I was frustrated. I felt we — the US and any allies who agreed — needed to move into Iraq relatively quickly, to give Saddam the least time to prepare. Two things concerned me: one was that he would move or dismantle whatever WMD programs he might have had (the Clinton administration, after all, had been assuring us he was harboring WMD for most the 1990s — here's video from 1992, 1998), thus working to discredit the US and paint himself as an innocent victim; and also, of course, I was concerned Saddam would use that time to prepare militarily, resulting in higher US and allied casualties.

During this crucial time, however, the Bush administration, to appease his many and very vocal critics, spent about a year approaching the UN, working with allies to build a case for concerted action. (Foreshadowing a pattern: he would delay similarly, later, with Iran, sacrificing safety for protracted diplomacy.) Of course, ultimately, despite the French government's promise of "direst consequences", and UNSCOM's report of non-cooperation, many of our "allies" backed out and broke their word. (Later, we would discover the French, Russians, and others had been paid off with billions in present and future Iraqi oil profits. And those oh-so-crucial allies usually proved to be militarily useless, or even a liability.)

Most ironically, the "narrative" which later emerged was that we had no evidence of Iraqi WMD (the Clintons had never spoke of it!), and that Bush had acted unilaterally, in a great rush, spending no time at all on diplomacy. The facts, of course, were that a year's worth of diplomacy, honoring legally binding UN resolutions, the welfare of the people of Iraq and their neighbors — all that weighed very little compared to lust for oil, Bush hatred, and anti-Americanism (both domestic and abroad).

During this wasted year or so, in line with my concerns, the US military reported seeing satellite footage of convoys moving great quantities of something out of Iraq and into Syria. None of us could prove it was WMD, but that seemed to be an obvious candidate. (What instead? Bread? Rugs? Dates?) Since then, I've seen a few references to it, as in, say, this report (from my comments):

Just before the latest conflict between the United States and Iraq broke out in 2003, Pakistani intelligence reports were featured in an article by Secretary Raman (a former official in the Indian Government) stating that Dr. Khan had met with Iraqi officials in the UAE. The Iraqi officials asked Dr. Khan to help them smuggle Iraqi WMD out of Iraq into Syria and eventually to Pakistan in order to hinder the efforts of UN inspectors.

Another hint of such here:

Jordan intercepted three tanker trucks filled with twenty tons of chemical weapons sent in from Syria. The trucks were apprehended 75 miles from the Syrian border. One of those captured is saying he was trained in Iraq, before the US invaded in 2003, to use explosives and poisons. The attack was to have killed up to 80,000...

(Others here and here.)

So anyway, sorry for the long windup (just wanted to provide a bit of context and back-story), but here's the latest report in this vein:

Ha'aretz has revived the mystery surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States. Satellite photos of a suspicious site in Syria are providing new support for the reporting of a Syrian journalist who briefly rocked the world with his reporting that Iraq's WMD had been sent to three sites in Syria just before the invasion commenced.

The newspaper reveals that a 200 square-kilometer area in northwestern Syria has been photographed by satellites at the request of a Western intelligence agency at least 16 times, the most recent being taken in January. The site is near Masyaf, and it has at least five installations and hidden paths leading underneath the mountains. This supports the reporting of Nizar Nayouf, an award-winning Syrian journalist who said in 2004 that his sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein's WMDs were in Syria.

I do, of course, realize this is futile. Even the Bush administration (to their later regret, I have heard) never bothered to defend their own intelligence on the matter — so the odds of anyone else looking into it now is very close to zero. The Big Lie has cemented already: Clinton never said Iraq had WMD, that came from Bush, who wanted to start a war since before he took office; there was never any credible intelligence of WMD — our allies' intel never reported any!, Saddam gave up all efforts in the 1990s, UNSCOM never found any evidence of such, Saddam cooperated, et cetera, et cetera.

All completely false, of course, but the Big Lie technique works very well, especially if it contains, within itself, false allegations of Big Lies. (Wheels within wheels, as Frank Herbert wrote in Dune.)

And I have only a few readers anyway.

But it's just nice to note, in passing, for posterity. Just in case someday more evidence turns up (not that it would matter, if the press decides it shouldn't), or in case people come to their senses and re-learn the actual history of the war; the history they all lived through, but somehow ignored or forgot.