Posted on 12/30/2004 2:59:04 AM PST by Woodworker
A Pentagon official who publicly disclosed information showing Russian involvement in moving Iraqi weapons out of that country has been dismissed. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security and formerly an aide to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was forced to leave his position Dec. 10 as the result of a "reorganization" that eliminated his job, defense officials said.
In October, Mr. Shaw told The Washington Times that he had received foreign intelligence data showing that Russian special forces units were involved in an effort to remove Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began in March 2003.
Mr. Shaw singled out Mr. Rumsfeld's chief of staff, Larry DiRita, and other officials... Mr. DiRita declined to comment on specific accusations made by Mr. Shaw.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
"why the US refuses to "out" Syria in this whole thing, I do not know, perhaps
its because we aren't prepared to do anything about them."
Timing is everything in poker and war.
you mean those Russian "diplomats"? yes, I remember that.
That benefit outweighs the political "show and tell" benefit of finding WMD in Iraq.
Second, the UN sanctions on Iraq remain in pace until such time as Iraq is certified "free of WMD" by UN inspectors- last I heard we still aren't letting the UN inspectors in. The UN is not cooperating with the establishment of new government in Iraq, it is instead holding the new government to standards it was willing to ignore for the old government, because UN officials aren't concerned about Iraq's welfare, they are miffed about being cut off from the oil for food gravy train. The reconstruction of Iraq is very difficult with trading limited and made more difficult by sanctions- and the UN - particularly the French- is playing political games at Iraq's expense. Whether they can still justify sanctions once there are free elections, I don't know- but they can do so now.
What this means is that even if the US finds WMD in Iraq, it is better for us to remove them or have them removed quietly and secured or destroyed so that when the UN inspectors have their final look-see, there will be nothing for them to find to justify maintaining sanctions. Politically it may be damaging to us to not find them, but our goals appear to be better served if we don't.
Just a note for people to chew on: the US has been destroying its own nerve gas supplies during the time period we were occupying Iraq's chemical weapons sites. It would provie cover for destroying Iraq's as well.
We have also been quick to very openly remove Libya's uranium to the US- Libya's uranium came from Niger, the country we were assured by the left and by the IAEA could not have been seling uranium on the sly to Iraq. It would not be difficult for us to include any unaccounted for Iraqi uranium in the supplies shipped to the US as "Libyan" either, leaving Iraq clean as a whistle for sanctions-lifting purposes.
Just a theory.
And a good one.
It only remains to be determined if the current Administration would do the obvious or would they do the expedient when WMD are found.
The fact that they were/are there and no big announcement about it has been forthcoming, lends weight to your theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.