can you see his head spin?
The story is very vague. Where are the specifics?
We know that Saddam had contacts with Al Qaida. We also know that UNSCOM had certain items like mustard shells under lock and key in Iraq.
Is this story just recycling the discounted earlier claims or is it really something new? My guess is that it is purposely vague because it really doesn't contain anything new but is only attempting to paint it as new.
That depends on how bad George's ADS is.
parados, Doesn't matter too much whether it's new or not; they're talking about the summer of 2000, and not 2003 when Saddam is supposed to have WMDs. That's not been proven, and that's the issue. If I had a chemical agent back in 2000, but got rid of it before 2003, doesn't give anybody the right to drop a bomb on my house in 2003.
cicerone imposter wrote:Those documents claim Saddam had WMDs in the summer of 2000. Bush attacked Iraq in 2003 when we had UN inspectors searching for WMDs. That's the issue; not that Saddam had WMDs in 2003 when attacked. If Saddam had WMDs in 2003, they would have been found by now.
Not if they'd been transferred to Syia.....
Or somehow relocated to another dimension.
Beam me up, Scotty!
2 points, Gungasnake:
#1, There is no country named Syia, as far as I know.
Assuming you meant Syria, then
#2, what was the point of invading if all it did was spread WMD farther into the hands of terrorists?
What good does it do to lose track of those WMD, as we did like you are claiming?
Cycloptichorn
Of course, I would like to believe the story, but like Walter, awaiting confirmation.
Yeah, it is, Cycloptichorn. Getting rabid, I mean.
Edited to add text in boldface.
gunga, Ever try to prove a negative? Didn't think so, but you do have good imagination. Send it up, Scotty.
That's proof? You're easily persuaded, McG.
But if it IS true, then why the hell haven't we gone after Syria? That article is from months ago...
Quote from your article, ""We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he 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 programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
1. Info learned from interrogatios of former Iraqi officials.
ha ha ha.... that's one the of primary reasons Bush and company attacked Iraq in the first place; unreliable info from former Iraqi officials. How reliable is that?
2. The last sentence above, "Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
Another inference that can't be confirmed. ha ha ha....what a laugh.
Much innuendo without supporting facts just like CBS and Fox news. Give it up!
Scotty, send this one up too! LOL
9 months later, and no one's pursuing that?
Yeah, if that was reliable info, this administration would be on top of it without question.
C.I. Gunga said "if", I have provided a source that agrees with him and you say that source just isn't good enough... tsk, tsk... I think your absence has had a debillitating effect on you.
Another source
Yet another
Is this one acceptable?
I know that none of these links point to commondreams or the DU, but you'll just have to accept these as evidence that WMD's may have been moved to Syria.
Zing.
My question, however, still stands. Wouldn't we rather have kept those WMD bottled up in Iraq, than provoke them into spreading it around the world, McG?
Cycloptichorn
And again I ask, if this is true, why haven't we gone after Syria?
Why the doggedness vs. Saddam and the benign neglect of Syria?
