Courtesy of a link at WizBang, here is a blog entry by AirForceGuy that pretty much derives the same conclusions that I reached a couple of weeks ago regarding the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry:
I’ll spare you the humiliating stories about interrogating Ba'athists and running them as sources. It’s not pretty, it never is. Those we interrogated were proud when they were on top, but they would do anything they needed to survive; including tell you what you wanted to hear, whether or not it was true. But we were professionals, and eventually separated lies from truth. So here is the truth. My Congressman told me there were no WMD in Iraq. But he was wrong, because it was and is still there. And we found some.
The laws of irony are strictly enforced. The first WMD we found was actually used against us. A roadside bomb filled with binary Sarin exploded near a convoy carrying ISG personnel...
We found yellowcake, Joe Wilson, and eventually enriched uranium, Scott Ritter.
But the physical evidence doesn’t tell the whole story. The interrogation portion does that. Many, many scientists talked about Saddam’s weapons production. The production wasn’t large scale, and it wasn’t quality stuff, but it was there. The question on your mind is this: where is the rest of the stuff? The answer is very simple and very complex.
First, it’s in Syria. According to the UN and every intel agency on the planet, right before the war 5000 big rigs worth of “stuff” crossed the border, never to be seen again.. What kind of stuff was this? I’ll give you a hint -- it’s stuff Saddam didn’t want captured. Personnel, money, art work, maybe drugs, and certainly WMD. People need to use their God-given common sense. If you had valuable WMD you wanted to safeguard from the big, bad American Crusaders, where would you send it? Not to Iran. Those crazy Mullahs are your enemies. Not to Kuwait or Turkey, Saddam considered them America’s stooges. Send it to Syria. After all, it wasn't as if he had no warning what was coming.
Not so long ago there was a mutual defense pact between Iraq and Syria. Also, neither Assad has never been a friend of America - dapper westernized suits be damned. Saddam figured he could hide it in Syria and when the Americans left and he could safely come out of hiding, Assad would give some of it back.
Second, it’s in the desert. Check out these links to sees ome of what we discovered purely by chance. What else is under there?
Photos of buried treasure
More buried treasure
There's a lot more. Make sure you read it all.
And here's something else. Just how close did an alliance between Pakistan, N. Korea, Libya, and Iraq come to building the IslamoBomb? Read this too and see for yourself. Here's an excerpt from a 2004 FoxNews Observer column, written by David Asman and distributed by the AP:
Even some of those who say Iraq is better off with Saddam out of power, now argue that the Iraq war simply wasn't worth the cost. But getting rid of Saddam was not just an act of charity toward the Iraqi people, as new evidence emerges of a nuclear weapons program in Libya.
With the fall of Saddam, Libya's Muammar Qaddafi suddenly began dismantling his $100 million nuclear weapons program under our watchful eye. He has provided a wealth of information, which, when combined with evidence found in Iraq and information provided by the busted Pakistani nuclear black market salesman, A.Q. Kahn, reveal a sophisticated nuclear weapons development program. It pulled together Libyan money, North Korean uranium and, according to former federal prosecutor John Loftus, about 300 Iraqi nuclear scientists and engineers based in Libya.
The New York Times reports that the Libyan-based network was close to finding the means to enrich enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb. The Iraqi war stopped the nuclear bomb project in its tracks. The abandonment of that project provides yet another element that should be factored into the costs and benefits of getting rid of Saddam.
Many have quipped that these stories will be "rediscovered" by the New York Times et. al. after George W. Bush is safely out of the White House. They are probably right. But isn't it nice to know that our side was right about these things all along?
Comments