Can't get to the Wikipedia right now, so I can't comment. I'll be back later when I'm able to read the reference. Although, I have to say that the internet is a little like the bible in that you can do searches and come up with information to 'prove' whatever you happen to believe. I tend to try to get political information from 'reliable' (and I use that word advisedly) news sources rather than wikis, or blogs.

That's not to say that I won't read it. I will, and I'll see what it has to say before commenting. Who knows, maybe it's compelling.

>Syria *was* a target... of the overall war on terror. Specifically, Bush's main focus was to get Saddam out of Iraq and presumably off the map as a rogue, terrorist state. I'm quite sure we didn't have any credible evidence of Syria or any of the other countries Bush identified... and remember, none of those other countries had been in direct violation of UN orders to stand down and disarm --with alleged threats of military action -- for more than a decade.
>
>But here -- again found through a couple minutes' searching Google -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada
>
>He seems to have some compelling information and has apparently testified in closed session with members of Congress.
>
>Still a lot to be played out for sure.
>
>
>>My guess is that this is 'sorta' aimed at me. Or at least my apparently slightly misunderstood earlier post. I never once said that Bush knew there were no WMDs. I was just speculating on one reason why Syria may not be seen by Bush as a necessary target. If he knew there were no WMDs to move, it would answer why the U.S. is not worried about Syria. I agree with you in that if he thinks Syria is loaded up with WMDs, he ought to be pumping up the hype. He's not. Can you think of a better explanation?