8/16/04 'Saddam may have moved WMD to Syria'

so go ahead and invade Syria right now.
you'll lose the election but you'd be "protecting" America.
what is more important?

 

Nothing about the article implicates the Syrian government. It appears to be all about the bribery and chicanery of Saddam along the Syrian border.

 

that doesn't change the fact that *allegedly* someone in Syria has Sadaam's WMD. these could be sold to AQ.

what happened to if you harbor a terrorist then you are no better than a terrorist?

P.S. the Washington Times is run by a nutcase

 

As usual, wait and see. These papers are notorious for printing things that turn out to be false. BTW, how can anybody read the Washington Times now that we know Rev. Moon facilitated the sale of Russian nuclear subs to North Korea?

 

And that entire region is being monitored for movements, I'm sure. Why are you in such a rush to go in and kill people... including, probably, Americans?

So it is, that doesn't make every bit of news inaccurate. As was show, this deception has been theorized for quite a while.

 

The Washington Times is the Pentagon's way of getting "news" to the world. Yet another propaganda piece.

 

Wow, there are still WMD believers around! Say, all you guys who still believe in WMDs, I've got this lakefront property to sell you in Scotland, it's got some neat extras!

 

So the phantom menace shipped phantom weapons to Syria, who just so happens to be on the United States' "Bomb Next" list.

It's pretty convenient because -- again -- it's a claim that requires no evidence and no proof. You can't prove a negative, and the Bush Administration has expertly exploited this logic loophole again and again.

It's sad to wonder how many thousands more Americans will die while Bush chases credibility around the world.

 

IF this is true then those weapons have been in Syria for a year and a half now. why was there such a rush to attack in Iraq but not here?

 

ahhh, the rush to war myth rears its ugly head again.

--
Myth No. 1: America is "rushing to war."

People were saying this six months ago, when President Bush took his case to the United Nations. Since then, the president has done everything asked of him: He's won congressional authorization for military action; he's persuaded the U.N. Security Council to give Saddam a "final opportunity" to comply with his disarmament and other obligations, and he is even now pursuing yet another Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing force. A six-month diplomatic effort to win support is hardly a "rush" to war.

It's a myth, though, even to say that we're debating whether to go to war with Iraq. The truth is, we are at war with Iraq, and we have been for 12 years. There was no peace treaty ending the Gulf War. There was only a cease-fire, conditional on Iraq's accepting a series of conditions, embodied in, now, 17 U.N. resolutions, covering not just disarmament but also economic sanctions, repatriation of prisoners of war, reparations to Kuwait, and an end to the repression of the Iraqi civilian population.

As President Bush pointed out to the U.N. in September, Saddam has complied with none of these provisions. It should be clear by now that he will not. At most he will make desultory concessions aimed at giving countries like France that oppose action an excuse to stand in the way.

Those who favor maintaining the status quo of inspections and sanctions, aimed at "containing" Saddam, call themselves "antiwar." But in fact they are precisely the opposite. They favor prolonging a war that has already gone on for 12 years, and that has taken an enormous toll on the Iraqi people, who continue to suffer both tyranny and economic isolation.

 

This guys article in no way shows that it's a myth that we rushed to war.

It was a rush to war because:

Inspectors, who were on the ground felt they could more with 30 days.

There was a proposal offered to put thousands of CIA and FBI agents on the ground in Iraq

Saddam was destroying missles that exceeded the allowable range.

surveilance craft had been allowed to fly over Iraqi air space beyond the no-fly zone.

Both France and Russia were talking about 30 days more before they would re-consider the idea of force to back-up inspection

Saddam was not a threat

Most importantly, Bush's team didn't have a plan to win the peace, or the slightest idea based in realism what kind of reaction we were going to get from IRaqis.

If you don't have a plan after 20 years of waiting, and you still invade, it's still a rush to war.

 

Bullsh!t.

Bush rushed to go to war so that the weapons inspectors wouldn't have time to get out. If Bush wanted to use diplomacy, he would have waited for the inspectors to finish and for the UNSC (the only agency authorized to find Iraq in breach of the resolutions) to authorize force.

Bush knew that if the weapons inspectors were allowed to finish, they would have reported that Iraq had no WMDs and that was the only thing that Bush could use to drum up support for the war. That is why BUSH PULLED THE INSPECTORS OUT.

 

actually, the inspectors were from the UN. that's who pulled the inspectors out.

 

Because Bush told them he was going to attack. Semantics and technicalities aren't going to work with this.

If Bush wasn't going to attack the inspectors wouldn't have been pulled. And that is the point here.

 

Bush lied to our nation about Iraq's WMD threat, here is a complete breakdown from the start to the finish:

Where are the WMD?

 

All you guys sound so sure that WMD's have NOT been smuggled across the border into Syria. Maybe you guys can tell us what happened to the stockpiles that he used to have.... the ones that had been used on his own people.

Let me ask you guys this: If WMD's are infact found to be smuggled to Syria or even found inside Iraq, does that let Bush off the hook in your eyes? Im just asking because that's the one shred that the anti Bush clan keeps harping on. Seriously, is it all good if the WMD question is finally answered?

 

Per the weapons inspectors, the stockpiles he ONCE had were all degraded to the point that they were as useless as the shell they found a while back. IOW, the weapons had been discarded, but the paperwork was not properly filled out.

If we were to find the HUGE stockpiles that we claimed before the war, it would take Bush off the hook regarding Iraq for me.

BTW, that is not "the one shred" that anti-Bush folks keep "harping on," it is simply one more failure to add to the LONG list of failures in the last 3.5 years.

 

You are kidding yourself if you think the WMD thing is the only problem people have with Bush.

 

Honestly, I don't remember anyone claiming HUGE stockpiles.