Melanie Phillips writes about Saddam's secrets:

Earlier this year, Sada was interrogated about his claims by the American House Intelligence committee, to whom he gave the names of the Iraqi pilots. Subsequently, he says, the Committee went to Iraq and spoke to the pilots. The result, he says, is that a major American investigative and diplomatic effort is now under way to finally locate the missing WMD.

But in Britain, I say, people now firmly believe that there were no WMD and that we were taken to war on a lie. Sada looks utterly flabbergasted. ‘How can they possibly think that?’ he asks in bewilderment and anger, and puts his head in his hands.

They have to think that, because otherwise everything they've invested in, politically, for the last few years, is a lie.

[Via LGF]

The U.S. Army history of the invasion does not say that WMD were shipped to Syria:

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf

What's your point? Are US army historians infallible?

One might think the US Army historians to have better
source data then Melanie Phillips.

One might think the US Army historians to have better source data then Melanie Phillips.

One might think that. One might also think that they were working with the data available at the time, and the page hasn't been updated in a while. A lot of new information has come out in the last few months, due to releasing many of the documents captured from Saddam's regime. This is the Army we're talking about here, after all.

"One might think that. One might also think that they were working with the data available at the time, and the page hasn't been updated in a while."

That report was released only a few weeks ago. And if the administration had evidence that the WMDs went to Syria, you'd think they'd say that.

Rand,
They have to think that, because otherwise everything they've invested in, politically, for the last few years, is a lie.

You need to be careful hear Rand, because this line could be equally applicable to many supporters of the war. In spite of claiming over and over that Saddam having WMD isn't important in your worldview, that invading was justified regardless, you still jump at almost every rumor or inuendo that says he had them to try and "prove" the nuttiness of your opponents.

Take this one for instance. I did a little google searching just to see if there were any counterclaims, and I found at least one sight drawing attention to the facts (or at least claims) that:
a) He hadn't been working for the Iraqi Air Force for nearly a decade at the point of the Iraq war.
b) He was working as a close political advisor to Allawi at the time he published his book (hardly a disintersted figure).
c) He sat on the story for four years without passing the info on to the government or the press.
d) His book was published by a outfit that supposedly already has a history of publishing some dodgy literature.

Now, I couldn't find too much independent information one way or another to corroborate one side or the other. Sada's story may actually be totally legit. Those counterclaims may be completely bogus or irrelevant. I don't have the time to research them out further at the moment, as I have much more important things to do with my time. I'm just pointing out that one should do some more extensive fact checking before accusing others of blindly ignoring "facts" which might not be facts at all.

~Jon

That report was released only a few weeks ago.

That doesn't mean that they're using the latest documents, some of which are still being translated. They're not going to put anything in a report unless they feel the evidence for it is rock solid.

...if the administration had evidence that the WMDs went to Syria, you'd think they'd say that.

You would, but the administration has been notoriously incompetent about getting its own message out and defending itself. I'd like to think that if they have solid evidence, they're saving it for election season, to blow away all the myths about the war at the worst possible time for the Demogoguescrats that have been promulgating them.

"I'd like to think that if they have solid evidence, they're saving it for election season, to blow away all the myths about the war at the worst possible time for the Demogoguescrats that have been promulgating them."

People thought that before the _last_ election. Any day now the Truth Will Be Known.

But, I'd ask, is that what you would _really_ like? Would you prefer that an administration withhold evidence important to national security in order to use it for electoral gain? Wouldn't that be Clintonian?

On a slightly different note, I'd add that if the administration wants to build a case for attacking Iran's nuclear sites, then they need to rebuild the credibility of American intelligence collection. Saying "trust us, the intel on Iran is a slam dunk" is not going to work. So if it turns out that they were right about the hidden WMD's in Iraq, and that the stuff all went to Syria, then it would be a no brainer for them to present the evidence and say "See? We were right all along!"

But this Syria stuff is a faith-based belief system. No evidence. No credibility.

Would you prefer that an administration withhold evidence important to national security in order to use it for electoral gain? Wouldn't that be Clintonian?

How is it important to national security to release it now?

Yes, given that much of the criticism and lies about it are politically motivated, I'd be happy to see it used most effectively against those promulgating them. If by "Clintonian," you mean smart politics, I suppose it would be.

But this Syria stuff is a faith-based belief system. No evidence.

Actually, there is evidence (hint: Sada's testimony in itself constitutes evidence). It's just not sufficient to convince you.

I'm always amused by the endless debates over WMD. It's a ridiculous strawman position to say the war in Iraq was over possession of WMD, and the absence of them proves that the 'war was based on lies'. Trying to prove WMD presense at the time or shortly before the invasion only falls into an anti-war trap.

Let us presume that tomorrow some U.S. Army unit stumbles over a buried stockpile of Iraqi artillery shells filled with mustard gas. Aha! the pro-war side can exclaim. See there were WMD after all! To which the anti-war side will smugly proclaim, so what? What possible threat were some old gas bombs to the U.S.? For this we went to war?

The real reason for the war is Iraq made it abundantly clear to the whole world that Iraq would not abide by the terms of the ceasefire of 1991. Saddam intended to do as pleased, and in the future build anything he damn well felt like. Documents captured after the war prove that is exactly what Saddam intended before the war. He had plans to restart his atomic bomb program for one.

The problem with Saddam and Iraq was not the capabilities but the intentions. That is why American went to war, to put an end to Saddam before he got those WMD capabilities.

I agree with Brad here. WMD is an anti-war argument. The whole WMD issue was to get UN support, which was hindered by the corruption of the "oil for food" program. Not that it changes my support for "regime change" in Iraq one bit, but if someone wants to claim "Bush lied about WMD", then I hope they have the consistency to note "Kofi lied about Oil for Food".