I've heard these stories about Syrian/Russian involvement almost from the beginning of our occupation of Iraq. It seems odd to me that the Bush Administration would prefer to cover this up...incompetence on the part of some military units, etc. is better than being accused of lying. Moreover, if we pretend that nothing was ever there, then you are admitting incompetence on the part of our intelligence community...a lose-lose proposition.

So, I'd want to see more proof. I'm tired of these tales told at the margins.

Forgive my skepticism but if you're the leader of a country and you're about to be attacked - why wouldn't you use the weapons? Isn't defending yourself better than having the last laugh?

So, Ms. Ponzi, why exactly would Saddam and Co. choose not to actually use their WMDs when their country was being invaded?

Also, is there any second, corroborating source for this (cough, cough) story?

It seems odd to me that the Bush Administration would prefer to cover this up

Given some of the behavior from the Bush administration, I can well believe that they would cover it up. Yes, it would be silly and self-destructive. That sort of thing is all too normal in the WH.