Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Secondly of all, there were only two aircraft being used and 56 total flights (supposedly) between the two of them. It defies reason to suggest that merely 56 flights would be enough to get a whole country's WMD program out of Iraq into Syria without detection of any kind. Given the massive nature of the WMD program that Bush and Powell so hyped up, it would be impossible for Saddam to smuggle all of the evidence for his programs in just 56 flights in aircraft not designed for the purpose.

Thirdly of all, this tall tale defies the laws of physics. How could you smuggle these labs, alumunum tubes, rockets, and other such WMD's out of Iraq without weighing down the plane so much that it could not fly?

This makes Sada's claim an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Let me see how his testimony stacks up against the standards required. I wrote about my standards; here is how his claims measure up:

Physical:

None. All we have is Mr. Sada's word for it, as the Sun article lamely admits. There are plenty of people who are unhappy with the Syrian regime there; however, none have come forward to point out the locations of WMD's in Syria.

Experts:

According to the FR link and the Sun article, Mr. Sada served in the Iraqi Air Force and was the Number Two in command there. However, he had no direct involvement in the supposed activities, but bases his case on hearsay evidence:

Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.

"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines outside Iraq.

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

Therefore, we cannot evaluate his testimony because he bases his word on the word of anonymous sources, not on his expertise.

Eyewitnesses:

None. As noted above, Mr. Sada had no direct involvement in this. The Sun article notes that there were ground convoys of trucks -- but fails to say whether the trucks went to Syria or whether they loaded the WMD's on the plane. That brings up another reason to disbelieve these claims -- the smuggling was done in the Summer of 2002, right as the US and the UK were stepping up their bombing campaigns in advance of their invasion of Iraq in 2003. If our forces had detected convoys of trucks that large, they would have been bombed.

It would stand to reason that if there had been such an attempt by Saddam, there would have been scores of eyewitnesses on both sides of the border who could come forward and verify that Mr. Sada's account is true. But the fact is, there are none. The burden of proof is on the right-wingers to come up with the evidence, not for us to disprove it.

None of which fazes the hysterical Republicans commenting on this article. Here are some choice samples:

Yep, couple this with Stephen Hayes' report on the terror ties that are being uncovered, and also with the former head of Romanian secret police who said he KNOWS that Saddam and the Ruskies had a plan to hide the weapons, and the wheels of the liberal-scums "Bush-lied" mantra are started to come off. Now, we'll all hold our breath for the NY Times to cover this story, right?

I am not holding my breath until the NYT, Wash Post, the networks, and all their small-time copiers report this. You could hand them actual, real-time video of these WMDs and they wouldn't report it.

Plus, satellite photos showed convoys of trucks heading for Syria--what was in those? And let's not forget that Iraq is a very big place: already they've found fleets of airplanes buried in the sand. What else is buried that we haven't found yet? More bodies, I'm sure, but there could be more WMD.

So tell us something we didn't know. Remember Bill Gertz's reports in the Washington Times that in the run-up to the war, Russian trucks were picked up by our satellite intel at Iraqi weapons plants carrying some large loads (covered) to Syria? We all thought that the loads were WMDs. This would tehnd to confirm that this is exactly what happened.

Perhaps we should encourage our friends the Israelis to launch an attack on Syria while we bomb Iran. I bet that would shorten the war in Iraq and Afghanistan dramatically, save lives (on both sides), and find the WMDs. At which point, liberals woudl simply increase teh list of people who are obviously lying. In LibWorlkd, facts don't matter: truth is whatever serves the party and a lie is whatever doesn't.

The History Channel did a documentary on Saddam's WMD's and showed nighttime video of trucks moving "something" into Syria. Darned if I can remember the name of the documentary and even tried to find the story in the archives. Very powerful stuff and included his visuals of the many underground bunkers.

This is the sort of thing that people believe when they throw reason out the window, develop itching ears, and are willing to believe anything that makes the other side look bad no matter how flimsy the evidence is.

There are two levels of thought -- speculation and assertions. Assertions require complete proof, links, and evidence to back it up. Mr. Sada's assertions do not meet the burden of proof. In addition, there is the question of who he is associated with.

According to the article, Sada is associated with World Compassion, run by Terry Law. They perform charity work in Iran, Iraq, and other places. Who is World Compassion, and how do they fit into the picture?

Speculation is fine -- but there is good speculation and bad speculation. Good speculation is based on evidence and does not contradict known evidence, theories, or laws. Good speculation should give someone else something to work with so they can add something to the puzzle. A person with good speculation is always willing to be proven wrong.

Bad speculation, on the other hand, is a claim that defies reason, physics, or things we already know about the thing or person being speculated about. Bad speculation leads to bad factual assertions like this claim that Iraq smuggled WMD's off to Syria. It is unwilling to be proven false and frequently based solely on faith.

That is why I make no apologies for demanding that when people speculate on something or make a factual assertion, that they do the work to prove their case. This is why I demand that people do the work themselves rather than regurgitate the latest variation of the 9/11 bombing theory from What Really Happened or Wayne Madsen. If we do not hold each other to high standards of evidence when speculating or making claims about things, then we will not be credible when we try to debunk theories like this.