Oh, those WMD.
I don’t know what to say about this. It is so obvious, has been brought up so many times – what purpose is there in holding back the info? What are we doing/going to do with Syria that would cause the Gov’t to sit on this? This is either a rope-a-dope for the ages, or really, really bad gaming.
Sigh, can I get the 2010 history books and read them now?
Well, two possibilities are:
1. We’re not 100% sure, and since we have surveillance on them they don’t currently threaten us. They can be bombed at a moment’s notice.
2. President Condi, 2008?
This will make absolutely no difference to the lefties, many democrats and other sufferers of BDS.
While they may continualy shift the rhetorical goalposts on their opposition, as far as they’re concerned their memes are writ in stone.
If we find and destroy the WMD in Syria, they will scream that we are expanding the war. If one is detonated by Syria, they will scream criminal incompetence, negligence or corruption.
It’s all about partisan politics and hating Bush and that is very sad indeed.
TO: Stephen Green
RE: I Think…
…we already knew this.
There were too many interesting indicators that cropped up after Iraq was overrun. Things like the reports of chemical weapons being used in Darfur. The report that a Sudan minister wanted Syria to get THEIR chemical weapons OUT of Sudan.
Not to forget that Syria is the suriving Ba’athist run country in the Middle East.
Nor that Iraq did exactly the same thing with it’s major weapons systems in the run-up to GWI.
This, to anyone who pays any attention to military intelligence and plans for war, is ‘old news’.
P.S. But for the adament Bush-haters, it means nothing, because they will not accept it.
I have trouble creditting the rope-a-dope/”pump fake” theory of why this isn’t getting more play as an explanation for why the Bushies haven’t emphasized this possibility more. Nobody has balls that big.
TO: Duffy Nichols
RE: Why Not More Play?
You’ll have to talk to the NCA about that.
From my perspective, it’s not a good idea to telegraph your intentions. Shouting that Syria has the WMDs would qualify as that.
Chuck(le): you would make Machiavelli proud. But I repeat, nobody has balls that big.
Good point Chuck(le)… again…
Too many people asked “what was wrong with our intel”, and not enough people asked “where did they go”…
They are in Syria. I don’t think Syria asked for them. Why havent they used them? The Baath party has learned its lesson. It still has Syria.
TO: Duffy Nichols
“Chuck(le): you would make Machiavelli proud.” — Duffy Nichols
Machiavelli was correct about a large number of things.
Things like you can’t rely on mercenaries to protect your country, a leader should reward people who do good and punish those who do bad, should not be swayed by flattery, etc., etc., etc.
RE: True Again
“But I repeat, nobody has balls that big.” — Duffy Nichols
Probably because they care more for the lives of the fighting men and women who will have to bear the brunt of any fighting than they do for their self-aggrandizement.
It’s another quality of Machiavellian leadership.
And it’s a good thing. Don’t you think?
Gosh… It’s amazing what stories some people will tell in order to sell a few books.
“Gosh… It’s amazing what stories some people will tell in order to sell a few books.”….
Maybe so, but I’ll bet you don’t see the media/talkshow circuit pimping this book.
No one sat on this, it’s been around for 3 years now.
Israel’s been telling us that for awhile.
We also never did knock out the railroad into Syria.
They have sat pics of boxcars going out.
One should note that unlike (pre-war) Iraq, Syria has not agreed to give up such weapons as part of a peace settlement or been the subject of UN security council resolutions forbidding them to possess them. So for Syria to have them, while still a matter of concern, would not be nearly as great a casus belli as it was/would have been for Iraq to have them.
‘Tis true, Jeff. Syria has long had a native WMD program. Indeed that’s one of the best reasons for hiding WMDs there, plenty of company. However, for Syria to aid and abet Iraq’s former Baathist government in thwarting UNSC resolutions and “international law” is a horse of an entirely different color.
And of course, there was that whole Hariri business. As somebody once said, the UN is basically a trade body for heads of governments; Syria’s assassination of the head of government of Lebanon is about the worst thing it could have done, from the UN’s perspective. It may just prove to be the thing that convinces the “international community” that Syria is truly a rogue state…
…if you’re wondering how not to win in Iraq, at which some US strategists seem so intent, then there are lessons from the Malayan Emergency that need to be learned, and not the lessons falsely attributed to the British success by those dumbarse Ame…