[clarkgoble]

As you know, many intelligence sources have been saying from before the ware that the WMD had been moved to northern Syria. I'd sort of come to discount this and had taken the "no WMD" stance. However Debka has an interesting story on this.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=745

Just curiosity on what others had heard about this.

" DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources reveal that Washington and Dr. David Kay, senior US and coalition WMD hunter in Iraq - far from groping in the dark for Saddam’s prohibited weapons, as conventionally believed – have a very good idea of where they are hidden.

The search has narrowed down to a section of the Syrian Desert known as Dayr Az-Zawr in Syria’s 600 sq. mile Al Jazirah province, which is wedged between the Turkish and Iraqi borders. The missing weapons systems are thought to be buried somewhere under these desert sands. This area is now probably the most keenly watched area on earth – from its outer periphery. At its eastern edge, US special force units, Predator drones and reconnaissance airplanes and satellites make sure no one steps into this ultra-sensitive patch of desert. Turkish special forces, intelligence and air force units are guarding it from the northwest. The Syrians are nowhere to be seen, acting as though the target-area does not concern them."

[BlackGriffen]

Sneaky, them Syrians are. Unless, of course, it actually doesn't concern them.

Would it be so hard to rig up a drone that can go land based (w/wheels and such) and has a metal detector? Equivalently, what are the limits of metal detector technology (ie could we construct an underground map from the sky that penetrates down to, say, 40 feet)?

BlackGriffen

[Spheric Harlot]

Bomb them, I say!

Then invade.

But make sure the public realizes it's about humanitarian...err, wait.

[eklipse]

WMD in Northern Syria?

Really? I heard they were in Reykjavik.....or was it Brussels?.....or maybe Antarctica?......Jordan's pretty close by you know.......Castro might have them stashed in Havana......Tatooine perhaps?.....or maybe they're with Moe - go kill Moe.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by eklipse:
WMD in Northern Syria?

Really? I heard they were in Reykjavik.....or was it Brussels?.....or maybe Antarctica?......Jordan's pretty close by you know.......Castro might have them stashed in Havana......Tatooine perhaps?.....or maybe they're with Moe - go kill Moe.

"The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north" - Donald Rumsfeld, Mar. 30 2003

[Face Ache]

<checks map>

Hmmm... black queen to d8...

NORTHERN SYRIA HERE WE COME!

[MacGorilla]

So let me see here...

Instead of suing my WMDs I'll move 'em to northern Syria while I hide in my hole.

Well, half the plan worked

[gadster]

Look, people. All of this seems really odd unless you understand the neocon agenda, then it all makes perfect sense. Note to Republicans, I mentioned neocons, not Republicans. There is a difference, and it's important that you learn to make the distinction. Fast. They look like republicans, they talk like republicans, they walk like republicans, but they are - not - republicans. ****. I feel like Gandalf telling off Bilbo Baggins. "I am not trying to trick you. I am trying to help you."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
Look, people. All of this seems really odd unless you understand the neocon agenda, then it all makes perfect sense. Note to Republicans, I mentioned neocons, not Republicans. There is a difference, and it's important that you learn to make the distinction. Fast. They look like republicans, they talk like republicans, they walk like republicans, but they are - not - republicans. ****. I feel like Gandalf telling off Bilbo Baggins. "I am not trying to trick you. I am trying to help you."

welcome to my frustration.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
"The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north" - Donald Rumsfeld, Mar. 30 2003

Oh goodie...I love the quote game:


"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector -- January 27, 2003


"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector -- January 27, 2003


"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ... we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector -- January 27, 2003


"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector -- January 27, 2003


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
-- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April 2003


"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Bob Graham, December 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

[Spliffdaddy]

But all those people are wrong.

They are neocons.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Oh goodie...I love the quote game:

You've got some good quotes here, spacefreak. Nice work. I think it's very healthy to keep track of the statements these public figures make. Before I address them, let me just say that I posted the Rumsfeld quote because I find it amusing - if anything about this situation can be considered amusing. He claims to know where the proscribed weapons are located, then immediately qualifies that statement to include... well, everywhere. Talk about hedging your bets!

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector -- January 27, 2003

I completely agree with this statement. I happen to think Blix knows what he's talking about.

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector -- January 27, 2003

A reasonable assumption, in my opinion, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ... we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector -- January 27, 2003

Well, it seems to me (from my reading of the quote) that the documents concerned the process of uranium enrichment, and that what Blix is really concerned about here is the "home dispersal" method of concealing documentation from the UN teams.

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector -- January 27, 2003

I agree with all of this, especially the option "it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision", should evidence of destruction not be produced.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

I agree with the latter statement, although there is certainly some irony in there. For the record, I was okay with the idea of multilateral, UN-sanctioned action against Hussein if the weapons inspections failed (by their own reckoning, not the US administration's, I might add). I'm not trying to re-open the debate about multilateralism vs. unilateralism, just addressing the quote.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
-- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April 2003

I'm glad he's convinced. I guess it's easy when you get to see the evidence. I'd like to, but they are not sharing it. Too bad, since it's apparently really convincing evidence. I think the chances are pretty good there were/are concealed proscribed weapons. We had UN teams actively searching for them, without the body count the unilateral action generated.

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, 2002

I somewhat agree with this statement (although I have no particular affection for Gore). In my opinion, Iraq posed a problem, not an active, "serious" threat. It's certainly more of a problem now than it was then. Note that he calls it a "search" for proscribed weapons on the part of Hussein's regime, and calls to eliminate "access". I guess he didn't get to see the really convincing evidence.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Bob Graham, December 2002

Now, I am an appreciator of Graham (I though he was a good governor for Florida). However, I note that he says "a developing capacity". That's not "45 minutes to launch".

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

I'm no fan of Kennedy. This quote is just a re-mouthing of the president's speech rhetoric. No particular insight here. As for knowledge, once again, sharing of evidence would truly be appreciated. I just want to be able to share in their level of confidence and absolute certainty regarding capabilities and locations. Is that too much to ask?

[Spheric Harlot]

They could share, but then they'd have to kill you.



-s*

[theolein]

If the supposed missing WMD really are in Syria, why then aren't the US following this more forcefully? One would think that a) Those weapons are extremely dangerous and should be recovered post haste, and b) It would vindicate the pre-war WMD claims.

Now, given that the war has been over officially for 6 months, it means that those things have been lying in the sand for all that time, and yet there has been NO strong push by the US government to allow its weapons inspectors to go and search the area? syria, is practically falling over itself in its attempst to placate the US government, especially after the US announced sanctions against them recently. Syria wants to talk, and has publicly stated that it wants to talk. The sanctions themselves have nothing to do with WMD, but instead they are because of Syria's support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine.

Why hasn't the US publicly claimed that it wants Syria to let in weapons inspectors then? Is the US looking for an excuse to invade, or is the US simply not that convinced that a report from a markedly pro-Israeli website making wild accusations against Syria is all that accurate?

You decide.

[Ayelbourne]

What I'd like to know - and I am serious about this, not being facetious - is why the US's intelligence is less accurate now that they are actually in Iraq than when they were just spying. Back in the beginning of the year, they claimed to have all this very accurate information - they knew where the weapons had been dispersed (see Rumsfeld quote above).

If they "knew" then, why don't they "know" now? Is that a "known known", and if so, can someone clue me in?