Question

The following is from here . Read it all .

Editor's Note, 2/23/2006: It is never good form to say "I told you so," but it can be tempting. Especially when the subject matter – weapons of mass destruction – has been the backbone of hysterical anti-war rhetoric from very early on. The essay below, written in 2004, argues that the logical question has always been: Where have the weapons been moved?

It seems that we now know that answer:

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands. I am confident they were taken over." Georges Sada, former Iraqi General.

To corroborate this General’s statement, we would expect to find traces of WMD left behind in Iraq that even the most thorough "scrubbing" operation would miss. And traces are exactly what we found:

"Two people were treated for 'minor exposure' after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery." (Source.)

Further, it is reasonable to expect terrorists to emerge from Syria with those WMD to attack U.S. allies:

"Government officials have said the suspects plotted to detonate a powerful bomb targeting Jordan's secret service and use poison gas against the prime minister's office, the U.S. Embassy and other diplomatic missions. Had the bomb exploded, it could have killed at least 20,000 people and wrecked buildings within a half-mile radius, the officials have said." (NOTE: These terrorists were seized at the border between Jordan and Syria. Source.)

Let's recap. These Al Qaeda terrorists, who hail from Iraq, possessed chemical weapons of mass destruction and were captured exiting Syria, a country that does not have the capability of producing these weapons, that also happens to border Iraq to the east. A former Iraqi General says the weapons were moved there and traces of these chemical weapons were found left behind.

How curious that the conviction last week of these Iraqi Al Qaeda terrorists possessing WMD was barely covered in the media.

"Jordan sentences nine al-Qaeda terrorists to death for planning chemical attacks against government and US targets in 2004…Twenty tons of chemicals and explosives were seized, including sulfuric acid, which can be used as a blistering agent or to increase the size of conventional explosions." (Source.)

Despite this evidence, some liberals will still argue the WMD were destroyed. The cornerstone of this logic suggests that we must trust the Hussein regime’s public claims and not trust General Sada, the findings of coalition forces or the circumstantial evidence of the Jordan terrorist plot. Their argument relies on Saddam:

"In the future, what would prevent a booby trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" Saddam said. (Source.)

And Tariq Aziz:

"The biological (attack) is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000." (Source.)

And Saddam's son-in-law:
"They don’t know any of this. We did not say we used them on Iran. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials."

Liberals…I told you so.

Where Are the WMD?

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ