Do the Bushies actually know where the WMD are hidden?

[Nancy Waterman]

I just got off the phone with my mother who reports hearing a lecture by John Loftus

http://www.john-loftus.com/default.asp

in Palm Beach, Florida, in which he says that the bushies know where the WMD are hidden. He says they were trucked to Syria and Lebanon and then buried. The bushies are waiting, for some reason, until June 30 to let this bit of info out and perhaps act on it. She is sending me an article that will describe this more thoroughly.

If this is true, it is one more example of the bushies manipulating public opinion for their own political agenda instead of acting for the public good. I think this should be checked out and preempted. This John Loftus sounds like a credible source who knows quite a bit about secret intelligence matters, but I don't really know much about him.

Has anyone else heard about this?

[mmonk]

1. Many expect that to be the line

either Syria or Iran. Learn what you can about the PNAC.

[Nancy Waterman]

3. Is Loftus from PNAC?

I looked over his website and he seemed to be more of lone wolf who reveals intel secrets the bushies want hidden.

[mmonk]

5. I don't know much about Loftus

but I know Iran, Iraq, and Syria were always in the crosshairs of this administration and neocon think tanks. They will have to have a reason to act. Iraq was just to be the beginning.

[LittleApple81]

2. They probably know because they are hiding them themselves. n/t

[Nancy Waterman]

4. That is certainly possible

Our WMD hidden so we can find them. I just don't want Bush to pull a fast oneon this. I would like to see it revealed for what it is.

[BillZBubb]

6. This has been a right wing talking point since Kay's report

They claim the WMD were moved to Saddam's "allies". Limpballs, Savage, Hannity, et al have alluded to this many times in the past. Rumsfeld and Wolfie, too. It is preposterous and there is no way it could have occured without the US knowing about it at the time. It's a plausible excuse to the dimwit dittoheads though to explain the failure to find the WMDs in Iraq that Bush* KNEW were there.

Plus, it fits nicely into the PNAC playbook allowing us to invade Syria and Lebanon to remove this "serious WMD threat". When they don't find them there, they'll just say they actually are in Iran, so we have to go there. You get the picture.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Ask Primakov

at the height of the war he told the Indian Parlaiment that if WMDs were found, (since none were used) they were planted.

[seabeyond]

8. i could see them in syria and lebanon

and how the air is taken out cause for 6 month it has now come to no weapons, they can hold up and say see weapons shipped out.

say this out loud. just like story from iran saying u.s. bringing in weapons to find in iraq.

june 30th is also right before covention, yet exactly when they are turning iraq over. so could be a way of getting out of doing this cause iraq cant do it themselves yet, but people are demanding it. cant flip flop without a reason

this is interesting to watch grow. just remember now as it starts to be created

thanks

[Raster]

9. the bushies ARE the WMD

[leftofthedial]

10. some problems with Loftus

A. He has books to sell, so you can't believe a word he says (I would think the neocons would disavow him on that basis alone).

B. The neocons also "knew" there were WMD's in Iraq.

C. Loftus is a stooge of the Israelis. The intelligence they leak through their stooges is almost never accurate.

[SnohoDem]

11. He doesn't look like a PNACer

www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp#congress


I've heard this "WMDs were moved" tale before. I can only think of two ways this could have happened:

1. We moved them.

2. High level Iraqui defectors moved them for us.

Once Saddam knew the gig was really up, he would have used what he had. If there were weapons, some of the scientists or soldiers interviewed after the war would have led us to them. They had nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

There's no sensible scenario under which Saddam moved the weapons elsewhere - and why the hell would Syria or Lebanon accept them from the Iraqis, knowing we would invade if they did?

The only thing that makes sense to me is a Libya type scenario, where Assad(?) "comes clean" about the weapons, gets a few gigabucks in aid, and makes * look like a hero.

Otherwise, it's just a lie and an excuse to invade Syria or Lebanon.

[seabeyond]

12. i make no conclusion

tony blair is over there shaking hands with gadaffi (sp). they are wanting to get into world interaction and they lost a partner with saddam and they may hand them over, or i could see, their own, and say it is saddam to help out blair and bush

anything is open on this. so whatever comes, i am willing to be open to the stink. cause whatever it is going to be able to point to bush and say, bad

[librechik]

13. there are no effing WMD, and even if there were they're no good

by now--the chem/bio elements lose their effectiveness after a year or two, and they were made in the 80s! Get OVER it!

Besides, the guy who was in charge of them, Saddam's son in law, defected and told us the weapons were destroyed and there were no programs more programs. That was in 96. Then we bombed the factories once or twice a week for the next 4 years.

This WMD lie the RW cling to is nothing but a shadow. They are dead and they know it.

[The Night Owl]

14. Preposterous

If Saddam believed that Syria is a good place to hide his WMD, then why did he himself not go to Syria to hide? Did Saddam stay in Iraq because he wanted the extra challenge of hiding amongst thousands of coalition troops searching for him?

[rock]

15. Apparently the only place not searched is

up bushsucks* ass. He has declined to allow inspections, however, mumbling something about not disturbing cheney.

[RC]

16. LOL

[TankLV]

17. 2 words: Spy Satellites

We have many spy satellites around the globe that can see a pimple on a nat's ass.

We are constantly tracking stuff.

So, a few salient points:

Being that these WMD are/were SUCH and important issue, just release these photos showing them being transported. If they cann not = more lies.

If there are no photos keeping track, why not? Just like the "stand down" orders for 911 = More lies.

These thugs cannot be the only ones to hold the evidence without first turning it over IMMEDIATELY to an independent, international group for verification and tracking of materials. Without that, just more lies.

And last but not least, these thugs TOLD us already that THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE - around Tikrit, and other such bullshit. EVERYONE has looked and looked there and so far, nada = lies.

Just show us all the vehicles transporting these WMDs from Tikrit to SA and we'll maybe believe them - I won't hold my breath on this one, either.