"DSK" wrote in message
...
If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?


NOYB wrote:
They did:

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/...y25/may25.html

"Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new
evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and
platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the
U.S.-led war in Iraq in March 2003 .

The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the
contents of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed.
Confirmation later came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned
by a U.S. team that was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But
all they knew was that the convoys were heading west to Syria."


So, why did we invade Iraq and not Syria? I guess because Syria has no
oil?

The convoy was spotted as we were invading Iraq. Iraq is a much more vital
cog in the wheel for our plan in the Middle East. And, yes, oil is *part*
(and only part) of the reason.





If the WMDs were in Syria, why didn't we go get them... or at least unveil
them FOR REAL (I mean, does anybody except a few far-rightie whackos
believe this news you quote)?


Because it was the Russians who helped smuggle the weapons to Syria...and
dealing with Russia is a little bit more complicated than dealing with Iraq.

Regardless, the latest revelation of Syrian ties to the assassination of
Hariri will now force Russia to sit on the sidelines as a case for regime
change is made before the UN against Assad.