Slowly, very slowly, we are beginning to discover what happened to the WMDs of Saddam. The left and the antique media have made it an article of faith that there never were any WMDs, and that "Bush lied." So deep is their investment in a political position premised on this conclusion that they will pay no attention to contrary evidence.

Via Peter Glover's website Wires from the bunker, we learn of an interview between Ali Ibrahim al—Tikriti, a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s and a personal friend of the dictator and Ryan Mauro of Worldthreats.com.

Only two weeks ago, General Sada, formerly Sadaam's no 2 Air Force Commander, told the New York Sun that Sadaam's WMD was moved to Syria just six weeks before the US—led invasion. Now Ali Ibrahim confirms this and explains the underlying strategy of Saddam:

I know Saddam's weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980's that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in—depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn't going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.  

Moreover, Ali Ibrahim debunks other shibboleths of the left, including the allegation of no ties between al Qaeda terror and Saddam:

As far as Al—Qaeda is concerned this support was limited for a long time, mainly due to the fact that Al—Qaeda had the hopes of creating an Islamic empire while Saddam wanted a secular Arab nationalist empire. They only really came to terms in the mid—90's due to the fact that both knew they shared the same short term enemy. Once they came to terms on this Saddam provided Al—Qaeda with intelligence support and whatever money or munitions they could provide. Saddam has had very long standing contacts in the black market as well as with Moscow and would provide whatever munitions he could through these contacts.

He also addresses the claim that the US bears responsibility for bringing Saddam to power and for armning him with WMDs:

This is absolutely ludicrous. I was in the Ba'athist Revolution who received support from the Soviet Union because of the socialist ideology behind it. The Soviet Union openly supported and backed the Ba'athist revolution in Iraq at the time and I am sure you can find news articles about it in European press agencies and others at the time. I was there helping with the revolution and worked on two occasions with Soviet KGB officials to help train us, much like the United States did with the Taliban during the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan. The United States never directly gave us any WMDs but rather ingredients. They were not mixed and these 'ingredients' could have been easily used for commercial use but were rather used to build low life chemical weapons.

The tape recordings of Saddam discussing WMDs are said by Ryan Mauro of Worldthreats.com to be a "smoking cannon." If all of this information proves out, the left in the US and UK are going to face an awful reckoning. As usual, it will take some time for the new information to travel from the blogosphere to the alternative media, and finally into the antique media.

Thomas Lifson  2 15 06

UPDATE: Reader David Bell writes:

In debunking the myth that the U.S. funded, armed and equipped Saddam and therefore is somehow responsible for him, Gen. Sada, unfortunately, perpetuates another. Namely, that the U.S. 'trained' the Taliban. He says the Soviets trained the Iraqis 'much like the U.S. did with the Taliban during the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan.' The U.S. had a role in equipping and training some anti—SovietAfghan forces in northern Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion, but these people later become the Northern Alliance that fought against the Taliban, which was a largely Arab—led movement. The U.S. never trained or in any other wat supported the Taliban or forces that later turned into the Taliban. This is just as big a myth of the Left as the story that the U.S. trained and equipped Saddam.

I can't indpendently confirm this, but it sounds consistent with my vague memories.