« Truman Lied, Aliens DiedLacking Even the Ethics of a Journalist! »

Bush Didn’t Lie, People Didn’t Die

NYT, which lately has lost its enthusiasm for WMD-cleansing projects, wants to know why Bush didn’t go after this Syrian nuke program sooner* … or at least wants other people to want to know why:  

The mystery surrounding the construction of what might have been a nuclear reactor in Syria deepened yesterday, when a company released a satellite photo showing that the main building was well under way in September 2003 — four years before Israeli jets bombed it.

The long genesis is likely to raise questions about whether the Bush administration overlooked a nascent atomic threat in Syria while planning and executing a war in Iraq, which was later found to have no active nuclear program.

It’s a puzzler. NYT answers its own suggested line of inquiry.

A senior American intelligence official said yesterday that American analysts had looked carefully at the site from its early days, but were unsure then whether it posed a nuclear threat.

In the time before the Iraq war, President Bush and his senior advisers sounded many alarms about Baghdad’s reconstituting its nuclear program. But they have never publicly discussed what many analysts say appears to have been a long-running nuclear effort next door.

Yes. When Bush was lying, arranging for people to die over Saddam’s nuke threat, why wasn’t he lying, arranging for people to die over Syria’s?

The senior intelligence official said that American spy satellites and analysts had, in fact, watched the site for years.

“It was noticed, without knowing what it was,” the official said. “You revisit every so often, but it was not a high priority. You see things that raise the flag and you know you have to keep looking. It was a case of watching it evolve.”

The question this raises for me is not so much did Bush not lie, and people not die but … what the heck was in the convoys of trucks that hightailed it for Syria in March 2003?

* Bush of course didn’t go after this. Strangely, his Zionist masters did the job themselves, after their Crusader minions dithered. Prior:

Nuclear Material vs. Non-Fissionable

Now You See Nuke, Now You Don’t

Now You Bomb It, Now You Don’t

Concerns About Stability

Topics: Iraq, Syria

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:38 am on Sunday, October 28, 2007

10 Responses to “Bush Didn’t Lie, People Didn’t Die”

1. theospark Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 11:01 am

   Instead of messing around with Turkey the 3ID should have gone into Iraq through Syria (via Israel). The media were always going to be against the war so it would have not made much difference to their reporting. Neutralising Syria in 2003 would have stopped a lot of the aggro that has happened since!

2. Banjo Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 11:52 am

   The NYTimes is right. The Syrian nuclear site should have been the subject of years of UN debate before nothing was done about it.

3. tanstaafl Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 12:03 pm

   Geez, now we’re lifting up all the little conspiracy rocks, there not being much in the way of conspiracy boulders for “the media” to feed on at the moment.

   The US diddled and daddled and met and speculated about “the Syrian site” for weeks & months, behind the scenes.

   The US state dept.was very reluctant to stir up the proverbial pot until the day it got some kind of unequivocal stuff (information) from Israel and/or satellite surveillance.

   I know all of this becuz I read it somewhere about 1 month ago.

   Recent satellite pictures of “the installation” show that the site has been “sanitized”, as in things like the big hole where the bldg. was have been filled in.

   I know this becuz I saw before & after satellite photos yesterday, which I may or may not believe anything, but there they were. Pictures.

4. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

   The NYT is concerned about a nuclear threat from other than America? And is discussing why Bush didn’t pay closer attention to that threat?

   My irony meter just melted.

5. RebeccaH Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 1:35 pm

   What’s embarrassing is that the Israelis went in and wiped out Syria’s whatever site, instead of us doing it ourselves. We were afraid of the world calling us a big bully country knocking down a weaker little country. Instead, it was a little country knocking down a bullying little country that is backed by an enormous bullying region, and getting away with it (for the umpteenth time).

6. saltydog Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

   I’m having a hard time figuring out just what I’m supposed to think. Am I for or against taking out nuclear facilities in rogue M.E. countries. If I’m for it, does this mean I’m for going after Iran? If I’m against it, why am I supposed to grouse about not doing anything about Syria?

   These people have me so confused. What am I supposed to put on the protest poster at the next gathering of half-nekkid old ladies?

7. RebeccaH Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

   Salty: Brains Not Breasts.

8. Robert Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 4:22 pm

   Iraq or Syria? Which fascist dictatorship to take out first? OK, how about the bigger one that sits between Terrorist entities Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. It will take a generation, but eventually the swamp will be drained.

9. MikeH Says:
   October 28th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

   Saltydog, I’m….Going….. To…… Heave……

   I had to swallow a bottle of aspirin when Zombie posted the pictures. My eyes hurt.

10. spqrzilla Says:
    October 29th, 2007 at 12:57 am

    It would be obvious to the NYT, if they did any actual thinking at all, that Syria is not the US’ problem. Syria is Israel’s problem. Israel claims dibs on how to deal with them because they are currently still in a state of war with them.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.