This question is a follow-up from my last one,which was whether or not there are WMDs in Syria,moved there from Iraq\nshortly before the war began. There were a number of answers,\nthe two best ones opposed to each other,and in my opinion both making very good arguments.When I called a vote,the majority of voters sided with the answer that there were no\nWMDs to start with.\n However,noone who answered addressed the question of why\nsome Iraqi military officers claim to have seen or have first-hand knowledge of such weapons being transported to\nSyria.I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve these reports,\nI would just like to hear the opinions of the informed and\nuninformed alike.
205037
Probably to save their asses.  Given our satellite recon capabilities, anything more than a miniscule effort would likely have been detected and certainly this would have made the evening news during the buildup for war.  It's not like our abilities in this are are a mystery, especially after the first gulf war, and it would have gone a long way to placate the detractors.
596910
I am troubled by this as well.  I just turned on the talk-radio station and they said it on the news on there (that chemical weapons were found).  But I didn't see it on tv news.  I am confused about what was really found and why it isn't being reported.  \n\nIt makes me angry that only bad news is reported, not the good news that shows how hard our troops are working over there.
586145
Your funny....i will laugh...........wait for it..........NOW......HAHAHAHA.\n\n\nThere is no point in name calling, i just want you to stop spreading lies told to you, I want you to research better of course...you deserve better.\n\n\n'WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion."\n\nhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/...\n\n\nWASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN.\n\nhttp://www.cnn.com/2005/us/01/12/wmd.sea...\n\n\nUNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document\n\nhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/...\n\nNo weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC. \n\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/polit...\n\n\nFour months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring. \n\nhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art...\n\n\nAND AS A JOKE>>>>>>>\nWASHINGTON — The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (search) production by Saddam Hussein's (search) regime after 1991. \n\nhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1346...\n\nLook i support goal of a stable democracy in Iraq, I sure as hell want the troops safe, but this adminstration lied, and sacrificed or troops for that lie. It is time for competent leadership.
338208
I have been thinking that way for a long time. there are some dodgy questions being asked. a couple i have seen, How Many Exactly US troops in Iraq.How do you get to a certain navel station. How many tanks has US got in Iraq. Do you know when a certain Division is about to be moved over to Iraq. these are just some of the ones i think are suspicious.
247084
Dude. I was there. They didn't have shit. Hell, the Iraqi army barely had ammunition for their weapons. \n\nWe have invaded Iraq on false pretenses. The President lied us into a war. Iraq did not have WMD's. Saddam had used them before the first gulf war, what makes you think he wouldn't have used them again on Americans that were invading his land if he still had them?\n\nDoes logic not mean anything to you at all?\n\nYou mention the insurgents that have converged in Iraq ... They wouldn't be there had we not invaded and then left the borders WIDE OPEN. Do you have any idea how many Syrian terrorists I had personally dealt with? Any clue at all how and why these people chose to go to Iraq? I'll tell you, it's because Americans are there and they want nothing more than a chance to hurt an American.\n\nIf you're so gung-ho about this terrible war, then I suggest you get your butt to the nearest MEPS, enlist, and request to serve in Iraq. Put your money where your mouth is.\n\n___\n\nI don't believe you.
569161
The weapons were moved to Syria by Russian convoys.It will all come out at a later date.It is very incriminating for France,Russia and China so the wraps are on.
15953
I'm going to have to quote Sherasi here (you wrapped this up perfectly): Personally, I neither hate or love President Bush. He has been an adequate president doing nothing outstanding or terrible in either direction.  (Now here's my part).  As for the WMD's it is possible that they haven't been found.  However, and I don't think I'm speaking alone when I say this, given the tone of the Administration, the UN speech by Colin Powel and George Bush's own firey speeches, I was under the impression that the WMD posed a clear and present danger to us our or our friends in Europe (them being closer, it would be easier to get a missle there).  Therefore, even though I wasn't an avid war supporter, I did expect there to be some sort of major find (again, just because of the tone).  After these years, though it is possible that they are well hidden, the United States has sent top experts of our own (so the crack towards the UN in an earlier answer was pointless), along with spy planes, ground-penetrating radar and computer logistics simulations that could track the likely path of any movement.  I believe the weapons did exist, at one time, but were destroyed or moved.  The fact that the supposed weapons haven't been found then should NOT be seen as a 'victory' for Democrats or a 'defeat' to Republicans.  It should, if we go on the premise that Bush was telling the truh, be a cause of great alarm:  Where are these weapons? Could enemies be plotting against us right now?  It is very sad (and alarming) how even something as overtly destructive as biotoxins suddenly becomes political in this toxic political atmosphere.  And to address you additional comment, if the weapons are one day found, I would hope that the 'Bush haters' say "It looks like we made a mistake".  However, you and I and everyone here knows d*mn well that we're not that forgiving in America, and that - unfortunately - is the reason many foreign policy blunders (and that's aimed at all Presidents, not just Bush) go not only unapologized for, but are compensated by compoundingly disastrous steps.
230750
I do not think that Bush lied about the WMD. They found mobile chem labs that had been cleaned down to the micro particles. If you had nothing to hide why would you have to go to that extent? Why are there indications that weapons were shipped to Iran right before we invaded? There are a lot more questions that can not be answered without bringing in WMD. Do I believe that there was as many as was made out to be? No I don't believe so. Do I beileve that there were WMD? Yes I do think that they were there. Look at what he was willing to do to his own people, and that can tell you a lot about a man. I believe that we should be in Iraq, and that was one of the best things that we could have done. The general Iragi public wants us there. They want their freedom, and me personally I would willingly give my life so that they can have the same chance that we have. If everybody was willing to work together to help everybody else out think about where technology would be today. We may have already colonized the Moon or maybe even Mars. Its the I hate Bush, and anything he does wrong that is tearing this country apart. What I hate hearing is Bush did this wrong, or Bush did that wrong. What about some ideas of your own? You want to hear the truth? Listen to Fox News sometime, and they will tell you the truth. Espeically the O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity & Colmes.
390712
Although you asked a good question it is doubtful that you will get a good answer. All of the Democrats like the first one are trying to rewrite history. Bill Clinton did support going to war in Iraq, he too knew their were WMD's in Iraq, Mustard Gas is a weapon of mass destruction and truck loads were found in Iraq. Large amounts of WMD were moved to Syria because Saddam thought they would help him fight America. I have no doubt that while he was setting in his RAT HOLE he thought perhaps he could not trust Syria.
654696
We have never sold WMDs or its' technology, so the ones Saddam had were not from America.\n\nIraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction was not captured by US forces who heroically brought down Saddam Hussein's regime three years ago this week. It vanished before they arrived.\nIsraeli intelligence reported before the US-led invasion that starting in late summer 2002 Saddam's WMD arsenal was shipped by truck convoy to Syria. Recently, documents seized from Iraq after the fall of the regime were released to the public. Those documents revealed that under the direct command of former Russian prime minister and KGB boss Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Spetnaz forces oversaw the transfer of Iraq's WMD to Syria ahead of the US-led invasion. These reports have been corroborated by Saddam's Air Vice Marshall General Georges Sada.\n\nSo rather than being destroyed or secured, Saddam's WMD arsenal was simply moved from one rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations to another rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations.\n\nOf course, American Media will NOT report this, it will prove Bush right, and then they would look stupid.\n\nMichael Moore, thanks:\nFriday, 23 June 2006 \nWhen News Lies \n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES\nMedia Complicity and The Iraq War\n\n\nBy Danny Schechter, The News Dissector\n\n\n\nA new book from Danny Schechter offers an up to date indictment of the role media played in promoting and misreporting the war on Iraq. It is an analysis of how and why the media got it wrong that pinpoints the failures of journalism and the collusion of media companies with the Bush Administration. The author of EMBEDDED: Weapons of Mass Deception (Prometheus 2003), an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion, returns with a more comprehensive, updated and insider look at the media complicity that Schechter argues "made the war possible."\n\n\n\n"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other."\n\n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES includes the feature -length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). The book will also include the complete script as well as a discussion of the challenges of exposing media with media with a documentary. It chronicles the media war fought alongside the military campaign and the struggle to stand up for truth. \n\nSource(s):\n\nGoogle it:\n\nSaddam, WMD, Spetsnaz\n\nhttp://www.wmdthefilm.com/mambo/index.ph...
597565
I don't know that conservatives (I'm a moderate by the way) are happy about WMD's existing but I see that you are missing the point.  The fact that these weapons exist in Iraq violate U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 which required complete disclosure of Iraq's weapons programs and dismantlement of them in a verifiable manner.  It doesn't matter that they were "useless", he wasn't supposed to have them and was unwilling to disclose them.  This was the major reason the U.S. went to war in Iraq.  \n\nWhat I think conservatives are happy about is the backlash the liberal left-wing may suffer before this years elections.  All that "George Bush is a liar" talk may very well have an effect on voters opinions.  Remember, the declassified documents released alluded to finds all over Iraq so more detail may come out in the coming months as information is declassified.  So its not over yet.  Just be happy a guy like Saddam isn't in the WMD drivers seat anymore.
221029
History judges us all and this particular war may be judged either way. Most opinion points towards it being pointless and a massivley needless loss of life. The pre-texts on going to war had alot of fabrications and in reality the US wanted control of the oil flow and also the middle east is a strategic part of the world. Those are two reasons for the invasion. \n\nIraq didn't have WMD and was halfway around the world with no way of threatning the US. If people would like to say that it was harbouring terrorists then most nations on earth are guilty as most terrorists live in obscurity and the domestic security services haven't tracked them down. Any nation is guilty of harbouring terrorists has the security services haven't stopped them from entering. \n\nSaddam was however guilty of inhuman acts and Iraq was a country denied some basic human rights. Those are two good reasons for the invasion. That can't however be used alone as many other countrys have the same problems and these are dealt with by the UN the same should have been for Iraq. Unfourtunatley the UN is often seen as doing very little a for example Sudan, Sierra Leone and Somalia. All we can do for these countries is send aid which sometimes gets confiscated.\n\nHistory will be the judge and we have to be content with that for now.
490563
The US is fighting Al Queda in Iraq.  They have been doing so ever since we blew the country wide open and gave them extremely safe passage into a confused and disassembled nation.  \n\nI did read your sources.  The first one led me to one question.  GW has been desperate to prove Al Queda was in Iraq before 911.  He hasn't been able to find proof, so he has admitted publicly, and more than once, that Iraq had no connection to 911.  If these scads of documents prove his case, why isn't he calling for the proof to give to the American public?  Big question.  After all, GW has pretty much done what he pleases in office, it's resembled a dictatorship more than a Presidency.  Why hasn't he made a big deal out of this? If true, it would be huge for him and his party.  The fact that the Weekly Standard is a neoconservative publication couldn't possibly have a bearing on their reporting could it?  Hmmm...\n\nYour second source included a statement that there is no hard evidence.  Enough said about that.  With this Administration?  After the whole "they've got WMDs" debacle?  Yes, I want proof, not conjecture.\n\nYour third source states what we already know.  Yes, terrorists are now crawling all over Iraq, and we can thank our President and his Administration for that.  He's given them a brand new place to dodge, hide and plan our demise.  Good job.
651732
i heard about this\n\na couple of days ago it was weird like 3 or 4 post came in just like this one "why won't liberals believe the truth about WMD's" and the like.\n\nApparently on fox Sen. R. Santorum went on and made these funny yet completely wrong claims that they found WMD's.\nWhat gets funnier is that Fox made a big deal about it, like a exclusive or special report.\n\nUnfortnatley, it was all not only misleading but desprate and sad.\n\nFor example the person posting this claims "500 WMD's" \nWTF right?   But they are not Nuclear or atomic or but canasters of musturd gas aquired before  1991. These are what would be and are considered convential weapons, note by the way they weren't used because they didn't work.\n\nWhat is also sad is the way the person phrased his statement "recently declassified"\nTo the average bumkin or tourist he could get away with lying like that.  but  March 2005 is more than a year ago.\n\nThe weapons we not usable. Deulfer had reported on these and still concluded in his final report that there were no WMD's\n\n\nThe dishonesty of the poster is pathetic because clearly these cansiter are not the reason our brave men and women in uniform have died.\n\nSecondly the presdient wasn't referring to cansiters of convenital weapons when making his case.\n\nThird the white house would have gloted had they found legitimate WMD.\n\nFourth Colin Powell is on record saying the UN speech was a sham.\n\nFifth, other than fox news, no legitmate news source will say this. \n\nhttp://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008\n\n Most uniformed, and gulible people,  "continue to ignore conclusive assertions of intelligence officials that the degraded chemical munitions found were not, in fact, in the category of "weapons of mass destruction" that the U.S. was looking for at the time of the invasion. They also ignore the Iraq Survey Group's (ISG) September 2004 final report (also known as the Duelfer report), which noted that degraded chemical munitions had already been found in Iraq, and that they were not proof of an existing chemical weapons stockpile or of a renewed Iraqi chemical weapons program. Indeed, former ISG head Charles Duelfer stated that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction, though they may still pose a local threat.\n\n\nMaybe next time right..\n\nPS Democrats were decieved into voting for the war, the white house present information contested by the CIA as fact...\ngo here truth seekers..\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
259843
well when President Clinton said the same things about Iraq in office. was he one of those right wing fantics? the weapons ended up in other countries Syria Germany and Iran. countries like France Germany rRussia and Chinia all receiving pay offs from Saddam . War is a terrible thing but giving up to lies of the press is worst.
321170
I believe it was a war of choice. The threat was not imminent, if it existed at all.\n\nnicolasraage gives some good links, although some are a bit biased.\n\nHis Washington Post article states that the chemical weapon lab was built after the 2003 invasion. So knock "1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents" off the list.\n\nThe low-enriched uranium was from before the first Gulf War and was barely suitable for power generation, definitely not weapons grade.\n\nThe 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin were so degraded as to be relatively harmless. They were probably from pre-91.\n\n"Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas". They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines. Could they have been used for dispersal? Yes. Were they specifically "meant" for dispersal? No.\n\n" Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency". Both of your links to these stories say "possible" sarin and "possible" exposure, and that further tests would be necessary. The Fox news source is highly suspect.\n\nSo, what we have is weapons that were either built before '91 or after 2003, meaning that Saddam was probably not pursuing these technologies during the period when he was not allowed to.
110262
I don’t understand.  In the 90s, CNN reported that weapons inspectors were being locked out of compounds for hours, then trucks would leave the back exit.  They were also being denied paperwork that they wanted to see.  They were getting frustrated and throwing their hands up.  Meantime, nobody followed any of the trucks, found out where they were going, or what was on them.  Then, like magic, the WMDs vanished like a fart in the wind.  Now, Bush is being called a bad guy, and the war is being called illegal, even though the UN resolved that action should be taken if Saddam did not cooperate.  When it came to the time to do something, China, Germany, France, and North Korea (was anybody actually surprised here) used their muscle against U.S. taking action.  Meantime, what were all those planes doing violating the U.N. no-fly zone, where were they going, and what was on them?\n\nGore testified in 2004 to the 9/11 Commission that the Clinton administration attack on Sudan al Shifa plant in 1998 was a valid attack based on a verified US threat.  Saddam Hussein had his chemical weapons chief help Shifa in its VX nerve gas research based on Saddam’s own unique brand of VX nerve agent, that contained the chemical EMPTA, unlike any other VS elsewhere.  Bin Laden had funded the al Shifa plant and EMPTA was found on its soil.  Obviously there was a WMD alliance between al Qaida and Saddam, or at least according to Gore.\n\nNow, the real story: If a democratic president was waging the war, democrats would be all for the war, and republicans would be calling it an illegal war.  That Moore guy would be doing “documentaries” (haha) about how bad Saddam was instead of how bad Bush is.  Meanwhile, these message boards are full of partisan hate, most of which has nothing to do with mainstream American feelings, which is usually guided by the press (sadly enough).\n\nOne more thing—with the mass graves, electrocution chambers in police stations, children being executed in front of parents who did not cooperate with the regime, dumping nerve gas on civilian populations, a population at large too frightened to speak out against the government, etc, etc, etc, I don’t understand why anybody thinks Saddam should have been just left in power.  Oh, negotiations????  Saddam jerked around the U.N. for 10 years after signing agreements.  If you say the WMD thing was a big bluff, then we can assume it was another Saddam game, he wanted war, and he thought he could win.