Posted on 03/12/2006 2:41:39 PM PST by FairOpinion
There have been just too many recent reports, impossible to brush off, that they were transferred to Syria shortly before the beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
The place to start is the 2 million documents captured by U.S. forces in Iraq along with more than 2,500 hours of audiotapes of Saddam Hussein’s meetings with underlings.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has introduced a bill to release the material and may hold hearings this spring. Hoekstra says he has an open mind. His staff tried to check claims by former Iraqi Air Force Gen. Georges Sada that chemical or biological weapons were flown to Syria in 56 flights, but was unable to confirm it.
The general in charge of Pentagon spy satellites has admitted observing large truck convoys from Iraq to Syria before the war began.
The CIA’s clandestine war against the White House means the agency cannot be trusted for an honest account of what’s in this material. Hoekstra’s committee, and Congress, should make sure that an independent body with no ax to grind checks the documents and releases every last one that can be made public safely, except perhaps for the mess-kit repair orders and laundry invoices, no matter who might be embarrassed or how long it takes.
Washington isn’t Baghdad. Saddam’s secrets need not be protected, especially not at the expense of this administration’s credibility.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
A good case can be built that Saddam did NOT send his WMDs to Syria. Yes, the Russians had plenty to remove before the US and allies invaded and Syria was the closest place to hide records, booty, and whatever else they didn't want the Americans to find.
But Saddam most likely hid his chemical and biological weapons in several large bunkers in southern Iraq that the US knows about but has not yet opened because they would have to divert river and canal to do so. They are safely there out of harm's way. The Bush administration is more concerned with fighting the WOT and killing terrorists drawn to Iraq by the illusion of the US's weakness--an illusion brought about by the MSM and the Dems.
So it is helpful at this stage of the war to not reveal the presence of WMD so that the enemies keep up investing in their losing tactics. This stage is almost over, imho, and we must soon deal with Iran.
The Defense Department now appears to be working on the directorate to make other Iraq files public as well. A February 6 letter from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Rumsfeld is working with the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, to release Iraqi files sought from the Harmony database, which catalogs material on terrorism secured since September 11, 2001.
Mr. Rumsfeld wrote, "You should know that Mr. Negroponte has lead responsibility within the US government for this material. As such we have been working with his office to establish the best path forward.
Thanks for the info.
I hope they will release those tapes and documents and someone will rub the noses of the Dems and MSM into them, and make them apologize to President Bush.
Who would it benefit more if we knew where the WMD's are and realease the info now?
Republicans?
Terrorist?
Where are most of the terrorist coming from?
And I still don't get it.
Why on earth wouldn't our own CIA be on our side? Is this the effect of some Clintonian residue? If so, there must be a large contingent of "company" people who are on the side of the U.S., mustn't there?
I plead ignorance, here.
.
"Why on earth wouldn't our own CIA be on our side? Is this the effect of some Clintonian residue?"
====
I read that during the Clinton administration they fired a lot of good CIA agents, and they kept the incompetent bureaucrats. Don't forget, these are the same people who didn't take Bin Laden seriously all through the 90-s.
If they were transported to Syria why isn't there more people coming forth with info or evidence. What was this a 1 man operation??? lol
Couple that with the selection of Craig Livingstone and the Rodham/Clintons have no standing on any security issue.
Thanks for the perspective re the CIA.
.
Read the article I referenced in post 12, to get answer to your question, which is a good point, but there is an answer.
Here is another article I found, that's relevant:
Clinton CIA Hurt Search for Iraqi Weapons
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/17/110832.shtml
Thanks to Bill Clinton's decimation of the CIA, a weakened network of spies in Iraq could provide the agency with no proof of chemical or biological weapons.
"Slightly more than a year before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the CIA launched a major effort to rebuild its network of Iraqi agents, which had been badly depleted by repeated purges, according to congressional and Bush administration officials with knowledge of the effort," USA Today reported today.
But the Bush administration's efforts to rebuild the agency could not overcome the damage in time.
>>Who would it benefit more if we knew where the WMD's are and realease the info now?
We (Bush et al) will need to reveal that Saddam did have WMD and was hiding them from UN inspectors to regain enough credibility for us to go after Iran. The "finding" of the WMD will benefit Bush greatly and to a lesser extent the GOP.
>>Where are most of the terrorist coming from?
Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia (whose gov. is glad to see them go), Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and so on. They came believing that they were superior warriors and got their butts killed by our well trained marksmen. They left cellphones and laptops on their dead bodies which got turned over to our intel. Flypaper Strategery worked well, but it must be about finished.
Iran sent a lot of manpower at first but wisened up to where now they are sending high tech weapons such as roadside bombs that will blow through our heavy armor (plasma jet tech). IEDs indeed--nothing "improvised" about them.
Saddam's WMD ping.
The CIA's false report to CiC Bush on Saddam being at some alleged bunker that got Bush to start the war ahead of schedule (no Saddam and no bunkereven) reminds me of the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Gossip has it that it was Plame's group that was responsible for the Belgrade misinformation. Could it have been Plame again that got the war off to an eaarly start?
Bumparooski...
I don't fault Bush on this. In act, I think that there are those who would want to redo the decision to go to war, no matter what. It is an infuriating obsession and I am glad Bush does not participate. He has better things to do. He has a war to win, for instance. Or, if you think the war is won, he has a peace to win in Iraq.
There were reports that Syria again moved them to Chad in civilian air flights. sorry, just my memory here and I can't confirm those reports.
Let's not forget, that Syria has 3 major compounds that are suspected WMD sites.
The war against Islamo-fascism is far from won, but the fight for Iraq, the heart of Arab culture, is going quite well so far. Better than I ever expected. (Someone in Bush's Strategery group read and understood Sun Tsu very well.)
Moving WMDs to Syria doesn't make sense. Firstly, everyone knew that our satellites were watching. Secondly, Syria's leadership is fearful so it would have to have been kept from them. And thirdly, Saddam is unlikely to have let his favorite toys get so far away. Think of that. Would he really have trusted the Russians to take his WMDs away? He had spent years successfully hiding them from the UN inspectors inside Iraq and so had the means to keep hiding them.
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.