Senator Rick Santorum on Sean Hannity today [Thurs July 27] (5:00 PM EST) has announced a document ( ISGQ-2005-00022470 Title: “Information from a source about the transfer of weapons of mass destruction to Syria prior to the attack of the Coalition Forces on Iraq”) has been released by the “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” that convoys consisting of 50 trucks carried an unknown cargo to Syria from Baghdad before the American invasion. The trucks were accompanied by Iraqi Intelligence. Upon arrivial at the Syria border, Syrian Inteligence took the trucks and emptied the cargo.
But I suppose if Jesus himself came down with Holy Videotape showing the WMDs being handed over to the Syrians by Iraqi intel…. the MadLibs would still scream “Bush Lied, My Brain Is Fried!” Or something like that….
By the way, whatever became of those mysterious floating ships that left Iraqi ports as the Coalition Invasion began? I don’t suppose any of the major networks would actually do some reporting on that missing WMD link, either? Luckily we have the blogosphere:
In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 “two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean,” where Shaw believes they “deep-sixed” additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.
It would be nice if the Mainstream Media and their comrades in the MadLibDemocrat Party actually cared anymore about finding the truth about any subject.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
The more desperate the followers of Bush get to justify their faith, the more wacky their conspiracy theories get. ?
Deperate times for desperate people.
Bruce, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’ve been trying to sell cheap to someone…
“Mysterious” floating ships? I put to you that it would have been more mystereious if the ships were not floating when they left the harbor.
You know, all you have to do is replace “ships” with “UFO” and this claptrap instantly becomes recognizable as the same recycled silly conspiricy theories. Only instead of the “Men in Black” Bruce has the MSM who are apparently in a massive world-wide plot to make Republicans look like idiots. I have news for you, it doesn’t take that much effort.
Thats our Bruce, the GOP’s own Erich von Daniken. Can’t wait till he starts the “In Search Of…” Podcasts.
This is about as dumb as the rumors that Saddam had moved his fighter jets to Iran just before the first Gulf War for safe-keeping.
From the post
By the way, whatever became of those mysterious floating ships that left Iraqi ports as the Coalition Invasion began?
This is funny as heck.
Um, are there ships other than floating ships? I guess that the Russian Kursk didn’t float very well. At least after it broke apart.
BTW, Rick “Sanctimonious” Santorum has been trying to revive his apparently sinking(!) re-election possibility for a while, and he has been blathering on about matters like this for more than a few weeks. The only thing that is amusing about this is the fact that the Republican aparatchick Hannity is giving SS (Sanctimonious Santorum) a stage to continue his blathering.
Will SS be re-elected with crap like this? Maybe.
“Where’s Elmo”?
#7 – Exactly. Today’s liberals would rather MAKE A GAME of WMD, than really find them or prevent future terrorist WMD attacks. Sickening.
#5 RajIan – Your attempts at mocking are are turned 180 degrees when say things like “This is about as dumb as the rumors that Saddam had moved his fighter jets to Iran just before the first Gulf War for safe-keeping” when a ten second search reveals facts that absolutely disprove your statement.
From globalsecurity.org – “During Operation Desert Storm the Iraqi Air Force did not seek to challenge Coalition air forces, and nearly half the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to escape destruction. Why the IQAF fled to Iran is not precisely known, and the answer may never be fully known. In any case, Iraqi fighters and support aircraft fled for the border — more than 120 left.”
Needless to say this calls into serious question other, more difficult to verify, claims that you have and will make. It would be interesting to know what caused you to believe something so obviously and easily proven wrong.
The ships thing is a bit too conspiracy theory for me, but I do think moving weapons into syria-or at least those pieces and parts that don’t come with the dual purpos label-is pretty plausible.
One question: if, as the document states, the trucks were carrying an “unknown cargo”, how do you know the cargo was weapons of mass destruction?
#9 BoBo — July 29, 2006 @ 10:25 am – July 29, 2006
I’m not going to waste time rooting around in an obscure web site to try to find what you are presumably referring to. Presumably, you have the URL of the page that you are referring to.
Now, you tell me, where are the airplanes that supposedly high-tailed it from Iraq to Iran just prior to GWI? Photos, please.
#11 Ian — July 29, 2006 @ 11:26 am – July 29, 2006
Ian, this post is about as dumb as Michelle (“Ma’ Belle”) Malkin’s column a few years ago in which she bitched and moaned about the fact that nobody was interested in the fact that a tanker was missing. A tanker, that presumably–according to her–might be used in a terrorist attack.
A tanker truck that is. Not a tanker ship, a tanker truck. It was funny as heck.
#12: Raj, I agree it’s pretty wacky. I sometimes think Bruce just does posts like this for the fun of it. I just think it’s even more of a hoot when it’s internally inconsistent. If you actually view the document, it’s three pages of Arabic (I assume) handwriting. The first page may be just the title page. The third page is so faint as to be virtually indecipherable but if you look really close and squint, I think you can make out a signature that reads: “Ah” something “d’ “Ch” something “lab” something. 😉
wow 3 and half years and they are still doing these things. amazing and sad
#10, #11, #12, #13 – Slow morning, eh?
It’s not that we don’t care about finding the truth, it’s just that you guys have us so confused. You keep changing the truth. It’s hard to keep up.
So do us a favor… y’all get together and have a meeting and decide what the truth is and then let the rest of us know. ‘k?
Just decent evidence would suffice. Anon guy who heard from a sister’s friend that a truck drove from Iraq and may or may not have WMDs, Hitler’s biography, and Elvis? Not gonna cut it.
#10, #11, #12, #13, #16 – Slow day, eh?
Bruce, see what happens when you try to dispute the GayLeft maxim and litmus test falsehood about no WMDs… out come Mr Moderate, Gramps, the raj/Ian sockpuppetry, lester.
Can CowBoyBob and QueerP be far behind?
The moonbats are so predictable, it’s pathetic. And it’s why they’ll remain losers well after the 2008 elections.
O/T –I’d like to hear more about the WMD issues uncovered in the Saddam files… and I’m still waiting to see Hans Blix and Kofi explain away Saddam’s in-your-face efforts against the UN WMD seekers.
Conspiracy theories are the province of the GayLeft… just ask ’em about the GOP concentration camps in Idaho for gay activists. LOL
this is a kind of mental disorder. guys things aren’t getting better in Iraq, there were no WMDS or Al queda connections. Iraq is a Fiasco, to quote a recent book title, and that’s ALL it is
JPE # 17- I suppose the documents being translated from Saddam’s own intel files (35,000 of them) are not good enough for you?
#21 Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 30, 2006 @ 10:54 am – July 30, 2006
I suppose the documents being translated from Saddam’s own intel files (35,000 of them) are not good enough for you?
One of the things that I admire in these Republican-oriented web sites is the lack of citations.
Do you have a citation? Not a citation to a blog, a citation to an original source.
In other words, are you able to provide evidence–not opinion, which is typical of a blog, evidence–to support what you are saying? I doubt it.
Given the fact that you are an admitted Republican apparatchick, why should anyone believe what you say on the subject, just because you say something?
#21: Bruce, the quote used in your post is self-contradictory: it claims WMDs were shipped to Syria but then states that the trucks used to do so carried an “unknown cargo.”
Raj #22 – As I have repeatedly pointed out, you do not read our posts here so it is quite obvious why you would miss the citation.
Go back to the original post and click on “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” link. Then try to read the documents carefully on your own.
RajIan – Here’s the Wiki entry for the Gulf War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war
Go to the Air War section and you’ll see the fact that Iraqi Air Force planes were sent to Iran discussed and footnoted.
#24 GayPatriot — July 30, 2006 @ 12:05 pm – July 30, 2006
Raj #22 – As I have repeatedly pointed out, you do not read our posts here so it is quite obvious why you would miss the citation.
Go back to the original post and click on “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” link. Then try to read the documents carefully on your own.
You aren’t really serious, are you?
When I asked Do you have a citation? Not a citation to a blog, a citation to an original source you fall back to the two links that purport to come from something called “Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center–Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents” that preumably–according to the pages has something to do with the US military. The links that you provided were IP addresses–a word comprising a series of four numbers–not URLs–which might have indicated whether they came from .gov or .mil domains.
On the assumption that the pages are actually related to a .gov or a .mil domain, I’ll merely recite to you what is stated at the top:
The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.
Succinctly stated, the proprietor of that web site is disclaiming any contention that anything on the web site has anything to do with reality.
I actually clicked onto the Acrobat paper that was linked to on the page that you cited. No translation, just a bunch of squiggles. Do you know what was written there? If so, how do you know it?
If the page that you linked to is unwilling to vouch for the veracity of the information linked to therein, why should I? And if the page is unwilling to vouch for the contention that the documents linked to therein are even authentic–i.e., original sources–why should I? You can feel free to believe whatever you wish, of course, but it is a bit much to expect someone to believe something that you have written, when your linked-to source doesn’t even support your contention.
#25 BoBo — July 30, 2006 @ 12:33 pm – July 30, 2006
Go to the Air War section and you’ll see the fact that Iraqi Air Force planes were sent to Iran discussed and footnoted.
There is no section entitled “Air War” in the Wiki entry that you linked to. There is a section entitled “Air Campaign,” which, indeed, repeats the rumor that Iraq sent at least a portion of its air force to Iran. And it is footnoted–to the very web site that I pooh-poohed above, your buddies at some web site called “globalsecurity.org.”
Wiki articles can be initiated by anyone and edited by anyone. It is not a reliable source for topics that are hotly contested.
but wiki cites are perfectly acceptable for raj, ian and others when it proves their point… hmmmmmmm
double-standards and moveable goalposts –it’s the GayLeft’s winning duo for spin. spin. spin. repeat.
#28 Michigan-Matt — July 31, 2006 @ 9:16 am – July 31, 2006
but wiki cites are perfectly acceptable for raj…
Oh, sorry, Matty, dear. Wiki is a decent starting point. But it is hardly authoritative.
When someone initially posts a link to a blog, that is then used as a citation in a Wiki article, no, I would not accept that as acceptable.
If someone posts a link to Wiki that purports to be an introduction to differential geometry, that wouldn\’t be authoritative, either, but it would probably be an acceptable starting point. (I\’ve done that, by the way. I\’m sure that you know what differential geometry refers to.)
[Comment edited]
Santorums latest does not strike me as being credible. It is one thing to have the mass media downplay / not comment on the info contained in this document, but quite another for the Bush admin to do so. If this has some real credibility and verifiability, they would certainly push this as the “missing link” that redeems and confirms their pre-invasion stance. So I guess I find myself agreeing with rajestian. What an odd feeling 🙂
PS. I believe it is likely Saddam had some WMD stashed (500 missles) and some moved, but not the quantity or quality we believed. Unfortunately, the Iraqi WMD issue will not be resolved until unbridald war breaks out and Isreal is hit with some WMD from Lebanon via Syria or Iran.
And the days trickle down
To a precious few,
September, November
And still no response to my questions in #26. A deletion or so of my challenge, but no response.