Superceded by: Iraq B1 - All WMD gone to Syria

Nobody has stated this as a fact, especially me. I have seen no credible evidence for it. If WMD or equipment were hidden, it is much more plausible that it is hidden in Iraq where it could be recovered by a returning regime in the future. I can't visualize Saddam trusting Syria or any other nation with it.

No facts, one of Dan's favorite theories, and also floated by Rummy et al a while back.

Rumsfeld has never stated this specifically, unless he said it as part of a statement that it is possible some contraband had been moved to unspecified neighbor nations.

To the best of my knowledge, the only detailed source I have seen for the "weapons in Syria" theory has been DEBKAfile, and IMO, that pretty much settles that for credibility.

Lately, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, has mentioned in passing the "arms hidden in Syria" theory:

Bolton said the administration has been unable to confirm that before the war, Iraq covertly transferred weapons of mass destruction to Syria in an attempt to hide them from U.N. inspectors.

In this context, I suspect that someone who had read the DEBKAfile account had brought this up to the administration as an issue. Back to square one. The other issues Bolton brings up as far as Syria goes, in particular their leaky border, are serious ones.

In short, I'll believe there's Iraqi weaponry hidden in Syria when somebody digs them up, or information comes from a much better source. A non-issue.

* * *

You think that Sadaam wherever he's holding out reads this board or takes delight in NYT coverage of lack of electricity in Baghdad?

Damn right I do. Well, at least the NYT ;). I know he was eagerly following the worldwide protests before the war, and it may have convinced him we would never attack. The only way the Baathists can have a victory in Iraq is if we give up. They know it, too.

* * *

The goal of the Democrats, and those who share their politics, is a citizenry who is convinced that nothing can happen unless the government makes it happen.

Apologies for my wording. Same principle. How convenient that you are on the side of goodness and righteousness.
Still wrong though.

It isn't convenient, believe me. As for my being wrong, prove it. There are many Democratic ideas that would increase dependence on the government. Show me one single major Democratic agenda, policy, or proposal that would REDUCE citizen dependence on the government. Alternately, show me one major policy from any source that would reduce dependency on the central government that Democrats have not violently opposed. This challenge generally results in the digital equivalent of quietly chirping crickets. Maybe you can do better.

* * *

So why aren't you rightists railing against the current spending?

We have been. As I have posted a number of times, I was against Bush's farm bill, the trade bill, the education bill as written, and I am solidly against creating new entitlements. Rush Limbaugh, along with many conservative talk show hosts, are all over Bush on this, but you probably don't listen to any of them. This article by Andrew Sullivan is just his latest on this subject. Other comments have come from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

* * *

There are a zillion and one things the media could be probing into Bush, from drug-use, to military record to campaign promise backtracks. Yet they are largely silent - with the occasional mention here and there with no real investigation.

They did investigate these things, and they turned out to be Democrats.com-style horse manure. Do you honestly think that if they had something solid on Bush it wouldn't be on the front page of the NYT?

* * *

As far as the economy goes, if I knew exactly where is was going, I'd be a lot richer than I am. I have some basic premises:

One is that a dollar in the hands of the private sector, whether it's Bill Gates or the guy working at McDonalds, will do more to grow the economy than a dollar in the hands of Ted Kennedy. Liberals feel the opposite.

Another is that government spending has to be reduced, or at least frozen to inflation levels. Bush needs to dust off that damn veto pen.

A third, related to the second, is that the main albatross around the neck of the American economy in the future is entitlements. A Ponzi scheme has to come in for a crash landing someday. Somehow the entitlement system has to be reformed, and without overly burdening people who won't get benefits with high taxes, and without removing benefits from older people who planned for and expected them. God knows I don't have any magic solutions, but figure it involves a point somewhere in early middle age and younger where the government can say to a person "you can do something different if you want, somewhere in the private sector, and we'll make it possible."

The point here is that Democrats and the Left refuse to even debate the concept, and ferociously attack anyone even suggesting that alternatives are possible. This mindset needs to be dealt with.