On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:23:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas (IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three
specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area
roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long
lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.



Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

Wait a minute -- we went to Iraq, according to the best you guys had
to offer, to steal the Iraq oil. Does Syria have a lot of oil? No?
Then why would we go there?

Bush did not want to give Saddam a lot of time. Bush wanted to
convince the UN and all the Dems that it was necessary to change the
regime, like Mr. Clinton wanted to do. He gave Saddam time to get
honest.

Let's don't get too ridiculous here.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!