WMD in Syria?

[FogMachine]

Hello all, I'm new here. lurked for a while and decided to join. One of the main reasons I'm anti Bush is the whole WMD issue. I even fought in Iraq and was pissed off about it the whole time. Most of my family is republican, and they are always sending me shit. I usually ignore it but these articles caught my attention. Apparently, there are Iraqi and Sryian sources quoted as saying saddam moved the wmds to syria before the war.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I can't rule it out of the realm of possibility. This issue has been really been bugging me for the past few days, so I decided to go somewhere not republican (which is to say my family) for thoughts.

Here are some of the links my family sent me

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36844

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200602%5CSPE20060202a.html

[CJCRANE]

1. How come Colin Powell

never mentioned it in his little Powerpoint presentation?

[Elwood P Dowd]

4. Powell told Tim Russert there was nothing to the Syria story

<nm>

[LuckyTheDog]

19. Not even Bush is claiming this

The "WMDs to Syria" thing is tinfoil-hat stuff. It is a theory that lives on at far-right Web sites and nowhere else.

[niyad]

2. well, all those rags are reich wing spin machines, for one thing, and

almost nobody who is intelligent takes them seriously.

[FogMachine]

10. yeah but there's only one way to find out for sure..

and the right wingers have the power at this time to find out. uugggghh, just keep getting this gut feeling that WWIII is quickly approaching

[uppityperson]

14. What way is that? To find out for sure?

[FogMachine]

24. The only way to find out for sure is for Bush to send the military

in and look for themselves. which is what i'm afraid of.

[salin]

36. Except that even the Administration has said there is no reason

to believe that weapons existed and were moved to Syria - as such that would mean bush would be sending troops to follow up on a "hunch" - surely he isn't that foolhardy/insane (to think that his hunches are better than national intelligence.)

[uppityperson]

20. delete, you answered above.

[CJCRANE]

26. Pakistan, India, Israel & North Korea

have all got nukes, so non-existent weapons moved from Iraq to Syria doesn't really seem like it should be a priority.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

7. now now now, search is our friend

so far it looks innocuous. Let's watch for a while.

[Elwood P Dowd]

9. And a nice big red Ohio!

:rofl:

[Radio_Guy]

44. In all fairness

That is the color of Ohio in DU's list of avatars.

[FogMachine]

64. FogMachine is my reference to propaganda BTW

[salin]

5. That idea was planted by then Asst Sec of Defense Wolfowitz

within the first week of the invasion - and never seemed to be based on anything just speculation. Always struck me as being a preemptive strike against not finding IRaqi WMDs - plant the seed early and hope that it sticks. The place where the WMDs were taken/stashed is alternately Iran or Syria ... I am very skeptical - especialy since David Kay (bush's pick to do the weapons inspection) clearly stated that not only were there no WMDs in Iraq, they could find NO evidence that there had ever been WMDs in Iraq and that from all evidence it appeared that the real efforts towards WMDs had ended back in the nineties.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. ahhh, self delete :)

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJCRANE]

8. ...and what happened

to those container ships that Saddam was meant to have loaded with WMD?

Not to mention the remote-controlled drones, where did they go to?

[salin]

11. brw at least three of those four links

are very rw news sources, have almost always been wrong in their proclamations per Bush's foreign policy: WorldNetDaily is not only rw - but a bit wacky/out there... NYSun was started as a conservative alternative in NYC and has a very small circulation (mostly speaking to the choir) and the cnsnews site I believe has active ties to the religious right network (wouldn't be surprised to see it only one or two steps seperated from Pat Robertson.)

[uppityperson]

12. What do you think about this issue?

welcome

[FogMachine]

22. Well to be honest I don't really think there's much to it, but...

it may be an excuse for Bush to go find out. One side of me hopes they are there, because I don't want the deaths of my friends in Iraq to be in vain. The other side hopes it's not true because I really don't want to get dragged into another war.

[uppityperson]

25. You mean bush will invade Syria with this excuse

It is hard to have friends die for lies. Sorry.

Edited to say I see you answered affirmative above.

[FogMachine]

34. Maybe. Just got a feeling Iraq's not the last stop on this "tour"

[uppityperson]

35. So do many of us. Just because bush uses something as an excuse...

doesn't make it real.

[Kierkegaard]

37. I feel the same way. They may not pull it off as a result of the public

outcry about Iraq and all the recent high-profile blunders, but I can't help think that there are definitely plans on the table to invade other arab countries.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

:hi:

[CJCRANE]

39. Sorry to say but Iran could be the next stop..nt

[salin]

31. Tragically

it appears by most accounts that if the reason to go to war was WMDs (the one we were told about at the time... immenent threat), that your friends in Iraq were sent in vain. To find an answer to that just look at the political spin from the WH a) er.. the intel was bad everyone that they had it (intel pushed by the WH), and b) it was never about WMDs it was always about democracy in Iraq and getting rid of Saddam. I have a friend who served in Iraq, and like you hopes that it wasn't in vain... has latched on to the democracy argument but does concede perhaps the "right war" (per democracy) at the wrong time and under the wrong conditions.

I consider it a nationaly tragedy. Lives lost in what appears to be pusuit of a political gain (read Bush's words, before elected, about his view of a "War Presidency"). Very sad indeed.

I am guessing that bush won't act - as most of the world and much of the US no longer believes him - there simply isn't the political will to send even more servicemen and women into an elective war. It is only that shift in attitude, imo, that has thus far prevented a serious bombing strike on Iran.

[Bleacher Creature]

13. Totally debunked

Even the Bushies say so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/international/middleeast/26weapons.html?ex=1272168000&en=759ec4426ad2c84f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

If you really want to believe that there were WMDs, you might as well say the Saddam moved them to Mars because there's an equal amount of proof that they are there as there is of them being in Syria.

[Cleita]

16. Hmmm. I guess they are changing their story. I heard

one of those fundie preachers being interviewed on the radio a some time ago saying we had to invade Syria because that's where the insurgents were coming from into Iraq. So they are changing the reason to WMD's now?

The plan is to bring the Middle East under the control of the USA so we can have a Pax Americana or some such nonsense. I never could figure out why war would be peace, but that's why the RW nutjobs believe.

[LuckyTheDog]

17. Iraq had no WMDs

If Saddam had them, he'd have used them to defend his regime and/or turned them over to the insurgency. He didn't.

Saddam had no ethical stand against using WMDs. If he's had them, he'd have used them.

[FogMachine]

29. That's a really good point.

[LuckyTheDog]

53. Hey FogMachine

Also, please remember that not even the Bush Administration believes any of that.

The "WMDs to Syria" thing is tinfoil-hat stuff. It is a theory that lives on at far-right Web sites and nowhere else.

[FogMachine]

57. I hope so.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. Hope, shmope

A "possibility" is not a "plausibility," and pretending that it is flies in the face of all facts and logic.

I know it is a vogue among the right wing ideologues to throw out "possibilities" as if they are plausibilities, but reasonable people reject such tawdry moves. There is a keen and necessary distinction between the possible and the plausible, and only fools confuse the two. Of course, the right wing ideologues rely on the notion that most of their readers are fools.

[Hissyspit]

18. Why the FUCK would Saddam move the WMD to Syria????

It makes no gawdam sense at all.

It is out of the realm of possibility, and in addition is clearly a wish-fulfillment fantasy for those who actually believe it and a smoke-screen for those who know it's ridiculous but repeat it.

Worldnetdaily is a joke. Cnsnews is a joke. Those sources are all jokes.

Did you know that the French are all cowards and that Clinton has caused everthing that's ever gone wrong ever?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[niyad]

28. donald rumsfeld: "we know where the wmd's are--they are in the area

north, east, south and west of tikrit"

so the administration SAYS the weapons are still in iraq.

[Elwood P Dowd]

32. Those sites consider dildoes WMD.

<nt>

[justgamma]

33. Logically?

I'm sure that if the someone were ready to attack the USA, we would move our weapons to Canada.

That to me is the dumbest thing they ever came up with.

[Iniquitous Bunny]

41. No, it's just the latest excuse to invade another country.

People need to open their eyes here. This administration is NOT ABOVE LYING to get whatever they want. This is about corporate profits, nothing else. They could give a damn about American lives.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

42. The WH's chosen WMD investigator, Charles Duelfer has said this is false

The link to the NY Times article is in post 13 above so I won't bother reposting it.

They did try and use this excuse, to soften the shame of illegally invading a country, but they were forced to admit there was no proof supporting this convenient claim and had to put it to rest.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. A collection of Republican nonsenses

There are two choices:

1) Saddam had no WMDs to move
2) Saddam had WMDs, and moved them to Syria under the scrutiny of the most intense surveillance operation in the history of the world.

If you choose curtain number 1, the Bush Administration is a pack of liars.
If you choose curtain number 2, the Bush Administration is the most incompetent pack of imbeciles in history.

Either way, it ain't pretty. Of course, the claim is utter nonsense concocted by ideologues and spread around the internet by likeminded dunces and utter dupes (again, not a great choice). There were no WMDs after the early 1990's, UNSCOM worked, and the case for war was an outright fucking lie. That's obvious to anyone with a minimum of common sense. What is remarkably funny, however, is that the excuse made (WMDs moved to Syrua) is also terrible for the Bushies: the very lie to excuse the lack of WMDs makes the Bushies look even worse than the initial lie! To believe it, you'd have to believe that the entire military intelligence apparatus of the most powerful nation on Earth - ooops - just happened to miss the movement of thousands of tons of deadly chemicals 1) out of specialized facilities (for they would have to be stored in specialized facilities AND 2) across a stretch of open desert (!!) AND 3) into yet another putatively hostile country, and into their specialized facilities. That's what you'd have to believe to believe this right wing nonsense. Perhaps the WMDs were moved with the help of a giant fog machine!

And these are the people we want protecting our borders???:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: They can't stop the mopvement of thousands of tons of chemicals across open desert in a country every inch of which should be monitored 24/7 by satellite, and they're going to stop a suitcase bomb coming in to this country??? Fucking hilarious. The alibi is worse than the crime! Only an idiot would concoct or believe such stupidities, but there it is.

So tell me, FogMacine: what do you choose: option 1 (the Bushies are liars) or option 2 (the Bushies are incompetent idiots who should never, ever be in charge of national security)? You choose.

[FogMachine]

47. likely #1, however...

I don't share your views completely on #2. Serving in the military in Iraq was an eyeopener. Ask anyone who has served in the military and they will tell you it's not the greatest thing since sliced bread. What I mean by that is while we do have the best technology, the military is still run by people and people make mistakes. We had a FAIR number of human fuckups in Iraq that I thought should have never happened but did.

I am definitely not as far left as many people here are but I do not approve of Bush's administration. I think it is entirely possible that Saddam could have moved weapons to Syria right under our noses.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. A laughable assertion

How many times does a person have to be taken before they open their fucking eyes?

Sucker born every minute, I guess.

In any case, #2 locks you into the Bush admin is monstrously incompetent scenario, so I guess you'll live with that. Your sources are all right wing ideologue rags, by the way.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

67. Stop and think about this for a second

The one and only thing that would have saved this administration face with the rest of the world after going to war in Iraq would have been to find WMD's. They were so intense in looking for them that they left munitions strongholds wide open after they were searched for WMD's so they could hurry on to search the next location.

They were desperate and things weren't looking good for them.

Do you not think they were watching the satellite video of the border leading into Syria? If they had something, anything, that appeared as if though they could make a valid claim that Syria did indeed receive WMD's after the US was there they would have used it. Even if it wasn't true, they could have, and I feel would have, used the video and spread it far and wide.

There's no love between Syria and the US and if they could have made a case to go into Syria they would have. It just didn't work out for them the way they had hoped it would, but as it is now there is still a tiny bit of doubt that they can dangle in front of some Americans.

[FogMachine]

69. I'm sure we were watching, but my point is...

I still think it's possible they could have done it.

My reasons are

In Iraq I was a truck driver, and in the last six months of my tour our mission was to deliver fuel to US bases near Fallujah and others close to the syrian border. Out that way I saw a LOT and i mean a fucking shitload of empty desert that trucks could have crossed. my problem with the satellite argument is they have to know exactly where to look plus the human error.

Also, one of the problems we encountered were unchecked traffic into and out of syria (i was there the first tour, invasion) and you would not believe how many frickin dump trucks are in that part of the world. it seemed like 1 out of every five or six iraqi vehicles on the road was a truck or mini van.

It would be much easier to do than we think.

Now, that doesn't mean I believe it happened but from my experiences there I can see it could have been very easy to do (satellites can't see into trucks, and with the amount of big trucks there it really would have been easy).

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. It would not be very easy to do

You don't load tons of eight-year old anthrax on to a fucking dumptruck and cruise through the desert.

Nor do you unload it into a shed in some dusty border town. Jesus. That's dumb.

That said, we had any facility out of which such stuff could be loaded under round the clock surveillance. Ahem, excuse me, but this was the argument for going in in the first place. You act as if the stuff would be kept in somebody's backyard and loaded on to a few covered flatbeds under cover of darkness. It would have to have been a complex operation, involving many people and mutliple communications. And yet nothing was discovered or stopped by the greatest surveillance effort in the history of the world? Gimme a break.

Possible? Sure. It's possible that one day I'll hit the fucking Powerball. Plausible? Not for any person with a shred of common sense. Nothing but smacktalk and bullshit meant to obscure the plain fact that Saddam got rid of his WMD through UNSCOM inspections, and the rationale for war was a fucking lie. And you still can't answer why in fuck's name Syria would agree to such an operation, another little nugget that makes no sense for anyone with the slightest knowledge of the region.

Perhaps you just can't face that you and your comrades were sent into danger not for any good reason, and certainly not to protect the United States, but for the naked power of a few corrupt leaders. That must sting, and I could see how you'd grasp on to any lunatic theory to make it so that isn't the case. Unfortunately, it is the case. If your friends died, they died in vain. It's sadder than goddamn hell, and we've been screaming bloody murder about it for three years. The solution is not to invent fairy tales that would add a fake justification to their deaths. It is, rather, to seek justice against those who sent them into harm's way without good reason.

[wookie294]

45. It's a hoax

Colin Powell's chief of staff admitted that the weapons of mass destruction were a “hoax” perpetrated by Bush cronies. He said, “I participated in a hoax on the American people.”

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/wilkerson.html

Another former Bush official said, “intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html?nav=rss_email/components

[johnaries]

46. Looking at the links you provided,

2 of them quote Sada, who incidentally "has a book coming out". I suspect he simply wants to generate book sales.

One of them claims that David Kay said "But 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". Another quotes Kay as having said:"The bulk of the evidence really points to -- that things did go to Syria, but they weren't weapons of mass destruction or weapons material," Kay added. He said there is "no evidence" that Iraq ever produced any large amounts of chemical nerve agents after 1991. "In fact, all the evidence is just the opposite," he told NPR.

But let's use a little logic. If Saddam thought the US was about to attack, WHY would he send his WMD's to Syria? Why wouldn't he keep them to use against us instead of hiding in a "spider hole"?

Not only is there no credible evidence, but it simply doesn't make any sense that he would do it. It just doesn't pass the "smell" test.

[sidwill]

48. Fogmachine, lets talk my brother

Lets first ask ourselves some simple questions.

A. Why whould Hussein disarm himself? Why send his alleged ace in the hole to another country leaving himself defenseless?

B. Why pick Syria? If your dumbass freeper wingnut relatives had half a brain they would recall that Syria actually participated in the firt Gulf war....on OUR side. Why reward a nation that has taken up arms against you in the past?

C. Ask your cromagnon stupid relatives how a country that couldn't put up even the equivalent of a roadbump to our military,keep their own electricity turned on or didn't even control ANY of their airspace then AMAZINGLY coordinate a massive transfer of their alleged WMD stockpile to Syria without detection? Furthermore how could they turn this magic trick while we had absolute air supremacy 24/7 satelitte surveilance and special forces units throughout the western Iraqi desert?

D. Ask your idiot brethren WHY syria would assure their own destruction for at best decade old battlefield mustard gas and nerve agents with questionable utility? Why would they buck both the US and Israel , both of whom could facilitate syria's absolute destruction within about 6 minutes to do a "solid" for Hussein, whom they were at war with just last decade?

E. Finally, lets look at who this Syria story benefits, the USA? Nope. The Iraelis, Nope. The Syrians, nope. How about the Right wing idealogues who convinced idiots like your wingnut mongoloid family that invading Iraq was a good idea? BINGO. Admitting that there were no WMDs would undermine the story for the 30% or so or the nation thats too stupid to admit that they

HAD BEEN HAD!

Respectfully yours, someone who lives in realitytown.

[FogMachine]

50. Hey, thanks for insulting my family!

[sidwill]

51. the important thing is

I didn't insult you, my DU brother.

Oh yeah Condi Rice also said there was nothing to the Syria story.

[JohnnyCougar]

60. No, the important thing is that you don't insult someone's family

One can argue the lack of merit of conservative arguments without insulting conservatives just fine.

Much of my family is conservative, too. But I would be pissed if anyone insulted them.

[Kierkegaard]

52. Try not to take it personally.

We are a suspicious lot around here until we get to know you. Some are more sensitive/tolerant than others.

B-)

[FogMachine]

55. That's becoming very apparent!

[Kierkegaard]

Stay in there and keep swingin' and it'll all work out.

After the initial strafing subsides, you'll do just fine.

[LuckyTheDog]

56. You are right

I don't know anything about "Foggy." But I think he/she sounds sincere so far and should not be attacked right off. And if the FogMachine isn't sincere... well, I still don't care. It takes all kinds, ya know?

[CJCRANE]

59. Yes, he was a bit gratuitous, wasn't (s)he!

Don't take it personally, I think it's just their way of emphasing the points.

Stick around, you'll soon get up to speed.

[JohnnyCougar]

61. I apologize on behalf of some of the more rude people on here.

They are suspicious of new people that link to conservative sources. Try and just ignore them for now.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sidwill]

58. Don't get hurt feelings

lets talk, tell what YOU belive now that your "relatives" opinions have been debunked?

[FogMachine]

63. Believe me it takes a lot to hurt my feelings...

but I do prefer civilized debate. I can appreciate the skepticism tho.

I believe the same thing as before, it's unlikely but possible. My concern is the way we may find out by invading syria, but if what everyone's posted here is true (that it's been debunked by even bush) than I feel a lot better.

either way I do believe we are living in one of the craziest periods of human history, or are about to at least.

[sidwill]

65. Don't worry dude

Bush is done, if he tries more of the same shit he tried in iraq no one will follow him this time.

There will be no more "coalition of the willing" , besides if we invade Syria where would we send detainees to be tortured?

[kittenpants]

66. Welcome to DU

My first few posts got similar responses to this! They were innocent questions in my mind, but some people are paranoid. I have family (in Ohio too) who listen to Rush and parrot the Syria talking points... it's frustrating to hear people repeat these things and not have a response for them. I hope you found some good information here.

[sutz12]

62. Probably no truth to this....

but that doens't matter. It will still make good back story for when they want to go in.

"Oh, all the WMD went to Syria! We have to go get it!"

Probably work for 3 or 4 countries if they play it right.

[Tera Moran]

71. Um..

Of course there are WMD in Syria.

Saddam put them there before the U.S. Invasion.

Duh.

:sarcasm:

[oldlady]

72. Hi, FogMachine

I've found that there is an astonishing amount of information coming out in books that never seems to make the papers -- or else it flashes through so quickly we miss it. Anyway, I'm currently reading "State of War" by James Risen -- it's pretty recent, but seems to be easily available (I saw it in the grocery tonight). There's a chapter called "The Hunt for WMD" which lays out how much effort was put into trying to prove the existence of WMD (including sending 30 US citizens, formerly from Iraq, who had family still in Iraq and known to be the top scientists in Iraq'a prior attempt at creating WMD & they all came back saying, the scientist/family member says there is none). Every one heard the same thing, although they did not see/know the others were going or went. The Bush Administration conclusion? All 30 were lying, to their families, without an opportunity for speaking to one another. I feel your frustration (partly because after 3 years here my post count is still this low & I haven't paid to get my star back yet this year).

The twists and spin can get pretty confusing. And maybe it's just me, but while I love the internet for fast-breaking info. I can't follow the in-depth details without reading books. I've read everything & anything that's come out since this Iraq mess came along & I'm just mentioning a recent one I think you'd find astonishing-- my brother did his tour looking for IEDs on the Hwy of Death north of Baghdad. I'm glad you made it home. I'm glad he made it home. Thanks for being willing-- not only to serve if a good cause came along, but especially for being willing to keep an open mind when you were so exposed to the Fog... peace.