Apr 08 2008

Syria Home Of Saddam’s WMDs?

Published by at 10:26 am under All General Discussions,Syria

The blogosphere is humming with anticipation that an upcoming US-Israeli report on the Israeli attack on a Syrian nuclear weapons facility is tied to the fact Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria (a sister Baathist regime) prior to the US invasion:

An upcoming joint US-Israel report on the September 6 IAF strike on a Syrian facility will claim that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to the country, Channel 2 stated Monday.

Big hat tip to Dr Sanity on this one. Dr Sanity also notes a good round up on this over at Shrink Wrapped. And there are some good links provided by Rick Moran at American Thinker. If this pans out it would provide another big upheaval in the American political dynamics, destroying again the naive mantra of the left in this country. This would be another huge blow to the credibility of the Surrendercrats and SurrenderMedia (as if they have any credibility left). You can read my previous posts on Syria and the war on terror here.

68 responses so far

68 Responses to “Syria Home Of Saddam’s WMDs?”

  1. AJStrata says:

    Norm is moderately humorous – about as close as he will ever get.

  2. norm says:

    what exactly is moderate about attacking and occupying another soverign nation that poses no threat? that’s an extremeist position. ipso facto…you are extremeists. what is moderate about huge deficits? deficit spending is extremiest. ipso facto you are extremeists. admitting you have a problem is the first step to overcoming it.

  3. MerlinOS2 says:


    You were much more entertaining when you had your bloated gut bellied up to a bar in Boston…just sayin

  4. jb_ says:

    “what exactly is moderate about attacking and occupying another soverign nation that poses no threat?”

    I would say, if this bombshell of a report is as advertised, the whole notion of “not posing a threat” will indeed be blown to bits, pardon the pun.

    Norm, repeating something ad nauseum, as the left do, does not enhance its veracity. “Bush lied…Saddam wasn’t a threat…etc.” Not a reasoned argument.

  5. 75 says:

    Woody: “Hey Mr. Petersen…how is it out there?”

    Norm: “Poor, Woody…poor.”

    Woody: “I’m sorry to hear that Mr. Petersen”.

    Norm: “No Woody, pour….POUR!”


  6. AJStrata says:

    Gee Norm,

    What is moderate about praying America will lose and al-Qaeda can take over Iraq and bomb the world into oblivion. If you want to commit suicide please leave the rest of us out of it.

  7. norm says:

    “…al-Qaeda can take over Iraq and bomb the world into oblivion…” oooh the melodrama. i’m sorry you guys are so friggin’ scared of the middle-eastern boogie man but people who are scared can’t make reasoned policy decisions. you certainly are proof of that. if you are so scared of al queda why didn’t you want to finish them off when we had them on the run? instead you surrendered afghanistan and pakistan to al queda and went off to iraq to create another ally for iran. hardly the actions of moderates.

  8. 75 says:

    Apparently 4,000 dead New Yorkers is “melodramatic” to Norm.
    Like I said…an absolute disgrace.

  9. AJStrata says:

    melodramatic Norm? When did Bin Laden and Zawahiri take over the reigns of government in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Remember when I said Americans don’t take kindly to lying exaggerators?

  10. norm says:

    75….first it wasn’t 4000. if your argument is based on incorrect facts then how valid is your argument?
    3000 people died last year from second hand smoke. that’s 15,000 since we occupied iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the deceased new yorkers you want to use for political purposes. what do you suppose we should do about that? as a far right extremist you probably want to give tobacco companies more subsidies and tax breaks, and grow the government some more. in case you haven’t noticed after 5 years and 4000 troops and trillions of dollars we still haven’t gotten rid of al queda, the folks that killed the people in the world trade center. that’s the disgrace. only you don’t seem to be able to comprehend it.

  11. norm says:

    aj…i meant to say the mountain region between afghanistan and pakistan. americans are lying exaggerators. if they didn’t take kindly to them then bush and co. would have already been tried for war crimes.

  12. 75 says:

    Oh, so sorry Norm. 3,000 makes it soooo much less melodramatic than 4. It’s a shame we can’t ask 3,000 dead New Yorkers if they would have preferred a second handsmoke death!!

    As for political purposes, it was you who brought up going after the perps of 9/11 for your argument. Nice try, Genius.

  13. norm says:

    ummmm….isn’t going after the perps of 9.11 the whole point? or are we simply trying to get rid of sadr?

  14. 75 says:

    It is from our perspective…can’t say what your point is. You haven’t made sense from day 1 here but…from what I gather, and forgive me here because it’s difficult to see the bottom of a murky mind, apparently, you don’t want us fighting the perps of 9/11 (al-Qaeda) unless they are in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Is that right? Or is it more likely that you wish an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, creating a safe haven for al-Qaeda, closer to both their Iranian and Syrian allies?

  15. jb_ says:

    “i’m sorry you guys are so friggin’ scared of the middle-eastern boogie man but people who are scared can’t make reasoned policy decisions.”

    “isn’t going after the perps of 9.11 the whole point?”

    Why do we need to “go after” people we shouldn’t be “scared of”?

  16. Mark78 says:

    When I hear someone say al Qaeda is “only” in this country or that country I really shudder at the historical ignorance.

    al Qaeda had a terrorist presence in at least dozens of countries after 9-11. This malarky about al Qaeda being just a few dozen guys in Afghanistan is either deliberate dishonesty or ignorance to which renders someone to the category of unserious.

  17. norm says:

    75…so you are saying that we opened up iraq for al queda, and now we must stay for an un-determinable time to prevent it from becoming a safe-haven for al queda, when it wasn’t before we got there? and that makes sense to you?
    jb…i don’t know…why did we occupy iraq when it posed no real threat?

  18. Terrye says:


    You idiot…were you in grade school during the 90’s? I mean really..do you not remember the attempted assassination of a president? Years and years of noncompliance with mandatory force resolutions from the United Nations? The refusal on the part of Saddam Hussein to comply with a cease fire agreement or account for his weapons or stop killing his people? Do you have no memory of the Iraqi Liberation Act signed by Bill Clinton and passed by the Congress back in 1998? Operation Desert Fox or whatever the hell Clinton called bombing Iraq {again} back in 98. Sheesh.

    The idea that the US just invaded Iraq out of the clear blue is soooo stupid.

  19. 75 says:

    Dishonesty, now, Norm?
    Yep, you’re a Democrat alright.

  20. Terrye says:

    And then ofcourse there was Zarqawi who went from Afghanistan to Iraq, hell…he could be running a damn theme park for AlQAida by now if it had been left up to people like you.