Posted on 02/18/2006 11:21:08 PM PST by Tut
In the part of the article that does not appear on this thread, Retired Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerney (who sometimes appears on Fox News) says he thinks the Bush Administration does not talk about Russia's assistance in moving the weapons to Syria and Lebanon because it does not want to make Russia look bad, as we need Russia's support in the Iran nuclear matter. You might want to connect to the whole Newsmax article as it sets forth other information that supports the belief that Russia was involved in helping Iraq "dispose" of the weapons.
ASAIC, you don't have to find the quote.
I remember it very well.
It was no accident that the Russian convoy was blown up on it's way out of Baghdad, either.
"Timmerman is a blue chip guy."
Yessir!
He surely is.
As are YOU. ;o)
If this is true, it brings up interesting points. For example, the Russians must know that we know that they moved some WMDs. And so of course the Russians must know that we have completely avoided making our knowledge public, even when it has caused severe damage to President Bush politically.
My memory is the source as it took place in 1991 before the internet. There may be some sources on the 'Net, however. I'll do some searching and get back with you.
What I recall is that during the final days of the Fisrt Gulf War there were high level discussions with the Soviets - who considered Saddam their friend. IMO the result (us not pursuing the Republican Guard past Basra) was because we gave in to the Soviets. At that time the Soviets were still a major power.
That is not true. The USSR armed Iraq. The USA armed Iran up until 1979. After that, the USSR armed both. The USA gave some intelligence to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.
Your post is one of the most HUGE bttt that I have ever given.
It was EXCELLENT!
"The big question is why the Bush Administration isn`t talking about this. Can`t understand?"
Why?
Because it's just another hoax, that's why.
"There goes our U.S./Russian relations".
Well when we were asking the UN to go in its not like they had time to move the WMD's. Then the President is made out to look like a fool for not finding them.
Hell the UN helped Sadam, we need to kick their asses out of our country and turn the UN into a usefull building.
"The big question is why the Bush Administration isn`t talking about this. Can`t understand?"
I think its because they have been beat to death about no WMDs found in Iraq and are happy to let others put it out there for now, rather then looking desperate and saying told you so, told you so, and then with no hard evidence the liberal MSM would slam them pretty hard. If all this post-war intelligence proves that the pre-war intelligence was right, it will be obvious to all.
There is supposed to be much much more captured material to go through still.
I'm sorry, you have it reversed, sort of.
Until the fall of the shah of Iran, we backed Iran, and Saddam was a soviet client. His army was soviet trained and soviet equipped. It was still soviet armed right up until the 2003 invasion.
Where it gets complicated was after the fall of the Shah, and the rise of the Ayatollah. At that point, the Saudis became terrified that Iran would invade them. At the same time, Saddam saw a chance to take Iran's arab southwest away from them, and started a war. The Saudis funded that war, and since we were very tightly allied with Saudi Arabia, it became our policy to make sure Saddam didn't lose his war.
But we sold him no armament. We did sell "dual-use" equipment, civilian equipment that could have military applications (like trucks, engines, and so forth). Our primary contribution was intelligence, making sure Saddam always knew where the Iranian troops were massing.
But it would be a mistake to say we were Saddam's ally; we were Saudi Arabia's ally. The moment Saddam became a threat to the Saudis, we dropped him so fast his head spun. He had offered us entry into his oil industry, and we had major projects on the books when he invaded Kuwait. Which is why he didn't believe we would take sides against him. But given the choice between Saddam and the Saudis, it was no contest.
In 1991 when we fought him, his weaponry was almost 100% Soviet. In 2003, when we fought him for the second time, his weaponry was 70% Russian, 20% French, 9% miscellaneous, and 1% US.
Of course they did....dont you remember us shooting up their agents fleeing to Syria?
What a pleasant treat. How are you?
Yep. And the same with Syria.
If the WMDs are really in Syria, why haven't we located and destroyed them? A few Navy Seals on the ground should be able to sniff them out. If found, a laser designator and a B-2 add up to no more WMDs.
Oh, but the Syrians might not like that, and the UN might yell at us if we violate their border.
The Left calls Bush a bully and a warmonger.
I call him dangerously weak.
We need a strong leader who will put US interests first and to heck with "coalition building" or "international opinion" or anything else. We need to support our friends, destroy our enemies, and ignore everyone else.
Bush would rather kiss up to Khofi Anan and Abdullah bin Saud and Vladimir Putin and Vicente Fox.
I don't see anyone running on any party ticket with the sort of toughness and ruthlessness that a true leader requires.
I'm doing very well.
It's a very pleasant treat for me, too. ;o)
Saddam Hussein made a fool of the U.N. and the Clinton Administration with the 17 Security Council Resolutions he simply ignored as he was launching Surface to Air Missiles at our Pilots patrolling the "No Fly Zones" over Iraq.
I have said many times that the WMD's were not the issue, his refusal to honor the terms of his surrender in 1991 was. That cease fire agreement was signed in the blood of those we lost in the first Gulf War and I can't think of a more powerful reason to remove Saddam Hussein from power than in the names of those we lost in "Operation Desert Storm", and all the other reasons for removing that mad man is simply additional nails in his Coffin
Hey! :-)
We'll see if this and/or the Sadaam tapes get as much play as Dick Cheney's Elmer Fudd incident. Our media is pathetic!
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.