Posted on 02/20/2006 11:29:29 PM PST by Thunder90
A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.
"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org).
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Well .. we don't know that for sure .. because he doesn't leak it to the media.
Oops....that would be GWB. LOL. Spell checker doesn't work on initials.
well...
...no one in the media will care.
ping
That's an awful lot of people in the U.S., Britain, and the Ukraine working for the Elders of Zion. Sure you want to go there?
It's easier to believe Bush wanted Putin's help with Iran, and Middle East War II (or III, d/o how you count them).
Who will be sorely amazed when we knock over the Iranian government, too.
Oh, really? How? How does Sada discredit, rather than corroborate, Shaw?
Why aren't both accounts true?
Or Clinton mole. I think the government is lousy with them, the Clintons recruited heavily among the Civil Service with their careerist "diversity" programs; their "change agents" were nothing but forbidden political agents -- ward heelers -- working in the belly of the Civil Service to politicize and Clintonize it.
Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson are just the two most prominent examples of Clintonista "human land mines" left behind by Slick and Beast for the incoming GOP administration.
It's easier to believe Bush wanted Putin's help with Iran, and Middle East War II (or III, d/o how you count them).
That's what makes the most sense to me and that's basically what I've said. However, there are a lot of unnamed unknown sources in this story.
I'm not sure how you're defining "main point" but in any event there need not be any debate about this; Congress wrote down their list of reasons for authorizing war powers and that list is here. It lists many different reasons (the things preceded by "Whereas" - some of them involve "WMDs", some don't) for why they chose to authorize the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
But note, there is no "(3) to go in and find and destroy any WMD and WMC" as you put it. "WMD" is listed among all the "Whereas"'es, but as you can see, "confiscating" them was not a thing (let alone "main" thing) Bush was given war powers in order to do, per se. (Don't get me wrong; it would have been swell if we had located and neutralized/accounted for the WMDs, and it's bad that we didn't. I'm just saying it wasn't the actual "purpose" let alone "main point" of the invasion. You don't invade a country to confiscate some inanimate objects! In fact if I had ever once thought that "confiscating" WMDs was the "main point" of the invasion, I'd have opposed it from the get-go. There are far more cost-effective ways of neutralizing someone's WMD potential - if that's all you care about - than to actually invade and occupy the country.)
It was stated that he had a number of systems. The point was also raised that while he may not use them he may hand them over to a terrorist organistion to use.
Yes, of course these points were raised, because they were germane to the argument in favor of deposing Saddam. And that was the purpose of the war - to depose Saddam.
Let me make an analogy: say you want to indict someone you believe to be a serial killer. This serial killer happens to use icepicks on his victims. So, in your indictment you'll list that fact, and you'll mention that your information shows that the suspect you want to get, has been acquiring a lot of icepicks. He's a dangerous person and the icepicks, which he's used in a dangerous way before, make him more dangerous. Yes, you'll mention the icepicks a lot.
But that doesn't mean that when you go arrest him, the "whole point" is to "confiscate" the fricking icepicks! And it doesn't mean that if you arrest the guy, but don't get the icepicks, you somehow "failed"! And (getting back to the post I had responded to) nor does it mean that if the icepicks were dumped in a dumpster somewhere, and grabbed by a bum, you need to go arrest that bum!
The point is do they exist and if they do where are they and even more worrying who now controls them.
Sure, of course that's a valid concern. Never said it wasn't. If Syria has them it's a concern because the Syrian regime is dangerous. But I'd still say the Syrian regime is dangerous whether or not they actually control ex-Iraq's WMDs. The WMDs, as such, are not the point. The dangerous people are the point. Let's stop putting the cart before the horse.
If all these WMDs turn out to exist but be in the hands of Switzerland I'd sleep like a baby, wouldn't you?
Thanks!
The CIA has too many elitist liberals in management, they are Traitors!
"The sad thing is our own CIA is Actively working against our President and the best intrests of our Country!"
The operations the CIA conducts is nasty business in and of itself. Spies we recruit and train are sometimes counter-agents. This happened frequently during the Cold War. Spies leak information, change loyalties etc. I do not agree that the CIA is working against Bush or our country. I feel they grew incompetent because we ignored the only main enemy we had in the 1990's. This attitude of ignoring islamic threat, stemmed from President Clinton himself.
sad day for the dems? How? None of the sheeple out there will hear about this from the MSM. This 'NEWS' will go no further than Newsmax... I doubt it will even be mentioned on fauxNEWS!
No, there was another post from CNS, just awhile ago. Same response though, "this is only appearing on Robertson's network."
Well .. it's posted here on FR and that means there could be 200,000 people reading about it - and that would make it "more than Newsmax".
Plus .. it's been said that a few million people browze here on a daily basis - which means more than 200,000 members get to read about it too.
When Cheney asked for the investigation into Iraqi attempts to purchase Uranium cake in Africa, they sent Plame's husband who sat in a hotel and made phone calls. No written report was made and none to the V.P.(who asked for it in the first place!).
In this case the C.I.A. discredits this guys info because it's evidently doesn't fit their assesment. They seem to have no love for the Bush administraton.
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.