Posted on 07/30/2003 8:03:21 PM PDT by Matchett-PI
Greetings Mr. O'Reilly,
If you're not just playing dumb, and really don't know where the WMD are, may I suggest that you get Kenneth R. Timmerman (of Insight Mag.) as a guest on your show --- SOON!
This is the second night in a row I watched you parroting the Democrat mantra, demanding that Bush tell us where the WMD are.
You appear to be out of the loop. That's not good that someone in your position is so much in the dark about what's going on.
I've provided you some succinct excerpts and links to what Mr. Timmerman wrote when he accompanied Powell to Syria on May 3, 2003. This will get you up to speed. I'll look forward to seeing Mr. Timmerman on your show.
Warm regards, [Name and Town]
Sending a Serious Message to Syria
Posted May 28, 2003 By Kenneth R. Timmerman
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/437029.html
"The May 3 meeting in the presidential palace on the hilltop overlooking Damascus was short and to the point.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, flanked by State Department Arabists, told Syrian dictator Bashar Assad that the U.S. victory in Iraq had changed the way America plans to do business in the Middle East.
The days of the cozy deals and of winking and nodding at Syrian support for terrorism were ended. He then presented Assad with a list of U.S. demands that was nothing short of breathtaking.
Powell told the Syrian president that the United States requires him to help in the search for hidden Iraqi weapons.
The United States believes the weapons were taken in convoys of tanker trucks to Syria last fall, along with key production equipment, and buried in the Syrian desert shortly before U.N. arms inspectors returned to Iraq.
Powell demanded that Syria locate and turn over Iraqi weapons scientists and top-ranking Ba'ath Party officials who had been granted sanctuary by Syria once Gulf War II began. ... [end excerpt]
Not-So-Secret Iraqi-Syrian Deals - Posted May 28, 2003
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=437030
Middle East analysts will tell you that Syria and Iraq long have been enemies, citing their leaders' rival visions of Ba'ath Party dictatorship. And they were right until Hafez Assad died in June 2000. Almost as soon as son Bashar took power, things began to change.
In November 2000, the younger Assad agreed to reopen a 500-mile oil pipeline, which soon began hauling an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 barrels per day from the Kirkuk oil fields of Iraq to Syria's Mediterranean export terminal at Banias. For Assad and Saddam Hussein, it was a gold mine. The pipeline deal gave Saddam an estimated $1.5 billion to $2 billion per year on the black market, with hefty transit fees going to Assad in the bargain.
Just two months later, on Jan. 31, 2001, the two countries agreed to double their $500 million-per-year trade, and triple it by 2002.
Gary C. Gambill, writing in the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, reported that Assad had dispatched his younger brother, Maher Assad, to Baghdad on a secret two-day visit shortly before the trade agreement was inked to discuss military cooperation with Qusay Hussein.
Following that visit, agreements were drafted to hide Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in Syria should U.N. inspections resume, and later, when the coalition attack became imminent, to provide sanctuary to fleeing Iraqi leaders.
According to published reports, Syria also served as a conduit for weapons and spare parts that Iraq purchased on the black market in Russia, Ukraine, the Czech Republic and France, in defiance with the U.N. embargo.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned in an interview with Israeli television on Dec. 24, 2002, that Iraq already had trucked the bulk of its weapons stockpiles to Syria earlier in the autumn, before the arrival of the U.N. inspectors.
After intense U.S. pressure, Bashar Assad has handed over several key Iraqi weapons scientists and intelligence officers, including Farouk Hijazi, believed to be the key link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. But hundreds of other Iraqis are reported to have escaped through Syria.
For now, Assad appears to be wedded to his lies. When asked by Lally Weymouth of Newsweek about the escaping Iraqis, Assad insisted that once the war began no one was allowed to come. "We allowed families to come to Syria, women and children," Assad said. "But we were suspicious of some of the relatives - that they had positions in the past and were responsible for killings in Syria in the eighties."
Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight.
More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/920692/posts?page=6#6 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921005/posts?page=39#39 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921194/posts?page=49#49
LOL You can't have it both ways. You've made it very clear, you don't support the President and infer he is a liar. On top of that you continue to spread the liberals propaganda here on FreeRepublic. Take that crap over to one of the Bush bashing forums like DU, Original Dissent or Liberty Post.
Btw, you're no Republican either!
I am not having it both ways. I am praising my president for the things he does well and questioning the possibility that what he told us about the WMD may not have been completely true. I am also noting that if it turns out that he was not truthful that I will not blindly offer my support.
One major premise of FreeRepublic, as stated on the main page, is “to root out political fraud”. This is not merely a Republican admiration society. Some of us actually use our brains and judge conservatives on their merits and thus can offer praise when warranted and offer criticism when just.
Only children (and Democrats) are afraid to criticize those they admire. I suggest you grow up.
Exactly.
Even if it turns out not to have been true, remember that the rest of the world believed those claims as well. It may have been a mistake (although I doubt that), but it was a mistake based on intelligence that everyone in the world believed.
I agree. And nothing would make me happier than for our troops to discover and destroy those weapons – and soon.
As I said earlier in this thread, if it turns out that there are no WMD, I believe the President acted out of concern for the safety of America and his decision was based on the best intelligence available to him. But, he is the Commander-in chief and is responsible for the lives of our soldiers. If they were sent into combat based on false intelligence then he must be held accountable for his decisions. This is not a political game. This concerns the lives of American men and women. They cannot be given up to a cause based on bad intelligence and then forgotten as a “mistake”. President Bush (and others in his administration) will sadly have to pay the consequences.
I tried to tell you, patience is a virtue.
I am so happy that so many of us will get to say to so many others, I TOLD YOU SO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
However, if he does not – if he, in effect, lied to the American people, he has little chance for my support. I don’t support politicians, of any persuasion, who lie about matters that affect the lives of our servicemen.
Neither do I. I don't agree that not finding the WMD's constitutes a lie on Bush's part, but that is very soon going to be a moot point.
If you think Republicans will support him if WMD are not found, I think you are dreaming (and blindly foolish). Republicans are not that dumb. We are not like Democrats who blindly support any liberal.
I think any Republicans that refuse to support him if WMD are NOT FOUND, are basing their decisions on what the MEDIA and DEMOCRATS tell them to do. It depends on whether one is depending on ACTUAL STATEMENTS or WHAT WE THINK HE MEANT. But one can go too far in playing word games, like Clinton, where the meaning of words like SEX and IS are distorted to avoid admitting the truth.
Here, the line is and should be a little more clear, as we trust the President to LEAD and not MISLEAD us. For him to IMPLY that we should TRUST his word about Saddam and WMD's and Terrorists,etc., is what really are arguing about, not his actual words.
In that context, I agree with you. If you find out he lied or made implications that are unfounded, then you should never trust him again.
If you find out he is TELLING THE TRUTH, and there is even more than you ever imagined to tell, WHAT WILL YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE ONES THAT DOUBTED HIM?
Again, Thank you for providing intelligent conversation and debate. More like you are needed on FR.
As if there were going to actually be someone in the media that would be truthful. That would not be concerned with keeping his job, getting pay raises, etc.
It was said a LONG LONG TIME AGO, by a retiring newspaper man, before many of us were even born, that anyone that believed that ANYTHING in the news media that was released to the public, was pure unadulterated truth, was in for a shock.
O'Reilly, and any other news figure, is a human being. They need money to survive, the more the better. They are not there FOR THE TRUTH, as they rarely are even allowed to tell the truth. Most of the time they are not given the truth, and they know it is not true.
THEY ARE THERE TO MAKE A LIVING. Whatever it takes. Ask Geraldo.
Faultering in your eyes does not bother O'Reilly one bit. Faultering in the ratings does. That's all that counts to them. When it is all you are measured by, you come to respond to it and it only.
If you had bothered to read my posts you would know that I don’t expect President Bush to produce the WMD right now – and if you bothered to listen to O’Reilly you would know that he also does not expect the same.
I did read your posts, and I do not listen to O'Reilly. Ever.
To those that doubted him out of honest concern for our military, I would say “Thank you”. Anyone who holds the power of life and death over our military personal should be held to the highest scrutiny. There is absolutely nothing more precious than the lives of those who are willing to sacrifice them to the cause of freedom. That power is not to be taken lightly nor granted without reservation.
To those that doubted him out of spite, political posturing, media ratings or in an effort to besmirch the man’s good name and honor, I would say “F#@! you”.
I am greatly heartened by today’s report from David Kay and I anxiously await further details. However, I am old enough to recall scores of CIA pronouncements that somehow never panned out to be true.
By the way, you don’t have to shout in uppercase – I can read.
Nothing wrong with being skeptical. It's just that some of us can 'see' good and evil, and ya gotta have faith!~
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.