Nuclear weapons were never likely to be there. But chemical and biological weapons were. simply because they had been known to be there before.On Bing, "Sarindar" brings you to the evidence that a lot was taken to Syria with the assistance of the Russians in the early months of 2003. Plausible, not proven.We'll see. These things often take a long time to come out.
Never fear, I have been assured that at no time was anyone saying that Iraq had no chemical weapons. Only that Bush Lied that they were making weapons of mass destruction. I mean... OBVIOUSLY they had chemical weapons left over from the first Gulf War. NOBODY ever said they didn't.At least, that's the revised history as it exists in the minds of some of my more liberal friends.
AVI:The Syria thing was our understanding when I was in Iraq. If so, probably Assad has them -- they were supposed to have been shipped out early enough that it was Ba'athists, and not Islamists, who were the chief enemy we were fighting. Elements of Saddam's forces would have been the ones in control of them, and they probably handed them off to other Ba'athists (meaning Assad loyalists).
And they're still in Syria, I speculate. After all, I don't see them as being declared and so on the list of chemistry sets to which "destruction" al Assad agreed.Eric Hines
Alliances shift all the time, especially in the regions from Bosnia to Pakistan. We shall see.
Post a Comment