The WMD Road to Damascus??

Well here is a non WND site.


The WMD Road to Damascus
Are Iraq's missing weapons in Syria? An exiled Syrian journalist says "yes."

It's the question that has dominated the postwar Iraq debate: Where are Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? Do they exist, or did none remain in Iraq's arsenal after they were used on the Kurds? If they do, why have American inspection teams not found them in the nearly yearlong period since the war ended?

One of the most troubling and intriguing theories has been the idea that Hussein smuggled them to Syria or some other nation before the war began. Now Nizar Nayyouf, an exiled Syrian journalist now living in Paris, claims to have contact with a Syrian military intelligence official who is confirming that theory.

www.nationalreview.com...













Saddam planned to provide aerial drones to terrorists

Saddam Hussein's government discussed supplying unmanned aerial vehicles to terrorists, according to a CIA report made public last week, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

The Iraq Survey Group report stated that the development of the Al Quds remotely piloted aircraft included links between the program director and terrorists.

Al Quds program director Imad Abd-al-Latif Al Rida reported that four Al Quds drones were to be used as "flying bombs" in an attempt to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to a source who worked on the Al Quds program.


worldnetdaily.com...


Makes you wonder doesnt it?




OLD NEWS

www.cnsnews.com...\Nation\archive\200410\NAT20041011a.html

CNSNews.com Publishes Iraqi Intelligence Docs
By David Thibault
CNSNews.com Managing Editor
October 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - When CNSNews.com published an article Monday, Oct. 4, entitled, "Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties," we decided against publishing all 42 pages of the Iraqi intelligence documents in our possession and on which the article was based.

We published only the first page, fearing that if more were made widely available on the Internet, they might end up being altered or otherwise manipulated. We offered credentialed news organizations and counter-terrorism experts the opportunity to view and receive copies of the documents so that they might check for themselves on the authenticity of the documents and judge their importance in the debate over whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and/or had ties to international terrorist organizations.









I guess you liberals will find a way to shoot this one down also...

I ahve been telling you he HAD the weapons, they probably are in Syria and that Saddam supported terrorist activities.........

But Bush Lied right? The Russians, CIA, MI6, The UN, The French, they all lied! Give me a break........spin this, I know you can.



www.cnsnews.com...\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.












worldnetdaily.com...


Another chemical weapon has been discovered in Iraq � a 122-mm Borak rocket warhead containing sarin traces, according to an exclusive report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by WorldNetDaily.com.

The warhead was found earlier this month, and U.S. military commanders believe there are more to be found.

In fact, according to G2B's military sources, chemical attacks are expected in Baghdad.

In May, at least two other projectiles were found with traces of chemical weapons � mustard gas and sarin.



[edit on 12-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 12-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 13-10-2004 by John bull 1]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 22-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 22-10-2004 by edsinger]

Even if we found full blown, fully developed WMD's in Iraq tomorrow the liberals would still find a way to deny it. There is nothing that can be said, done, or found that will convince them that Bush did the right thing.

Jemison

Were this real, I believe the other news organizations would be all over it. We've all seen this before.

Any news site that asks for PayPal donations, maybe shouldn't be your best source for news. The New York Times on the other hand:

More Proof The White House Lied About Iraq Nuclear Programs

Haha Esoterica, that's what I was wondering. Amazing how CNSN News? can get an exlusive on major documents like that. Man, I bet all the worldwide news services like Reuters, AP, and the BBC are pissing their pants for missing this opportunity. Who would of thought this small internet news service most people hadn't heard of would have been the first ones to receive these documents.

Hold on, let me check the link to the "first 42 pages." HAHA It's only 1 page from 1993, and they can't even read the handwriting on most of it. Looks credible to me lol.

Sorry esdad, those are just one those articles that are too good to be true.

Any news site that has a section called "Fact-O-Rama," is probably trying to tell you the rest of their news content isn't so factual.

And when you said "I guess you liberals will find a way to shoot this one down also..." I think you already knew this would be shot down and why.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

CBS,CNN,NBC,BBC ,PBS do not want to cover it...


Say one came out that said the whitehouse lied? Oh wait it did according to the NewYorkTimes,

Ooops brainfart, please excuse the double post....interent slowed way down and I thought it did not go...

[edit on 4-10-2004 by edsinger]

I too ran across this report and while it supports my own considerations regarding Iraq And Terrorist organizations... I was hoping it would be picked up and researched by a major news network. This is a bit hard to swallow at this level.

WELL,

I find it unusual that early this morning Rummy was at the CFR holding discussions with The Group . And an official DoD press release followed in the am, then a extreme right wing paper comes out with the proof!! The proof Rummy just denied having any knowledge of.
Coincidence I suppose. Don't forget to look at the last link!!!!

TUT





No. 990-04
IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 4, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Statement From Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship.

Today at the Council, I even noted that "when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say 'I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks,' and I read it."

The CIA conclusions in that paper, which I discussed in a news conference as far back as September, 2002, note that:
www.defenselink.mil...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In front of an audience in New York, Mr Rumsfeld was asked about connections between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.

No proof

news.bbc.co.uk...

That was three hours ago. Guess no one told him that his DoD just leaked the proof out to the Press before they told him they had it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GERONIMO !

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SPECIAL GROUP DECLARES WAY !

From: Rountable

Ken Bacon: The Pentagon

December 16, 1998






The 100 Council on Foreign Relations members that surround the president are "The Secret Team."

The "Secret Team" help carry out psycho-political operations scripted by CFR members in the state department and the Intelligence Organizations.

The psycho-political operations are coordinated by a group of CFR members called the Special Group.

The Special Group evolved from the Psychological Strategy Board


www.freerepublic.com...

Originally posted by tututkamen

WELL,
I find it unusual that early this morning Rummy was at the CFR holding discussions with The Group . And an official DoD press release followed in the am, then a extreme right wing paper comes out with the proof!! The proof Rummy just denied having any knowledge of.
Coincidence I suppose. Don't forget to look at the last link!!!!
TUT

No. 990-04
IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 4, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Statement From Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.
I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship.
Today at the Council, I even noted that "when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say 'I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks,' and I read it."

The CIA conclusions in that paper, which I discussed in a news conference as far back as September, 2002, note that:
www.defenselink.mil...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In front of an audience in New York, Mr Rumsfeld was asked about connections between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.
No proof
news.bbc.co.uk...
That was three hours ago. Guess no one told him that his DoD just leaked the proof out to the Press before they told him they had it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GERONIMO !
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SPECIAL GROUP DECLARES WAY !
From: Rountable
Ken Bacon: The Pentagon
December 16, 1998

The 100 Council on Foreign Relations members that surround the president are "The Secret Team."
The "Secret Team" help carry out psycho-political operations scripted by CFR members in the state department and the Intelligence Organizations.
The psycho-political operations are coordinated by a group of CFR members called the Special Group.
The Special Group evolved from the Psychological Strategy Board
www.freerepublic.com...

Have you even read the 911 report? Do you understand how the COLE bombing went down? Saddam had ties to them, of this there is no doubt. I doubt he OPENLY supported the 911 attacks, but he did support AL Qeda

Originally posted by edsinger
I doubt he OPENLY supported the 911 attacks, but he did support AL Qeda

Rumsfeld disagrees with you.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

And I have said many times that Saddam probably did have WMD's and probably gave them to Syria or other countries. We always knew he had them, we sold them to him in the late 80's to use against Iran which also ended up being used against the Kurds. Rumsfeld went to bat for them in the UN to make them exempt from the proposed ban of selling WMD's to dangerous countries. I guess he's cleaning up his own mess.

If this story has any merit it will be broadcast all over the news tomorrow. We shall see.

Have you even read the 911 report? Do you understand how the COLE bombing went down? Saddam had ties to them, of this there is no doubt. I doubt he OPENLY supported the 911 attacks, but he did support AL Qeda

Do you mind elaborating on what the 9/11 report state in regards to Saddam and Al Quedaa?

Sure, hey may not have "overtly" supported the attacks on the Twin Towers, but how does he have ties to it's actualy destruction ? How did he support Al Queda ?

Deep

Originally posted by ZeroDeep

Have you even read the 911 report? Do you understand how the COLE bombing went down? Saddam had ties to them, of this there is no doubt. I doubt he OPENLY supported the 911 attacks, but he did support AL Qeda

Do you mind elaborating on what the 9/11 report state in regards to Saddam and Al Quedaa?

Sure, hey may not have "overtly" supported the attacks on the Twin Towers, but how does he have ties to it's actualy destruction ? How did he support Al Queda ?

Deep

It is unknown that Saddam had any DIRECT part in 911, but he and his $$$ had contacts with Al-Qeda, but in his defense, he had $$$ for all the terrorist groups that wanted to kill Isrealis and Americans. I mean Abu Nidal? Funny how he was shot so fast, noy could he spill some beans.

Look, all I am saying is that he supported AL-qeda by supporting Islamic Fundementalism period. Even though the fundementalist didnt care for the secular Saddam. But the enemy of your enemy is your friend . That is a very famous and well used arab quote.


The 911 report does NOT directly tie 911 to saddam, but it does mention the alqeda connections over the years....I still have 50 pages to go....

CNN is also running the story where Rummy concedes there was no WMDs in Iraq and no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda here: CNN

Which I posted in this thread. Mods can close my thread if they like. Nobody is touching it and it seems to have been carried over to this thread anyway. I'm not in it for the points, so it doesn't bother me that you close the thread. I would rather edsinger get the points in this thread due to his boy Rummy coming clean and killing this "CNS Exclusive".

[edit on 5-10-2004 by cargo]

So let me get this striaght. Rumsfeld: "They do, they dont, they do, they dont, they do, they dont." Sounds like he is the one flip flopping to me. I dont believe a word he says anymore. He is just saying what he is being spoon fed anyway.

edsinger:

It is unknown that Saddam had any DIRECT part in 911, but he and his $$$ had contacts with Al-Qeda, but in his defense, he had $$$ for all the terrorist groups that wanted to kill Isrealis and Americans.

Um, boolsheet. Back it up. The 9-11 Commission couldn't find any link at all, what makes you so gullible?

Look, all I am saying is that he supported AL-qeda by supporting Islamic Fundementalism period. Even though the fundementalist didnt care for the secular Saddam. But the enemy of your enemy is your friend . That is a very famous and well used arab quote.

Again, your logic is totally off. Saddam would support an Islamic Fundamentalist movement even though he worked for 30 YEARS to establish a secular state? WHAT?! And ditto for Al Qaeda?

Show me an ACTUAL document that states this (and not from the laughable CNS news (not on any newswire) or from the Daily Standard), because it's beyond ludicrous. Dictators tend to be paranoid about supporting those who want to overthrow them.

The 911 report does NOT directly tie 911 to saddam, but it does mention the alqeda connections over the years....I still have 50 pages to go....

Please do me a favor and post the parts where the Commission Report "mentions the alqeda connections over the years". I read the whole thing and there is no mention of any "connections" over the years that were proven at all.

IF there was a shred of truth/fact to this the FOX would be all over it. John Batchellor on ABC news reported the link to CNS last night. CNS is sketchy right wing stuff (CBS would be the sketchy left), ABC, CNN, PBS,NBC, etc. have nothing linking to this bombshell. Batchellor is good but has a fair amount of out there stuff on his show so who knows but the links on CNS are lousy/dont work/ cant read. The jokes on you.

Originally posted by Jemison
Even if we found full blown, fully developed WMD's in Iraq tomorrow the liberals would still find a way to deny it. There is nothing that can be said, done, or found that will convince them that Bush did the right thing.

Jemison

I'm going to spin this the way I always spin it...

First, some background info. I'm a registered Republican and I voted for Bush. I will not be voting for him again. I am prior military, 7 years infantry. Enough background.

I agree that anyone who uses the argument that Bush, the CIA and all of the other world-class intelligence agencies lied about WMD in Iraq is completely deluded. I, myself, believe that Saddam did indeed send his WMD to another country, likely Syria.

My argument, however, regarding the invasion of Iraq is that it was poorly planned, poorly executed, and extremely narrow in scope, and as such has become more a failure at this point than a success.

The problems manifest in the Iraq occupation were issues that friends (still in the infantry) and I had actually foreseen prior to the invasion. Border security, diverse opposed factions who would vie for power, fundamentalist zealot incursion from surrounding unfriendly nations, etc.

It is my opinion that the reason these problems are as great as they are was a lack of planning and foresight. Whether or not Hussein possessed the WMD or the capability, he was not such an immediate threat that a proper plan could not have been formed prior to engagement.

It is also my opinion, as it is many others on the right and the left, that invasion of Iraq was on the Bush administration's agenda well before September 11, 2001. It is obvious to me that the attack on the WTC and Pentagon was exploited to gain unquestioning support from congress for the invasion, and that the attacks had to be exploited in haste to gain said support.

At every turn, Bush ignored the advice and suggestion of his Generals. I commend those Generals for following their orders from the CinC, but they did outwardly express their dissent toward them. Had Bush heeded the advice of those whose job it is to fight and win, it is likely that we would no longer be in Iraq, or that we would be in much better shape than we are currently.

The administration got cocky, all save for Sec. Powell, who, by all rights is the most qualified in the cabinet for the Defense Secretary position. Powell advised his boss to hold off at least for a while, or better still, to not commit to the undertaking.

The real result of the poorly planned Iraqi invasion, and subsequent costly occupation is that now we have troops commited for an undetermined, but undebatably long period of time. Should a legitimate threat arise in the near future that must be met with force, we now have one hand tied behind our back. A worst case scenario could be along the lines of N. Korean incursion of the DMZ with Chinese support. Something like this may not be likely, but likely or not, we are not prepared to meet the challenge should it arise.

Furthermore, half of the money that has been spent on the Iraqi invasion and occupation could have more than sufficiently bolstered our borders and ports, which I feel should take priority over offensive operations. Providing security in the rear always holds priority in offensive military operations. With the other $100 billion, we could have outfitted our intelligence agencies with the equipment necessary to be as efficient in their function as possible, and provide additional support to other intelligence agencies around the world, to whom we are allied in this fight.

Other points about Bush that compel me to write in (edit: I'm not writing in Mickey Mouse, as he is the devil) this election year are thus:

After Clinton, the military was in sad shape. I counted on Bush to improve conditions for soldiers and veterans, and to ensure security to the public by increasing military spending. Through omnibus appropriations, Bush effectively reduced the Veterans Affairs budget by nearly $1.9 billion in his first year of office. Junior enlisted men with families in the armed services are still encouraged to supplement their income with food stamps and other public assistance programs. How god damned republican is that?

Pullout from the Test Ban Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty for the purpose of development and testing of nuclear bunker buster bombs and nuclear tipped artillery shells, as well as global and theater missile defense shield technology. My opposition to these issues rests in my belief that they are both wasteful and unnecessary for adequate defensive or offensive operations. Not to mention expensive.

I had not looked into Bush's background prior to casting my vote for him in 2000, but I didn't care about anything other than he was a Republican, and at the time, we greatly needed Republican policy to balance the policies instituted by his predecessor. With further examination, it is a surprise to me that he did as well as he did. For all intents and purposes, George H. W. Bush was a failure in all his endeavors prior to holding the presidency. And there really weren't that many endeavors to begin with. Absolutely no foreign policy experience to speak of, cowardly bailing out of his failing petroleum processing firm, selling his stock and ensuring bankruptcy, screwing the other stockholders. He couldn't even run a successful baseball organization. Certainly not leadership of the caliber required to be President of the United States, in my opinion.

Next, my distaste for Bush lies also in my own suspicion that the primary reason for his desire to invade Iraq was to supply defense and other government contractors with lucrative business opportunities, the likes of which they had not seen since Reagan and G. H. Bush. These contractors did not fare well under the Clinton administration, and contributed greatly to the Bush campaign, likely with the implied expectation of a return on their investment in the near future.

So, in summary, the "WMD lie" argument is at best weak, and at worst unfounded. The manipulation of the congress through fear to gain support for a war which had already been supposed was wrong. I would not have minded so much had Bush not invaded hastily, without proper planning and preparation, and eventually leading to this unnecessary long-term obligation.

The Iraq war is a bungled effort in many ways, and Bush is accountable and responsible for his weak leadership, poor judgement, and obvious lack of talent and experience.








[edit on 5-10-2004 by DeltaChaos]

If America is attacked again it will be Muslims already present. They will not need to import any material to do it with just as the 9/11 lot did not.

Protecting borders and ports has nothing to do with it.

It worries me that they keep finding "traces" of mustard and sarin. Either these shells were inadequately cleaned prior to storage and there is nothing to worry about on the WMD front.

OR

The contents have been removed for storage by the terrorists. The expected ramp-up of teror before the election COULD include Tokyo subway type attacks all over Europe, not just Iraq. It'd be easier to walk onto a train with a vail of sarin rather with a bomb now in Europe. And It'd probably kill just as many people...