Bill Gertz: Russia Tied to Iraq's Missing Arms

The Washington Times ^ | October 27, 2004 | Bill Gertz

[txroadkill]

is it just my 'puter, or has this story been pulled off the Times website?

[Peach]

I can't pull it up either!

[txroadkill]

never mind...it was my 'puter

[unbalanced but fair]

I hate to say this, but other than Mr. Shaw's beliefs and his European intelligence connections' comments, he hasn't said he can prove any of this. I think it's probably true, but let's hope there's some documentation. Otherwise, it's going nowhere fast.

[txroadkill]

no..wait...it wasn't my 'puter, it's the link
try this
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/

[pnz1]

I can't see it either.

[wai-ming]

Many Americans will go to the polls next Tuesday, completely unaware of the truth about Iraq and WMDs.

The mainstream media has proven unreliable in reporting the facts; moreover, they seem to be in collusion with the Kerry campaign.

We need to get the correct information out to the general public, and quickly. We must do so because the mainstream media is hell-bent on suppressing and distorting the truth.

Put on your thinking caps, Freepers, man your phones, arm your keyboards. This election is too important to leave in the hands of the mainstream media.

[Kryptonite]

Probably just heavy traffic.

[TFine80]

The New York Times

April 15, 2003 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section B; Column 5; Foreign Desk; Pg. 3

LENGTH: 1039 words

HEADLINE: A NATION AT WAR: DIPLOMACY;
U.S. Threatens to Impose Penalties Against Syrians

BYLINE: By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, April 14

BODY:


Six months ago, Syria voted with the United States to demand that Saddam Hussein disarm, helping to make the United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq unanimous.

Since then, the Bush administration has watched with mounting anger as Syria has sided with Mr. Hussein in the war and even provided him with economic and military aid, according to administration officials.

Today, in a vivid illustration of the erratic up-and-down relationship between Washington and Damascus, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell threatened economic and political penalties if Syria continued to offer safe haven to Iraqi leaders or to defy American demands on chemical weapons and terrorism.

Although Syria has denied that Iraqi leaders around Mr. Hussein are finding refuge in its territory, Mr. Powell expressed skepticism over the claim. "It's a rather porous border," he said, adding that Syrian authorities should "do everything they could" to deny Iraqi fugitives a place to hide.

Echoing Mr. Powell, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, called Syria a "rogue nation" and said Syrian leaders under President Bashar al-Assad "need to seriously ponder the implications of their actions."

Syria was not mentioned as a member of the "axis of evil" by President Bush in his State of the Union message in early 2002. But today an administration official said that, along with Libya and Cuba, Syria was regarded as a member of the "junior varsity axis of evil."

Administration officials hastened to add today that military action was not being considered.

But American officials say they are convinced that the victory in Iraq has begun to have what they call a "demonstration effect" on other countries, bringing a measure of restraint by North Korea on its nuclear program. The latest words were aimed at seeing whether such restraint could also be forced in Syria.

"We've changed the geostrategic situation in the Middle East," an administration official said. "Syria can either wake up to that fact, or not. It is up to Syria to decide whether to become a part ofthe new Middle East that we are shaping."

Whether or not military action was contemplated, the administration's strong words were also spreading alarm in the Middle East and among Europeans, who fear that the United States, in its headiness over victory in Iraq, may now be overly eager to swagger in the region.

The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, who led the charge in opposing the Iraq war at the United Nations, warned the United States to exercise restraint in light of its victory.

"Do not let us underestimate the fact that this region today -- whether at government or popular level -- is experiencing a very deep feeling of unease, frustration, sometimes even humiliation," Mr. de Villepin said.

A top Russian Foreign Ministry official also urged "greater restraint" by the United States.

Even Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain felt it necessary to assure Parliament that there was no plan to use military force against Syria.

Syria has had a quirky, hot-and-cold relationship with the United States since the Persian Gulf war in 1991, when Damascus sided with the first President Bush, helping give legitimacy to the war in the Arab world and impetus to a postwar Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

Since then, there have been many moments when members of the first Bush administration and then the Clinton administration thought -- along with Israeli prime ministers -- that Syria might be ready to make a historic peace deal with Jerusalem.

The administration's main objection has nothing to do with Syria's chemical weapons, which have been known as existing for years. Rather, American concerns are focused on Syria's support of terrorism, in tandem with Iran.

The Hezbollah terrorist organization operates in the Syrian-controlled part of Lebanon, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad has a headquarters in Damascus.

"Syria has operated as a kind of way station for these terrorist groups," said Martin Indyk, the former Middle East specialist in the Clinton administration, adding that Iran has helped to supply the groups through Syria.

Today intelligence officials said Hezbollah had crossed into Iraq from Syrian territory. Administration officials say they fear that Syria will be able to continue sending teams of suicide bombers into Iraq to menace American and British forces there for many years.

President Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad, ruled Syria for many years until his death in 2000, and in that period is believed to have come close to reaching a negotiated settlement with Israel, in which Syria would get nearly all the Golan Heights captured by Israel in 1967 in return for security guarantees to Jerusalem.

Since the current Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza began in late 2000, hopes for peace between Israel and Syria have all but vanished. In the last several months, Syria helped Iraq circumvent the penalties against it by piping in oil from Iraq and selling Iraq arms, according to American officials.

Then in the last two weeks came reports of Syria offering safe haven to Iraqi leaders and allowing Arab fighters to go into Iraq to help defend Mr. Hussein's government. The number of such fighters has been placed at 300 to 3,000, an administration official said today.

But administration officials say Syria offers a case study of how the American conquest of Iraq has changed the political map in the region. Whereas Syria has long been a fulcrum of influence, suddenly it is now surrounded by nations not friendly to it -- Israel, Turkey, Jordan and, now, a post-Hussein Iraq.

The administration has even bigger objectives than getting Syria to stop helping pro-Hussein Iraqis. Eventually, Bush administration officials say, the United States wants to get Syria and Iran to curb anti-Israel terrorist activities, knowing that there can be no progress on talks between Israel and the Palestinians if attacks on Israel continue.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel has been among those skeptical of Syrian intentions, departing from the view of his predecessors. Today Mr. Sharon's national security adviser, Ephraim Halevy, said President Assad "has been one of our biggest disappointments."

URL: http://www.nytimes.com

LOAD-DATE: April 15, 2003

[Howlin]

United States Department of Defense News Release On the web: http://www.dod.mil/releases/2004/nr20040810-1103.html Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131 Public contact: http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html or +1 (703) 428-0711

	No. 765-04
IMMEDIATE RELEASE	August 10, 2004

---

DoD Statement on Jack Shaw and the Iraq Telecommunications Contract

            For several months there have been allegations in the press that activities of John A. Shaw, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for International Technology Security, were under investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DoD IG). The allegations were examined by DoD IG criminal investigators in Baghdad and a criminal investigation was never opened.

 

            Furthermore, attempts to discredit Shaw and his report on Iraqi telecommunications contracting matters were brought to the attention of the DoD IG and were accordingly referred to the FBI.

 

           Shaw carried out his duties in the investigation of Iraqi telecommunications matters pursuant to the authorities spelled out in the Memorandum of Understanding between the DoD IG and the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Shaw provided a copy of his report to the DOD IG and, at the request of the Coalition Provisional Authority, to the Iraqi National Communications and Media Commission.

 

           Shaw is not now, nor has he ever been, under investigation by the DoD IG.  Any questions concerning FBI activities should be addressed to the FBI.

---

[Peach]

Glad you posted that; another freeper had tried to discredit him and I don't have my contacts in anymore and can't really do research without them; can barely read here!

[Log]

The article is missing now. Just a blank Washington Times page. Wierd.

[familyop]

The story is no longer on that Washington Times page, and the Drudge Report is still linking to it.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041027-101153-4822r.htm

[txroadkill]

The pulled it off the teaser page too.

[familyop]

Yes. Two possibilities are that the Times took the story off of it, or some lefty cracker (what so many misname as "hacker") cracked the page.

[Log]

Link appeared later here.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

[familyop]

Here it is. They just moved it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

A lot of the mainstream press (even conservative) are bitter with Matt, because he made it and is not one of the elite. Another possibility is that the Wash. Post didn't like having the traffic from Matt's site freezing their webserver earlier tonight.

[familyop]

LOL! Log is posting as I write. ...just a little quicker than me.

Anyway, let's get that new link posted to our websites!

[familyop]

Moderator, would you please change the link to the following as the Washington Times changed it after quidnunc posted? Thank you!

Correct link follows:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

[soccer_linux_mozilla]

Tomorrow's Washington Times features an article by Bill Gertz in which John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, says that Russian troops "almost certainly" helped Saddam's men clean the Al Qaqaa site out before the Iraq War started.

We'll have more on this tomorrow. One way or another, it appears clear that the 380 tons of explosives that are now "missing" were moved by Saddam prior to the start of the war. I suppose the point is too obvious to be worth making, but 380 tons is a lot of material--approximately 38 semi-truck loads. Yet it has, apparently, completely disappeared, probably because it was shipped to Syria before the war started. Do you suppose that, whereever the 380 tons are now, there might be a little extra room for some vials of anthrax, sarin, nerve gas, etc.?

DEACON adds: If Shaw's version, as reported by the Washington Times, holds up and (as importantly) gets heard, the consequences for Kerry could be serious. The Senator will have (a) jumped to a conclusion that wasn't supported by the facts, (b) assumed the incompetence of our troops, (c) confirmed President Bush's position that Iraq had weapons worth worrying about, and (d) unleashed evidence that, as Rocket Man notes, suggests that chemical and biological weapons could easily have been moved out of Iraq just before we invaded. In light of the final point, though, what puzzles me is this: if the Defense Department has evidence that the Russians helped clean out Alqaqaa, why haven't we heard about this before now (or did I just miss it). Evidence that Iraqi weapons, any weapons, were moved out of the country by the Russians would have been helpful to the administration long before now. Maybe we learned about it recently, as relations with Russia have improved.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008341.php