in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Gallup | Campaign 2012: Obama, Romney Each Has Economic Strengths With Americans |
0 |
| Chi. Sun Times | New Tone: Inside Sunday’s violent clash between ‘Black Bloc’ anarchists, cops |
0 |
| Power Line | Media Watch: “Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?” |
0 |
| WaPo | Shock: White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry |
0 |
| Politico | Interesting: Obama super PAC slump continues |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
The Syria/Iraq WMD connection
Jack Kelly, in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, wrote an opinion piece this weekend discussing the speculation on the connection between Syria and Iraq – specifically zeroing in on the possibility that Iraq, in an agreement with Syria, moved some of its WMDS to Syria prior to the war in Iraq. He mentions deputy chief of Saddam Hussein’s air force Georges Sadas recent claims, which I blogged about here, as well as some other interesting claims that are worth mentioning and discussing:
– 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 was 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,” Lt. Gen. Clapper said.
Former UNCSOM inspector Bill Tierney has speculated they were moved to Syria as well.
All this speculation brings me back to Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s visit to Syria in January 2002 – a visit where he admitted (unashamedly) that he alerted the Syrian head of state that in his view he thought the President had made up his mind to invade Iraq. That quote again in full (emphasis added):
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. 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.
I firmly believe the WMDs were moved. When all the dust settles over the debate as to whether or not Iraq really did possess WMDs (and we know they did, even if the Democrats want to revise history otherwise), I hope Sen. Rockefeller is called to testify as to why he was alerting heads of state in Middle Eastern countries – one of which is an ally of Iraq – why he chose to give them advance warning of what he thought was going to be our course of action in Iraq after 9-11.
Read more commentary via Wizbang Bomb Squad and Villainous Company
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Saddam’s #2 air force official: WMDs were moved to Syria
- Liberal newspaper: we don’t see the Iraq conspiracy
- The treachery of Sen. Jay Rockefeller
- The undermining of this war
- Where did the WMDs go?
- The public’s perception of the Iraq war correlation with 9-11
- Playing politics with the war
- GOP releases video detailing Dem statements
- What was Jay Rockefeller doing in 2002?
- W tells the Dems to stop rewriting history
- Who’s really lying about Iraq?
- Dems on Iraq – a quote recap
- Pre-war Iraq and Syria: closer than we thought
- Discrepancy Found in Explosives Amounts
- If Bush “lied” so did many others
RSS feed for comments on this post.
But ST !! There have been liberals on this very site saying that UNSCOM said there was NO WMD’s. While I’ve never seen that stated and it’s a made up statement by liberals I just wanted to point out that it is contradictory.
I think this should be investigated. If the WMD went to Syria, then Jay Rockefeller should be hung from the nearest tree and his fortune disbursed to the service mambers injured or killed in Iraq.
I just got Georges Sada’s book, Saddam’s Secrets. Can’t wait to dig into it. I’ve been convinced of the Syria connection since a couple of months after the fall of Saddam.
I just bristle when I see or hear Rockefeller on TV. He is just such a liar, caught so many times he stopped showing up on FNS.
Here is yet another illegal activity helping our enemy, by our allies. I think it is time we get some new allies. Thank you Russia for helping our enemy using your special forces. Ohhh and Russia, let’s not forget our thanks for replacing the Iraqi air force. Thank you France for your illegal hi-tech component sales. Thank you China for some reason we will determine later. That leaves Germany, and I tend to think they were just going along with France. We shall see. – Lorica
“But ST !! There have been liberals on this very site saying that UNSCOM said there was NO WMD’s.”
If they were moved to syria, that means they weren’t in Iraq.
Of course, if they were moved to Syria, does that those who said Iraq had no WMD’s were right, in that Iraq did get rid of them?
If UNSCOM had said “they’re in syria,” would we have stopped the invasion?
I doubt it. But now it is useful ot entertain the notion that syria has them.
>If UNSCOM had said “they’re in syria”
>would we have stopped the invasion?
I certainly hope not. How many times do you have to be told that this isn’t a mater of law enforcement, of just making sure the bad guys don’t break the rules where we can see? Saddam was ordered to turn everything remotely related to chemical, biological and nuclear processes over to the UN for evaluation and destruction, or prove that he destroyed it. Not to hide it, not to move it, not to lie about it. And refusing to live up to his promises about WMD was only one of the many reasons for removing Saddam from power.
andrew, why are you excusing Saddam for moving his WMD to Syria? What kind of mind can think it is perfectly ok to transfer WMD from one rogue regime to another and then say, “Well, Saddam doesn’t have it, so we better leave him alone.”?
Also, andrew, why do you think Saddam was perfectly OK killing thousands of people as long as it was within Iraq’s borders?
Don’t BS us with a moral equivalence argument with the death penalty.
“andrew, why are you excusing Saddam for moving his WMD to Syria?”
I don’t think he did. Just kind of saying that if he did, that would mean that those that said saddam was a threat are wrong: syria is a threat.
“Also, andrew, why do you think Saddam was perfectly OK killing thousands of people as long as it was within Iraq’s borders?”
Ask the Reagan administration. They didn’t want to cut agricultural credits to Iraq. They must have had a reason. Me? I was just a teenager.
It has slipped down the collective memory hole, but WMD’s have been found in Iraq. Stockpiles of WMD’s have not been found, but sarin and mustard gas have both been found.
I too believe that the stockpiles are in the Bekaa Valley.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
andrew, obviously you are inured to mass graves in Iraq. They were from Reagan’s time, but from Clinton’s. I guess you sleep well when you can blame everything on a Republican rather than on one of your Icons like Carter or Clinton.
You would have loved to have supported Neville Chamberlain.
“those that said saddam was a threat are wrong: syria is a threat.”
WOW! if thats not the most simple thought ive ever seen!
If that were the case, murderers in any city USA would simply stop being dangerous to society as long as they found a good hiding place for their guns accross the street in the shrubs.
Syria holding the weapons doesn’t “transfer” danger/threat, it SHARES it.
If ANY regimes would share ownership of WMDs do you think simply targeting one of the other would solve the problem?
To think that just because Saddam hid his dirty laundry at a friendly neighbor’s place makes him clean is foolish.
The WMDs would still belong to him and that leaves us where we started – a threat worth dealing with.
Andrew laughingly wrote, “I don’t think he did. Just kind of saying that if he did, that would mean that those that said saddam was a threat are wrong: syria is a threat.
It don’t matter that you don’t think he did. A person with more expertise believes he did.
“those that said saddam was a threat are wrong: syria is a threat“??????? No. That means saddam and syria are a threat in collusion. How about “you are wrong”.
It’s like a teacher talking to a boy who had his had stolen and one bully (who originally took the hat) says to the teacher “I don’t have the hat teach, the other bully Chet over there has it”. What should the teacher do? Punish only the bully who has the hat now?
Andrew in teenager type thinking wrote, “Ask the Reagan administration.
Are you charging that the Reagan administration knew that Iraq had killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds? Iraq was a closed society, and it was difficult enough getting intelligence for all of the world intelligence agencies and the intelligence that Colin Powell presented to the U.N. was found to be in error (as presented from the intelligence agency to Bush admin and Congress) and you are making the IRRESPONSIBLE case that we should ask the Reagan administration [those heartless evil cowards] about things we know now due to defectors out of Iraq….
Geez. Did you have too much marijuana also?
Enrique, Your analogy was so much better !!
“They were from Reagan’s time, but from Clinton’s. I guess you sleep well when you can blame everything on a Republican rather than on one of your Icons like Carter or Clinton.”
Oh. Don’t confuse my citation of reagan with thinking that clinton had a good iraq policy.
“The WMDs would still belong to him and that leaves us where we started – a threat worth dealing with.”
This is the lunacy of this theory.
“Are you charging that the Reagan administration knew that Iraq had killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds?”
Of course they did. Halabja and things were publicized. A public effort was made to cut agricultural credits. And it was shot down.
Andrew wrote, “Oh. Don’t confuse my citation of reagan with thinking that clinton had a good iraq policy.
Don’t worry. We see your comments as shifting the blame from Saddam to others… Why do you want to do that????
Andrew wrote, “Of course they did.
Link PLEASE?
“Andrew wrote, “Of course they did.
Link PLEASE?”
Link to what? The media at the time reported on Halabja. We have pictures now that were published then. We also know he used gas during the Iran Iraq war. There were attempts at censure of Saddam in the UN.
In 1988 A bipartisan group of Senators introduced the “Prevention against Genocide Act”. It references the Genocide against the Kurdish people.
Back to Andrew’s “peek-a-boo” theory of innocence. This is great news for crime syndicates and terrorists alike! All they have to do is not have anything illegal on them when the law comes calling, and they are miraculously proclaimed innocent! All the evidence that led the law to the suspect’s door doesn’t mean a thing, if the actual illegal materials can be hidden at a neighbor’s place! Because in Andrew’s world, Justice must be stupid as well as blind.
“They must have had a reason. Me? I was just a teenager.”
- Aparently, at least in metal development and independent thinking, you still are….
- Bang
….Mental….not metal….If you had any metal you’d tell the Liberal robots that run you goodbye…
- Bang
“All they have to do is not have anything illegal on them when the law comes calling, and they are miraculously proclaimed innocent!”
I’d hate to see the war on terror follow the criminal metaphor.
Sis, it doesn’t matter how many stories you find like this, you’ve got to realize one thing: until we actually capture those weapons, until we can put our hands on them and publish the pictures and data for everyone in the world, this story will not be believed!
It doesn’t even matter if the stories are true; at this point they have to be proven beyond any possible doubt, by capture and possession, before they will be believed.
I’ll go one step further. It doesn’t even matter if we do find them. No one will believe it anyway.
And … until Jay Rockefeller stands trial for treason, nobody will take the WOT seriously. Treason is real, and it needs to be dealt with. For a change, let’s be serious about it and start from the top, not at the bottom.
Charge Rockefeller!
- We don’t really enforce treason laws until they get to the level of the Rosenbergs. The left and all the other gaggle of minority hate-America firsters know this and count on it. Notice though, no matter what they do or say against their own country, they do it here in the safety of their terrible home. Funny how that works…..
- Bang
- I just watched a moderate Islamic spokesman say “We can’t accept the cartoons on any level, so of course we reacted. If you in the West want the moderate Muslims on your side in the WOT, then you should be respectful to our core religion.”
- All together now everyone: “BS”
- No your archholiness. You should be in the front of the WOT. Its your religion thats being hijacked, not mine. Where is all the embassy burning, and “reaction” when innocent women and children get bombed? Where is the outrage when people get their heads cut off? When was the last time your Islamic leaders issued a Fatwa against the Jihadist killers that are running around commiting every manner of war crimes against the whole of Western society in the Name of Allah?
What expletive deleted, unadulterated arrogance. “You post a cartoon Christian/Jew pig and you should be murdered”. A Muslim does any act of terror its to be condoned and dissmissed. Again “BS”
- No I’m not going to pander to the moderate Muslims rears so they’ll be on our side. If the cartoons did nothing else they have framed, for once and for all, the total one sided nature of this whole pile of Theocratic/Fascist dung. No wonder the foil-hats love them so much.
- Bang
Calling Jay Rockefeller a “traitor” because he told the heads of Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia that the US was going to invade Iraq is silly. It was common knowledge that the US was going to invade Iraq; even the clueless US Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neill knew it. It was just a matter of when the US would invade Iraq. So Rockefeller told Assad what Assad already knew…. And do you think that President Bush would not warn Assad that he was planning to invade the country that happens to share a border with Syria?
And since when was Jay Rockefeller telling the heads of state of Jordan Syria and Saudi Arabia US secrets? Was the material classified? If Rockefeller was not revealing classified material, why do you call him a traitor? What is your definition of treachery?
“And since when was Jay Rockefeller telling the heads of state of Jordan Syria and Saudi Arabia US secrets?”
How can it be a secret if its just his opinion? How can it be a secret unless its also true.
So you would be ok with Rockerfeller heading over to Iran to tell them that we are going to bomb their nuclear facilities in late April? It would just be his opinion, so you’d be ok with that?
“So you would be ok with Rockerfeller heading over to Iran to tell them that we are going to bomb their nuclear facilities in late April? It would just be his opinion, so you’d be ok with that?”
Right. Just like we can here opine on what the president is going to do.
Um, Andrew, the problem with that argument is that we’re not US Senators who are sitting on intelligence committees who are ‘in the know’. Your logic is warped beyond all reason, as always.
“Um, Andrew, the problem with that argument is that we’re not US Senators who are sitting on intelligence committees who are ‘in the know’.”
If he’s telling classified info, that’s a problem. If he’s not, its not a problem. Just being ‘in the know’ doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion. that you can’t share. He could write an Op-ed piece that says ‘i think bush wants war.’ He can also say it to whoever wants to hear it.
Interestingly, his opinion was wrong. He said he thought Bush was determined for war but Bush has said that he did not have his mind set on war. So either he’s wrong or bush is lying.
I’m having trouble understanding your answer andrew. Did you say it would be ok for Rockefeller to tell the Iranians?
“I’m having trouble understanding your answer andrew. Did you say it would be ok for Rockefeller to tell the Iranians?”
He can say what he wants so long as he’s not giving out secrets.
Personally I think it was bad ethics on his aprt if eanything and should be referred to an ethics committee an censured at very least.
Ah, then I oppose your position Andy. It is not the job of a member of the branch of legislation to share information with other countries, even public knowledge. In fact, it is illegal. That right lies solely in the executive branch, as it should, since it allows for a unified position.
I would not call Rockerfeller’s past trangressions of the law treasonous, but I would make clear to him the law, in case he has another chance to help the enemy.
Blogagog says, “It is not the job of a member of the branch of legislation to share information with other countries, even public knowledge. In fact, it is illegal. That right lies solely in the executive branch, as it should, since it allows for a unified position.
I would not call Rockerfeller’s past trangressions of the law treasonous, but I would make clear to him the law, in case he has another chance to help the enemy.”
Are you suggesting that it is the law that a member of the legislature is not allowed to express his opinion to foreign heads of states?
I note that Rockefeller was not speaking for Bush, but was giving his own opinion on what Bush was likely to do.
What would breaking such a law be described as? If not treason, then what?
As I say, Rockefeller discussed the possible invasion of Iraq in 2002. It was common knowledge. Rockefeller obviously was not speaking for the administration. Must senators from the opposing party hew to the administration line when abroad?
As I see it, the worst that Rockefeller can be accused of by sane people is questionable taste in whom he decides to share his opinions with.
Yes.
Sanity says, “Personally I think it was bad ethics on his part if anything and should be referred to an ethics committee an censured at very least.”
I don’t understand what ethical rule Rockefeller here is accused of breaking. Seems to me that he might be saying to the Iranians something like, “You guys better clean up your act. In my opinion, the President is serious…. he will bomb you.”
If the Iranians decide to clean up their act because of these words, it is very likely that Jay Rockefeller will have saved the United States a lot of money that would go to replacing the bombs that were dropped on Iraq, at least.
Or does Bush just want to bomb them whether they straighten out their act or not?
What law are you accusing Rockefeller of breaking? (I don’t believe such a law exists.)
Separation of powers act, circa long time ago. Wiki has something about it. It’s a good read, and quite accurate. Check it out here.
Is rockefeller an abassador and represents the intreset of the US?
So does he have the legal authority to go to foriegn nations that are allies of a possible US target and discuss plans of the US with them? What business is it of his to do so? What was his purpose? These are questions I think he needs ot answer.
Did he inform the president that he was doing this?
If I go behind my bosses back and discuss things with a customer or competitor for business, you can damn well be sure I would have repercussions against me and very well could be fired from my job. If it dealt with security information, I could very well lose my security clearances instantly and be under investigation.
Sanity starts out this way: “If I go behind my bosses back and discuss things with a customer or competitor for business…”
Unfortunately, the President is not Rockefeller’s boss. (The United States has not gotten to that point yet.)
I just checked (thanks to Blogagog) the Separation of Powers act. I read enough of it to discover nothing about a member of the legislature going to a foreign country and expressing his opinion as being contrary to the act.
Do you have something more precise in mind?
Just checked the Supreme Court cases (also found in the same Wikipedia article that Blogalog referred to.) I started from 1930 to the present, and the only thing that remotely looked like a discussion of separation of powers was under Nixon, and the particular decision rendered (executive privilege) had nothing to do with what Jay Rockefeller said to the King of Jordan. Are you SURE Rockefeller broke a law? What law?
“Are you SURE Rockefeller broke a law? What law?”
Perhaps this one:
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments:
What Rockefeller did was also dangerously close to treason, IMO, which involves giving aid to the enemy.
This thread is a classic example about how low the Democratic party has sunk in terms of what they will let their party leaders get away with. 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 ??
Boggles the mind.
Interesting read.
Congressional Record: November 7, 2003 (Senate) Page S14254-S14261
Sister Toldjah makes this comment:
“What Rockefeller did was also dangerously close to treason, IMO, which involves giving aid to the enemy.”
And who, pray, did Rockefeller aid? King Hussein of Jordan? The King of Saudi Arabia? Assad of Syria? Since when have we classified them as enemies? If Saudi Arabia is our enemy, who is not our enemy? (Let us not forget… before you answer “Syria!” that at least one of our “extraordinary renditions” of a certain Canadian was to our ally, Syria.