Syria Hiding Saddam’s WMDs Back in Iraq

obama-in-iraq

I certainly hope Obama doesn’t invade Iraq in search of Saddam’s old WMDs, which he originally shipped to Syria. That would be too ironic.

But this is absurd enough already.

Syria has moved 20 trucks worth of equipment and material used for the manufacturing of chemical weapons into neighboring Iraq, the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal reported on Sunday.

The government in Baghdad has denied allegations that it is helping the Syrian government conceal chemical stockpiles.

The newspaper reported that the trucks crossed the boundary separating Syria with Iraq over the course of Thursday and Friday. Border guards did not inspect the contents of the trucks, which raises suspicions that they contained illicit cargo, according to Al-Mustaqbal.

Last week, the head of the Free Syrian Army told CNN that opposition intelligence indicated Assad was moving chemical arms out of the country.

“Today, we have information that the regime began to move chemical materials and chemical weapons to Lebanon and to Iraq,” General Salim Idriss told CNN.

“We have told our friends that the regime has begun moving a part of its chemical weapons arsenal to Lebanon and Iraq. We told them do not be fooled,” Idris told reporters in Istanbul.

Al-Mustaqbal is the paper of the Cedar Revolution. So it’s against the Syrian occupation and Hezbollah. But it’s not sectarian in the same sense and it does have some credibility. More than the FSA’s Idris does.

Iraq is denying it of course.

Iraq categorically denied that chemical weapons had crossed into its territory, with an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki speculating “there is a political agency behind this claim.”

“We were the victims of chemical weapons under Saddam’s regime,” said the adviser, Ali al-Moussawi. “And we will never allow to let any country to transfer chemical materials to our lands at all.”

Saddam could stow his WMDs in Syria based on their mutual Baath Party ties. Today both countries have Shiite governments friendly to Iran.

Still it’s not too clear that Iraq would take this big of a risk for Iran or Syria. Iraq has allowed, secretly, weapons transfers to take place, but those were conventional ones. Iraq today doesn’t need WMDs the way that Saddam did. It has no ambition to conquer Kuwait or win the leadership of the Arab World by attacking Israel. It needs American money more.

Several senior Israeli officials told CNN’s Elise Labott that they have not seen movements into Lebanon or Iraq, and that they did not believe it made sense for the Syrians to be moving weapons so soon.

Without a name attached to that it doesn’t mean much and Israel’s eyes down there might be limited, but I would still put better odds on Israeli intelligence than a Hariri paper and the FSA. Especially since these days Hariri sounds like he’s reading from FSA talking points.

But Iraq does remain a somewhat plausible destination. Lebanon is obvious, and the Israelis are keeping an eye on it. And Lebanese politics is too unstable. Once you give things to terrorists, you can’t necessarily get them back.

Finally the whole smuggling theory may not hold up. Saddam knew that an American ground invasion is coming. Barring a ground invasion of Syria, it would be easier for Assad to hide them inside the country. Convoys crossing borders are highly visible. It’s easier to hide things inside the country.

  • Former journalist

    So how about a question mark in the title?

    • pupsncats

      Agree.

  • pupsncats

    As if anything coming out of these he__holes is true. One thing is certain. The Islamics know how to play the game of chicken better than Obama and the idiots in Washington, D.C. Although Obama is a professional liar, they are also better at lying than he is.

  • Johnnnyboy

    Lets face it, those Arabs just do not act the way we would like. So, lets send in guys with guns in the name of moral improvement. And then, you know, stay and stay and stay till we get really lots of people killed. After that we can leave behind our artificially imposed fragile regimes that require endless subsidies or they fold.

    Worked for Bush, right?

    • Veracious_one

      It’s working for Obama also….

    • alericKong

      Better than the Democratic plan of terrorist immigration for votes, arming al-Qaeda, saying we won, and then doing nothing when Americans are burnt alived or blown up or tortured to death.

      Better than hoping President Elvis or Presdient Jay-Z would just charm the Umma into submission.

      Better than ignoring Moslem terrorism against Middle Eastern Christians and Sharia zones in Paris and London, and better than closing down army bases over there so we can bring the fight back home here.

      Many people act poorly, including many in our own country. Moslems currently build nuclear weapons and nerve gas and have shown full resolve to kill millions of Americans out of a superstitious delusional desire rooted in the Medieval Age which I still have trouble believing educated humanists liberals commit suicide to defend.

      • defcon 4

        Has anyone noticed that the suicidal lieberals only defend islam from the confines of Western countries? I’d have more respect for them if they defended islam from Somalia, Pakistain, Bangladesh, SOddy Barbaria, Iran, Iraq or Syria.

    • Aizino Smith

      Things we getting better everyday in Iraq in 2007 due to the surge. they did not get bad until the Shia Prime Minister listen to Obama say he was going to pull troops out then actually get elected. Then he started becoming a pr/ck in his dealing with the Kurds and Sunnis as he sidled up to the Iranians. If we had not left Iran post haste, the PM would have felt pressured to treat other groups in Iraq more civilly.

      DID YOU VOTE FOR OBAMA?

      Just because you do not start wars, try to get out of wars does not mean you can avoid wars. The is a saying “If you do not pay the butchers bill up front, you pay more later”. By trying to save lives by avoiding war does not mean in the long run you cost more lives. Wars are usually not stand alone events. The often come in series. If you think differently Johnnnyboy, you are whistling as you saunter past the graveyard.

      • Aezino Smith

        Wait I checked your record and you most definitely did not vote for Obama.

    • truebearing

      Oh, you mean like Obama has done in Afghanistan, where 80% of our casualties came under Obama’s “leadership?” And why did Iraq fall apart so quickly…..oh, yeah, Obama completely blew off the Iraq Status of Forces agreement.
      Gee, I wonder if he hadn’t totally failed in Iraq, or in defending US sovereignty and an ambassador’s life in Libya, maybe Assad would have had more respect for the threat of the US. I’m sure they are far more intimidated by Obama flapping his lips and making idiotic, feckless threats.

  • Aizino Smith

    How will the liberal talking heads spin this?

    If no WMDs are found, they will say this is much better than when “Bush lied and people died’. Obama threatened military force and used diplomacy in just the right measure and voilà we had no casualties.

    If we find some, they will say that is all there was and that is hard to tell the difference from a small amount of WMDs a large amount of WMDs. It is not Obama’s fault that intel is so crappy.

    The trucks? Look there is Kim Kardashian!

  • BTDT

    Dan,

    Which route did the trucks take? The route along the Euphrates River (thru Deir-ez Zur) is controlled by the Rebels/AL Qaeda. Of course Bridget Johansen reported AL Qaeda might be working with Assad and their public quarrel is kabuki theater.

    There is a route that passes close to the Jordanian border. The WMDs then would pass thru Rutba. The U.S. could not interdict it using the rebels?

  • MeMyself1

    “Several senior Israeli officials told CNN’s Elise Labott that they have not seen movements into Lebanon or Iraq. . . .”

    Somehow I find the Israelis to be a lot more credible than the Syrian opposition or some Lebanese newspaper. I trust the opposition as much as I trust Assad. Just let our enemies kill each other already!

    And why are you still beating the dead horse of Saddam? The charge that he moved his weapons into Syria has been disproven. Don’t forget he and the Assad regime were enemies.

    • FRK

      I do not believe that the charge was disproven. Ignored maybe but not disproven.

      - Sadam sent his airforce to archenemy Iran to prevent it from getting destroyed. It was not given back, but the point is he has sent vital military equipment to other countries to keep it out of the hands of the U.S> and its’ allies or from being destroyed. In short the is a precedent

      - Syria and Iraq are both Baathist run nations. So there is some affinity there besides being Muslim. Plus Iraq had assisted Syria in th e 1973 Yom Kippur War.

      - Further Iraq and Syria were Russian client states.

      - Since Iraq had not invaded Syria like it had Iraq, there was some reason to believe that Iraq would get all or some of the WMDs back when the U.S, Invaded, found few WMDs and the left went apesh/t on bush (which they did).

      - The U.S. military tested water in the Euphrates and it tested positive for WMD chemicals. Would traces of WMDs last that long (from 1991)? We test the air in Japan and South Korea for traces oof isotopes, which let us know that the North Koreans are producing fissile material. So does the military know how to do that in Korea but not Iraq?

      = North Korea lies to us all the time about WMDs production and they get periodically rewarded. If we are such SOPS to let them get one over on us, then why would not Sadam try?

      • MeMyself1

        You are getting your time lines all mixed up. For example, 1973 is not 2003.

        • Aizino Smith

          The timelines are not mixed up. Iraq sent tanks and troops to back up Hassan Assad during the 1973 War. That gives an instance, albeit 40 years ago, where the two nations were on good terms, allies in fact and assisted one another.

          Of the 6 nations bordering Iraq during Sadam’s time. Syria is the one with the closest political philosophy (Baathist), more amenable to coercion (Jordan, Kuwait and Jordan would ask for U.S. help; Turkey and Iran would scoff or fight).

          As pointed out before Sadam had placed his weapons systems in other Muslim countries before to keep them from being destroyed and in hopes of getting them back. In 1991 Syria was part of the coalition. In 2003 it was not. So it was better place to place the WMDs than Iran.

          Simply put Sadam has a track record of hiding weapons. Syria is the closest Muslim country to Sadam’s Iraq in political philosophy and situation.

          • MeMyself1

            And obviously the world would not change within a mere 40 years. (Eyes roll.)

          • Aizino Smith

            I specifically pointed out the 40 years to alert the reader to it especially using such an uncommon word such as albeit.

            Syria and Iraq might have had some diplomatic dispute in those 40 years, but as I amply pointed if Sadam is willing to fly his air force into quarantine in Iran and risk not getting them back, then it is mot unreasonable to assume that he would do so with a country where Iraq has a better historical relationship.

  • Demetrius Minneapolis

    Or they can just buy the ingredients and mix their own sarin gas in Turkey. Not that that will EVER happen…