RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

70 Responses to “The Syria/Iraq WMD connection”

Comments

1. Sister Toldjah says:

   February 7, 2006 at 9:42 pm

   He aided Iraq.

   Let me spell it out: Syria is an ally of Iraq.

   We’ve tolerated Syria to a certain extent because we needed their assistance in the war on terror. Toleration of another country does not equate to friendship nor does it give a sitting US Senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee the right to visit an ally of a sworn enemy and tell them he thinks we’re going to invade Iraq.

   Why on earth is that so hard for the left to understand?
2. sanity says:

   February 7, 2006 at 9:47 pm

   Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers
   Congress as a User of Intelligence
   LINK

   A good read on the NYT and possible violation of the Espionage Act

   WHICH SIDE WILL AMERICANS CHOOSE TO BE ON?

   Using the definition of treason prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, the following event seems to provide a precise example.

   Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) on the November 14, 2005 edition of “Fox Sunday” divulged

   “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq–that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.”

   Senator Rockefeller was at the time of his trip, less than four months after 9/11, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which means he was entrusted with “sensitive secured information” as relates existing intelligence regarding Iraq WMD, ongoing intelligence operations looking into Iraq’s WMD program and America’s national security plans concerning the ongoing threat.

   Syria was then and remains today on the State Departments list of terror regimes, clearly defined for some years as an enemy to America itself. But Syria was also a close ally to the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, the very subject of the information Senator Rockefeller chose to share with Hussein’s allies in Syria.

   In the weeks that followed Senator Rockefellers’ friendly visit with Syria, CIA operatives began reporting Iraqi convoys traveling across the Syrian border; – a suspected “outsourcing” of Iraq’s WMD, which became the centerpiece of Colin Powell’s case against Iraq before the UN. Those same WMD that would later go missing by the time America entered Iraq 12 months later. (See the entire time-line of events here in Rockefeller’s Treachery by writer Joan Swirsky.)

   What were Senator Rockefeller’s “intentions” in his visit with three Arab Middle Eastern states four months after 9/11, carrying with him and divulging “national security information” concerning America’s intelligence and related policy towards Iraq? Was his trip an “overt act”, and did his trip include a “violation of trust or allegiance” to the United States? Did the information he carried to known U.S. enemies, known allies of the Hussein regime, provide “aid or comfort” to America’s enemies?

   According to the definition of treason spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, and Senator Rockefeller’s own account, there has not been a more clear-cut case of treason in modern history. Yet the so-called American press has been completely silent on the subject, which is of course, a form of “aiding and abetting” in and of itself.

   How far was Senator Jay Rockefeller willing to go?
3. andrew says:

   February 7, 2006 at 10:17 pm

   Good luck proving the intent element in that statute. Also, how do you know he didn’t have authority to talk to them?

   “What Rockefeller did was also dangerously close to treason, IMO, which involves giving aid to the enemy.”

   Whats the aid? He could have stood up in congress and said it. It would have been in the congressional record. He could have said it on CNN, or skynews, or Al-jazeera, or an op-ed piece in the wall street journal. Good luck with the adherence element too.

   “It’s ok to go on foreign soil and discuss possible war plans with they ally of the country we were sworn enemies with at the time but it’s not ok to use warrantless wiretaps beyond a 72 hour timeframe during a time of war ?”

   Can someone post on their blog that they think the US is determined to go to war with syria? Even if that is not true? Even if they know people from the syrian government read their blog?
4. blogagog says:

   February 7, 2006 at 10:26 pm

   As I said, I would not call it treasonous, just illegal, mikey. It is the job of the executive branch to make the deal with foreign powers, and the legislature’s job is to ratify or not ratify that agreement.

   This is not my opinion, it is the law.
5. Mickey says:

   February 7, 2006 at 10:57 pm

   Thank you, Sister Toldjah, for drawing my attention to that law. I would point out two things:
   1. That law has NOTHING to do with separation of powers. It says clearly “any citizen of the United States…” which is not the same as “any legislator” or “any Justice of the Peace….”
   2. That law has not, in my experience, been enforced by either Democrat or Republican, despite provocation. I will mention two cases so that you will understand what I mean.
   A. Some 15 years ago or so, Jesse Jackson went to Lebanon to negotiate for the release of some kidnap victims. He was clearly not going at the behest of President Reagan.
   B. Clinton was just about to invade Haiti… when ex-President Carter arrived and negotiated an exit of the military guy who had ruled Haiti. Clinton was not happy…. but Carter did not, as far as i know, spend much time in jail.

   Now if neither Democrats nor Republicans will enforce this law, why bother bringing it up?

   There are various reasons for this law to exist. Consider how dangerous was Jackson’s dealings with the Lebanese… and consider all of the American ships off shore in Haiti…. and now consider Rockefeller going to Syria and saying, “It is my opinion that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning.”
6. Mickey says:

   February 7, 2006 at 11:01 pm

   I agree with Blogagog, that a law exists, and that what Rockefeller did was POSSIBLY illegal, and CERTAINLY questionable.
7. Mickey says:

   February 7, 2006 at 11:10 pm

   Syria and Iraq are not allies. During the previous war, when the US drove Iraq out of Kuwait, the only country in the world that was neutral was Jordan. (The Palestinians supported Saddam). Assad’s father was opposed to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait.

   As a matter of fact, these countries are only “united” in that both of them are opposed to the existence of Israel. By this logic, the US should also consider Malaysia an enemy.

   The only thing more absurd than supposing that Syria and Iraq are allies is supposing that Iran and Iraq are allies. It has been a long time, but Iran and Iraq had a war that lasted ten years and cost more than a million lives. Do you really think that Iran would be glad to hold onto Saddam’s WMD briefly…. until he could just regain the presidency of his country?
8. Mickey says:

   February 8, 2006 at 12:52 am

   For those who believe in a Syria /Iraq alliance, check this… and then check the URL.

   Iraq’s most bitter foreign relationship was with the rival Baath government in Syria. Although there were periods of amity between the two governments–such as the one immediately after the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the one in October 1978, when Iraq and Syria both opposed Egypt’s plans for a separate peace with Israel–the governments generally were hostile to one another. Relations began to deteriorate once again at the end of 1980 following the outbreak of the war with Iran. Syria criticized Iraq for diverting Arab attention from the real enemy (Israel) and for attacking a regime (Iran) supportive of the Arab cause. Relations worsened throughout 1981 as each country accused the other of assisting antiregime political groups. In April 1982, Syria closed its borders with Iraq and cut off the flow of Iraqi oil through the pipeline that traversed Syrian territory to ports on the Mediterranean Sea. The cessation of Iraqi oil exports via this pipeline was a severe economic blow; Iraq interpreted the move as a confirmation of Syria’s de facto alliance with Iran in the war.

   The hostility between Iraq and Syria has been a source of concern to the other Arab states. King Hussein of Jordan, in particular, tried to reconcile the Iraqi and Syrian leaders. Although his efforts to mediate a meeting between Saddam Husayn and Syrian president Hafiz al Assad were finally realized in early 1987, these private discussions did not lead to substantive progress in resolving the issues that divided the two countries. Intense diplomatic efforts by Jordan and by Saudi Arabia also resulted in the attendance of both presidents, Saddam and Assad, at the Arab League summit in Amman in November 1987. The Iraqis were irritated, however, that Syria used its influence to prevent the conference from adopting sanctions against Iran. The animosities that have divided the rival Iraqi and Syrian factions of the Baath appeared to be as firmly rooted as ever in early 1988.

   Iraq Table of Contents

   Source: U.S. Library of Congress
9. Mickey says:

   February 8, 2006 at 12:55 am

   Sorry…. forgot the URL.

   http://countrystudies.us/iraq/85.htm
10. Sister Toldjah says:

    February 8, 2006 at 8:51 am

    *SIGH* Yeah, Syria and Iraq aren’t allies – that’s why so many of Saddam’s regime (and family?) were welcomed there with open arms after the fall of Baghdad:

    WASHINGTON — At least one and perhaps more senior officials of Saddam Hussein’s toppled regime have fled into Syria, U.S. officials charged Monday, prompting the Bush administration to threaten economic sanctions against Iraq’s most friendly neighbor.

    U.S. officials wouldn’t identify the Iraqi leaders who have fled to Syria, but a Defense official said that among the fugitives is Sajida Khairallah, mother of Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay. Other administration officials could not confirm that.

    Secretary of State Colin Powell warned the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad not to provide haven to senior Iraqi officials sought by allied forces. One, Watban Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a half brother of Saddam, was caught Sunday en route to Syria, officials said.

    See also this for info on Iraq/Syria relations:

    First, Syria chose to place itself at the head of the Arab camp opposing the war and was prominent in its sharp, even belligerent, criticism of Washington’s decision to go to war. Moreover, Syria not only supported Iraq rhetorically, but also when the war actually broke out, Syria continued to turn a blind eye to the smuggling of weapons into Iraq via Syria and allowed Arab (mainly Syrian) volunteers to cross the Syrian border into Iraq.

    [...]

    Alongside these foci of disagreement, the increasingly close relations between Damascus and Baghdad were a major issue for Washington. Indeed, since Bashar rose to power, there were perceptible efforts to turn over a new leaf in his relations with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. However, it should be mentioned that the trend toward improved relations between Syria and Iraq had begun in 1997, under Hafiz al-Asad. These relations had been on a downward course since the beginning of the 1980s because of Syria’s support for Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, as well as the personal, political and ideological differences that arose between the fellow Ba’th regimes, Syrian and Iraqi.(16)

    However, in 1997, Asad sensed that Saddam Hussein no longer posed a real threat to Syria and he apparently wanted to use closer relations between the two states as a bargaining chip against the United States and Israel. The Syrians were horrified by the election of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel and by the possibility of the exacerbation of Syrian-Turkish relations to the point of armed conflict. In any event, while Hafiz al-Asad did renew relations between Syria and Iraq, he acted cautiously, refraining from introducing anything of substance to these relations, certainly not turning them into any kind of a strategic or intimate alliance.(17)

    So far, in anything that has had to do with his relations with Iraq, Bashar has been revealed in all his inexperienced youth. He has demonstrated extreme daring, certainly in comparison with his father’s cautious policies. His government did not hesitate to express explicit and unequivocal support of Iraq, even to the point of attempting to establish a unified pan-Arab front against the American intention of attacking that country. Damascus also became the focal point of pilgrimages by senior Iraqi officials, led by Deputy Prime Minister Tariq ‘Aziz, and Vice Presidents ‘Izat Ibrahim al-Duri and Tariq Yasin Ramadan, who were cordially welcomed in the Syrian capital.(18)

    In addition, Syria’s relations with the Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein cooled, and the Syrians put limits on their activities. For example, a radio station run by the Iraqi opposition operating in Syria was shut down in early 2001 and the publication of anti-Iraq newspapers in Damascus was outlawed.(19) However, the Syrians continued their contacts with Kurdish movements, a move designed to ensure a certain amount of Syrian influence in Iraq in the event of an American attack and even more so in the event of the Iraqi state’s political breakdown. The Syrians feared the possibility of the establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq, which could have implications for the Kurdish population in Northeastern Syria.

    Moreover, in the autumn of 2000, the Iraqis began exporting oil via Syria. The Iraqi oil flowed through Syria via the Kirkuk-Banyas pipeline in amounts between 150,000 to 200,000 barrels per day (bpd). This oil was transferred to Syria for local use, allowing Syria to increase exports of its own oil. Washington was quick to protest to the Syrians for their crass violation of the boycott of Iraq. However, in response to that protest, Bashar explained to Secretary of State Powell and later to President Bush that the flow of oil had been part of a technical examination of the pipeline, which had been idle for almost two decades, and that with the completion of the examination, the flow of oil would be stopped.(20)

    At the end of 2000, it was reported that shortly after the Palestinian intifada broke out, Saddam Hussein moved Iraqi forces to the Syrian border perhaps as a warning signal to Israel but clearly in order to exploit the situation to improve his regional standing.(21) In the summer of 2002, reports were published that Syria had turned a blind eye to the smuggling of weapons from Eastern Europe to Iraq via Syria involving Firas Talas, son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Talas and a well-known businessman in Damascus. This time, the Syrians were quick to deny these reports.(22) Finally, in late 2002, it was reported that the Syrians had allowed Iraq to hide some of its weapons of mass destruction in their territory and even assisted in the transfer of Iraqi weapons to Hizballah. These reports were also denied by the Syrians.(23)

    After Bashar rose to power, Syria continued to refrain from any kind of strategic alliance with Iraq or even from renewing diplomatic relations between the two countries. Apparently, it was the Old Guard surrounding Bashar that prevented the development of closer relations between Syria and Iraq. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq ‘Aziz proposed, during a visit to Damascus, that Syria should ratify the “National Action Treaty” that the two countries had signed in the late 1970s when relations between the two countries were good, but that Saddam Hussein canceled when he rose to power in 1979. Syrian Defense Minister Talas reacted with derision, stating that “Hafiz al-Asad died without ever learning why Saddam cancelled the Treaty, or why he was so quick to accuse Syria of plotting a coup against him.”(24) It is possible that the Syrians’ fear of Iranian and the Gulf States’ reactions prevented Asad from getting too close to Iraq. After all, it was Bashar al-Asad who called Saddam Hussein “a beast of a man” during a visit to Kuwait even before he succeeded his father.(25)

    Ties between Syria and Iraq, both during Hafiz al-Asad’s rule and that of his son Bashar, were first and foremost of economic significance. Iraq became a milk cow for Syria because of the dramatic increase in trade between the two countries, which reached at least $3 billion by the end of 2002.(26) The increase in trade between the two countries—both direct and for goods transported through Syria to bypass UN sanctions–was accompanied by a series of economic agreements, including the establishment of a Syria-Iraq free trade zone and one on joint investments in the two countries. An airline route between Baghdad and Damascus was inaugurated in blatant violation of the sanctions and, in July 2001, a railroad line was opened between Mosul and Aleppo. The resumption of the flow of oil between Kirkuk and Baniyas amounted to about one-third of Syria’s own production. The Iraqi oil was sold to Syria at a reduced price and Syria used it for the domestic market, letting it increase its own oil exports and realize a nice profit.(27)

    Nice try though, Mickey.

    Let me add this: whether or not any of the countries Rockefeller went to was an ally of Iraq, Rockefeller had no business going to the Middle East and discussing with any of them the possibility that we might go to war with a Middle Eastern country. In some circles, Rockefeller’s word could have been construed as an act of war – and hypothetically speaking, if we didn’t have plans eventually to deal with Iraq, that would have been a diplomatic mess of epic proportions.

    The bottom line is when it comes to matters of foreign policy, it’s up to the President and his cabinet to set up alliances with countries deemed friendly to US interests. It is NOT up to sitting US Senators to tell any country what he thinks our war policy will be towards ANY country – PERIOD. Jay Rockefeller is a seasoned veteran in the Senate and knew better. The shame is on him and anyone who thinks it was no big deal for him to undermine US policy by going there and whispering in their ears.
11. andrew says:

    February 8, 2006 at 9:03 am

    “*SIGH* Yeah, Syria and Iraq aren’t allies – that’s why so many of Saddam’s regime (and family?) were welcomed there with open arms after the fall of Baghdad:”

    And why do we send them al-qaeda suspects? Maybe the world isn’t so black and white?
12. CavalierX says:

    February 8, 2006 at 9:06 am

    >And why do we send them al-qaeda
    >suspects?

    I think you mean Jordan.
13. Sister Toldjah says:

    February 8, 2006 at 9:07 am

    Learn to read, andrew – my post from earlier:

    We’ve tolerated Syria to a certain extent because we needed their assistance in the war on terror. Toleration of another country does not equate to friendship nor does it give a sitting US Senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee the right to visit an ally of a sworn enemy and tell them he thinks we’re going to invade Iraq.
14. blogagog says:

    February 8, 2006 at 9:11 am

    We send al-quaeda suspects to Syria, Andrew? Are you sure? Do you have proof? If so, why do we do that? We have allies that still torture, so it can’t be just to torture info out of them.

    Are you pretty sure?
15. andrew says:

    February 8, 2006 at 9:16 am

    “We send al-quaeda suspects to Syria, Andrew? Are you sure? Do you have proof? If so, why do we do that? We have allies that still torture, so it can’t be just to torture info out of them.”

    Look up the case of Maher Arar.
16. Mickey says:

    February 8, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    For those who haven’t been reading the news for the last few years, Maher Arar is a Canadian of Syrian descent who visited his wife’s former home in North Africa, and was arrested and sent on an “extraordinary rendition” mission back to his ancestral home, where he was tortured in Syria… at our (i.e. the US) request. After 6 months, the Syrians let him go…. of course, without charges.

    Mickey
17. Mickey says:

    February 8, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    Is it possible that Syria is helping us in the war on terrorism? If so, we usually call people who are on our side in a war “allies.” Let us not forget that some of Saddam’s people have been arrested in Syria, trying to escape Iraq. And Saddam’s family is now living…. in Jordan, not Syria.
18. Mickey says:

    February 8, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    But to be perfectly fair, I will grant that Syria’s actions do run hot and cold. I grant it is possible that Saddam might have left some of his WMD in Syria, I’ll grant…. but please please please do not suggest that Saddam was allied with Iran. That is just too absurd.
19. Mickey says:

    February 9, 2006 at 9:41 pm

    Consider: Why did Saddam have those WMD in the first place? Saddam used them against Iran. Now do you suppose that the Iranians are going to let their good friend Saddam store his WMD somewhere in Iran until he can just break out of jail and become “President” again?

    The Iranians have their own agenda…. and it isn’t too hard to figure what it is. Have you noticed that something like 60% of Iraq is Shia? Now the Shia (in South Iraq) always liked the Iranians…. Moqtada al Sadr (no friend of Saddam) spent time in Iran. So did Sistani. The Brits in South Iran have had few casualties (for one reason) because they have not interfered with the Badr Brigades and the Mahdi militia. When the Brits leave…. do you suppose that the Shia in south Iraq would have anything preventing them from joining up (de facto) with the Iranians?

    And what does Saddam’s WMD have to do with any of this? I suppose that you will tell me that the Shia in Iraq and Saddam were good buddies.

    I will say this: if the US really does decide to bomb Iran, and if Saddam really did hide his WMD in Iran…..

© 2003 - 2009 Sister Toldjah • All Rights Reserved

Powered by: WordPress • Design by: E.Webscapes • Hosted by: Hosting Matters