exist, but I wouldn’t think that the US would want to reveal ‘what they have’ from satellites. It would kinda lower the value of the asset, wouldn’t it? We do know that satellite imagery exists that show the trucks leaving the chemicals weapons storage area and getting on the road that goes to Syria. Now, it is entirely likely that once the satellite wasn’t covering them anymore (which would have been ‘never’) that they all turned and went in different directions. And here Stanley, you kinda destroy your very own argument:

6) No wmd were found in Iraq, other then old worthless degraded goo.

what are those two words there between: iraq,……old, looks like ‘other then’. No wmd…other then..
what does that mean? By the way,then should have been ‘than’… but it looks like you’re saying they did have wmd, they just had an expired date. I will concede that they should have been able to determine from satellite imagery that they had expired dates on the weapons and therefore have knownthat they really didn’t have wmd. Chuckle. Some of the stuff you state, Stan is just pure blather: Ex: 2) Chemical weapons have a shelf life of 2-5 years Are you telling me that Chlorine gas in a pressurized container will decompose in 2-5 years? Would you be willing to take a deep whiff of the gas after 6 years? I didn’t think so. you said: ” Stop believing the right wing lies “
Are they worse than the ‘left wing lies’? why?

one of our SMART BLOGGER gave me the way to get rid of CHEMICALS,
it’s incinerated in a container that save and return to the flame,
the exhausting by product of combustion, until the toxic compound,
have been reduce completely to inert product,
it take pretty high temperature to crack all of the poison down to dioxide water
and some trace sulpher nitrogen AND PHOSPHORUS RESIDUES,
THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY has been processing its wastes by such speciallixe incineration for decades
bring it on here,

@ilovebeeswarzone: Ditto’s information was correct. But Stan would have you believe that ‘time alone’ will take care of the wmd’s. That is a sadly perverted myth.

Redteam
hi,
yes, and I was looking if Ditto was here, because of your mention,
and the one who gave me the way to burn the CHEMICALS GEORGE WELLS,
so I thought it was a great POST TO HAVE IT COPIED,,
BYE

You see LEFT, RIGHT that’s what they want. Division of the people over nothing more then a seed of doubt planted by the LEFT and watered by the RIGHT. You just don’t get it. We did know they were moving the weapons. Why else would you give a six month notice prior to invasion we didn’t call Normandy half a year ahead of D-day and tell them we were coming for tea. The fact is none of the weapons in the middle east pose a threat to the US but it does to give us a “patriot act” kinda situation to where if we want to go then this will be our rally cry. Hell we supported saddam and armed him until he crossed us and then we just gave him a spanking, that’s what desert storm was. Schwarzkopf had asked to end it then while they had the momentum and rescources and was told not push to on to Baghdad. But soldiers aren’t politicians or investors. The real agenda isn’t the WMD it’s the fear those three letters cause and I see it as a kind of “testing the waters” move now with what’s going on. We invaded a country on the possibility of these weapons and do nothing to thier neighbor who uses those same weapons. They are seeing if the war on terror has sufficently pacified the free world which seems to have worked. It’s all there fellas. Financial collapse. Religious violence. “lol that just sounds stupid huh religious violence” polatics that turn the very people they serve on eachother. Coke and Pepsi. How many people watched Gladiator. Gracchus: I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it’s the sand of the coliseum. He’ll bring them death – and they will love him for it. We don’t have the colisium now instead we have CNN and American idol but the thought is the same and when a problem arises that can’t be “entertained away” the blame game is used. coke said we shouldn’t but Pepsi says we should. Well damn that coke they don’t have your taste buds at heart but here at pepsi we do. WTF

And expired poison lmfao. Wow really??? I tell ya what. Go to the store, bye some rat poison and put in an air tight metal container burry it in the desert for 10 years go back and take a big spoonful and doctor your coffee with it and get back to me. I’m not bothering addressing you by name because you don’t deserve anymore attention

Icarenomore
that was good thank you,
air tight metal container seal for 10 years,
I would think the metal would melt with that killer inside,
bye