Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pete
I heard a guy on Fox give the following explanation. Prior to the US invasion in 2003, the biggest arms suppliers to Iraq were China, Russia and France. That may have include components for WMD. It is likely that traces on the weapons would lead back to these countries. Right now, the administration does not feel it is in our best interests to rock that boat by making such information public.

I think that is closer to the truth.

8 posted on 06/24/2006 11:28:09 AM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Irish Eyes; Pete

Pete: "...Prior to the US invasion in 2003, the biggest arms suppliers to Iraq were China, Russia and France. That may have include components for WMD. It is likely that traces on the weapons would lead back to these countries. Right now, the administration does not feel it is in our best interests to rock that boat by making such information public."

Irish Eyes: "I think that is closer to the truth."

Excerpt from what Rush said on Thursday (full transcript below):

"RUSH: Last night on Hannity & Colmes, Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, who is a Fox News military analyst, said this: "[M]y personal opinion is, I think the fact is that the Russians moved large stocks of weapons of mass destruction out of Baghdad and Iraq in the fall of 2002. We've all heard what General Sada, the Iraqi defector said. He said that they went into three locations in Syria and one location in the Bekaa Valley, and if you get in there and if you found those weapons and found the precursors, the fingerprints would go back to Russia, China and France." This is McInerney last night on Fox.

Now... "Those are the three countries that had the most conventional weapon sales to Saddam Hussein. We've done an inventory on that, so that's public, and I believe they were complicit, so I don't think the administration wants to trash three of the five members of this Security Council." Let me translate. What McInerney is saying is what a number of people think. Those weapons were there and they were moved out by the Russians and by the French, by the Chinese, primarily the Russians providing most of the actual manpower and equipment to do it. They were moved to Syria, Bekaa Valley and three other locations.

China and France and Russia -- we all know this from the oil-for-food program, by the way -- were all engaged in selling large stockpiles of conventional weapons to Saddam and in some cases some people think maybe weapons that could be converted to the so-called biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. But McInerney says I just don't think this administration is going to force the issue because he doesn't want to accuse three of our allies on the Security Council of being complicit here. So, folks, that's why it's going to require alternative voices to keep the pressure on, keep the heat on, and it can be done. Believe me, there are people livid about this, and the fact that it's being ignored and swept under the rug is only going to fuel the energy of those of us who want to spend time getting the information out." ~

*

Why Nobody Seems Interested in the Hundreds of Saddam's WMD Found in Iraq June 22, 2006
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062206/content/truth_detector.member.html

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

[]RUSH: If you're like me you have a mixture of anger and frustration at a whole lot of people over the discovered news of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and you're very frustrated over what some of the reaction to this has been. Here's the timeline on this: (story) "Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) announced Wednesday the discovery of more than 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically 'sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles,' in Iraq. Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, 'Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

"Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.' According to Santorum, 'That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.' Reading from the document, Santorum added, 'Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the Black Market. Use of these weapons by terrorist or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out." Now, obviously, folks, these are facts. There's a lot more on these documents that has not been unclassified. There's no interest in this. There's hardly any interest in this from any quarter.

The White House doesn't seem all that interested in this. Certainly the Drive-By Media is not interested in this. The Democrats don't want to hear a thing about this, because it totally compromises their whole template of "Bush lied, there were no weapons of mass destruction," despite all of the talk from Clinton and the Democrats in the Senate in 1998, which we've documented here, and so it's puzzling. It's very frustrating. Why in the world is there such a reluctance, even on the part of some Republicans and some Republican conservative media members, to downplay this? I have a theory about this, multiple theories in fact.

We've had a three-year propaganda program on "No weapons of mass destruction. None have been found." This is just settled in now as fact. It is not "fact." It is propaganda. The facts are coming out and there's probably a lot more to be unclassified if somebody will just do it. Now, there are other problems that exist here in addition to people not wanting to stick their necks out like Santorum has and Pete Hookstra has -- and Hookstra, by the way, is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He's not a minor player here, not a minor figure. But you watch, the Democrats and the media are going to try to taint both of these guys as kooks.
"Come on! They won't let it go. Look at these people. They're just a bunch of conspiracy theorists. It's already been established there were no weapons of mass destruction." Well, here are the facts. "Well, but these were prior to 1990! This is from the Gulf War. This has nothing to do with what we went into Iraq for." It's another refrain you may be hearing. They were there! They were found there, ladies and gentlemen. The whole notion that there were no weapons of mass destruction is absurd. The Drive-By Media wants no part of it. Republicans, they're a little scared because of the propaganda for the past three years that has got everybody a little frightened to go out on a limb about this -- and some people, because the propaganda has been so successful, some people are trying to say, "This is not a big issue!"

It is a big issue. Forget the public relations on this. You know, you have a lot of smart people on our side trying to play this down. Not a lot, but you've got some. I think they are gun-shy, fearing that this is not accurate or it's not what it's said to be, and they're sort of like beaten dogs on this. Inside the Beltway it takes courage to go against three years of propaganda, and when there's no leadership from the top on this one, the administration doesn't seem eager to carry the ball on this, then, you know, it makes it tougher for others to get going. In the administration there's a guy named John Negroponte. Negroponte has done his best to... You remember the 36,000 boxes of documents that we found a long time ago? It took a long time to get those translated and released and it was elements in the administration that were trying to prevent that.

[] I don't know why. I can't tell you, but it took a direct intervention on the part of President Bush to get those documents translated and released which illustrates the connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. They don't establish a connection with 9/11, but the whole notion that Iraq had no connection with terrorists or Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 is foolish because it's in those documents. There's also, I'm going to tell you something else, folks, and I've said this before, I've just never said it in this strong a fashion. There's a shadow government operating here. You've got Clintonoids held over at state, at CIA, and at the Pentagon.

How about Mary McCarthy from the Clinton administration working in the inspector general's office of the CIA, ostensibly leaking things to Dana Priest at the Washington Post. All of these leaks prior to going into Iraq from the Pentagon and from state to the New York Times and the Washington Post about our war plan and what it was, people trying to sabotage it who never support this administration's foreign policy, trying to undermine it. It's been going on since this administration was inaugurated in 2001. Now, these are Clintonoid holdovers that Bush did not get rid of. Bush and his team didn't get rid of these people. I'm convinced it was because of the "new tone."
They were out there trying to demonstrate how fair and open we can be, and we want to set aside the partisanship that happened during the nineties, we wanted to have a new tone. These people on the left aren't interested in getting along with anybody. They're interested in power, and they are interested in sabotaging the foreign policy of this administration, because they dreadfully oppose it. They also oppose it because it might succeed, which would make their guy Clinton look bad as well, and they continue to struggle to find a legacy for him. So, you know, it's a big problem here. We complain all the time that nobody will step up and take the lead, but now two guys did: the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hookstra, and Rick Santorum.

So we have two guys who are out there leading and people on our side -- forget the left and the Drive-By Media. I can understand that. We have people on our side blowing them off trying to say, "Ah, this is not a big deal. Oh, this doesn't really matter. They say pre-1990. This doesn't have any relevance." I think that's the success of three years of propaganda. I think the chairman of the House intelligence committee is a pretty significant guy, but he's being labeled a kook and Santorum is being labeled a kook, and, meanwhile, people like Murtha and John Kerry are held out as great heroes. By the way, the Kerry amendment went down to a vote of 86-13. I could not believe my eyes today. I'm sitting here. I'm watching cable news networks.

I do that as part of show prep each and every day. And they were watching this Senate vote like we were voting on continuing the Constitution. The Constitution was up for a vote! With all kinds of, "Senate vote about to commence, Senate vote has commenced, Senate vote now ongoing, details of Senate vote coming soon." It went down to defeat 86-13! It never had a prayer. It wasn't even relevant, folks. Eighty-six to 13, that's seven more votes than Kerry's resolution got last week. Biiiig deal. This has been covered, and it's because that's a Drive-By Media template holding out hope that maybe at the last minute, there would have been some people -- and Kerry's amendment was, you know, for veritable immediate withdrawal.

So the news that's being made today is irrelevant. It's not news. It doesn't surprise anybody. It wasn't even that exciting. What's exciting about listening to you a Senate roll call? "Mr. Akaka? Mr. Akaka: Aye. Mrs. Lincoln? Mrs. Lincoln: Aye. Mrs. Lincoln. Aye." Who cares? Especially when the outcome was known. Let me ask you people this question. How does the Haditha incident receive more press attention without skepticism by the way, than the WMD info that Santorum and Hookstra released last night? Why is the document found at Zarqawi's death house immediately questioned and thought of as a forgery? Certain information treated one way, other information treated another way. Murtha talks about Haditha, and he has no firsthand knowledge of anything. He's embraced! But when Santorum and Hookstra talk about actual evidence released by our government, r-e, weapons of mass destruction, it's either "not enough," or, "It's too old," or, "Who cares anymore? It's not the point, Rush." The libs have been so successful with their talking point propaganda, r-e, there are no weapons of mass destruction, that even some on our side refuse to acknowledge the truth about it because they're afraid.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I still have a few more syllables to articulate, enunciate, and project on this weapons-of-mass-destruction business. The same people, the same people who claim that [] the election in Ohio in 2004 was stolen, the same people who claim that the election in Florida in 2000 was stolen, without any evidence, by the way, played down this evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Same people, same people who believed that we are systematically torturing detainees, will play down this evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The same people, the same people who accuse our troops of war crimes before a trial and a verdict, will play down this evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

I know, the Drive-By Media and those lame Democrats are so committed to the Bush-lied position, nothing will allow them to move off of that position no matter what evidence is forthcoming. My friends, it is always, always an uphill battle to get the truth out. And you can forget the drive-bys. Their template is destroying Bush and destroying the war effort, and that template is forged in common ground with the Democratic Party. Just like we got the truth out on the Senate immigration bill, it is going to be up to us, ladies and gentlemen, to get the truth out on weapons of mass destruction and overcome the obdurate stubbornness and blindness of the Democrats and the Drive-By Media.

It's going to be up to us to give courage and a backbone to our own people on our side of the aisle to stand up as I am standing up now and say, "These are facts." The same people relying on no evidence to charge election fraud, to charge detainee abuse, to charge criminal behavior on the part of our troops, will look squarely at evidence and facts of weapons of mass destruction, "That's not a big deal, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter." I'll tell you what they're going to do, folks. They're now going to try to attack Santorum and they're going to do so for two reasons. They want to try to send a message that anybody else who dares go out like Santorum has and move off the accepted line that Bush lied and there were no weapons of mass destruction, is going to be targeted, is going to be punished, and they're going to try to defeat Santorum by saying that he is politicizing this.

In fact, that's become the latest mantra of the left, that the Republicans are politicizing the war. More on that in mere moments. They're going to pretend after they go after Santorum that the chairman of House intelligence committee was not at yesterday's news conference, Pete Hookstra, because he after all has more access to this information than most, and there is much more. There's a lot that has not been unclassified yet. There will be no calls by the Drive-By Media for the release in full of this document. We've only got a little of it released right now because they don't want to know what all that's in it, it would undermine their template. They're going to be more interested in suppressing this, ignoring it, and moving on.
It is a secret. The information in this document and others is a secret that they want kept secret. John Murtha's arguing out there saying if you've not seen combat, you can't voice opposition to his view. This is pretty sick stuff. It is repeated by the libs all the time. I thought we were a government ruled by civilian leaders. Isn't that what the libs tell us? I thought the libs opposed military personnel voting in 2000 and 2004. They tried to suppress absentee ballots in Florida for military personnel. Remember that, folks. I didn't know that Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or scores of other Democrats had served in the military to keep talking about redeployment of our troops. They keep talking about policy, keep talking about war policy, but according to Murtha and the Drive-By Media and a lot of other Democrats, "Unless you've faced fire, unless you've been out there and faced those guns and faced those bullets, why --" and I've heard this myself, too -- "you don't have a right to talk about this because you haven't paid the price! You don't have any clue." Well, I didn't know that Hillary was in the military. I know she wanted to be a Marine, she said so, but I didn't know she actually did it. It's the same thing with Pelosi, Hillary Clinton. Comes down to this, folks. If you oppose the war, you could have served or you may not have served, doesn't matter. But if you support the troops, then only those who saw combat are to be heard in their defense.

Well, as they say in Rio Linda, "Screw that!" (They actually say something more powerful than screw that, but this is a family program with kids out of school today.)

I'm not going to sit here and let anybody tell me or anybody else whether I or they can speak on this matter, let alone liberals who undermine our military daily. They don't intimidate me, and they ought not intimidate anybody else who didn't serve but still supports the troops and their mission. I mean, hell's bells, folks. John Kerry is out there talking about, "Weeeell, I [] was elected -- weeeell, when I should have been. Weeeell, I'll do this." Has he ever been president? Well, what gives him the right to start planning military operations? "Well, I served in Vietnam?" So what? You've never been president. You're not allowed to talk about what you'd do. You have to wait 'til you're president to talk about it. If those of us who haven't served can't talk about how you're undermining the war effort -- but Hillary Clinton who didn't serve, and Pelosi who didn't serve, and Schumer who didn't serve, if you're going to let them talk about it, then, hell's bells, I am joining the fray, and I'm not going to be intimidated by you wimps.

You guys haven't been president. You guys haven't been half of what you want to comment on, so shut up, throwing your philosophy right back at it. By the way, Bob Novak has a piece today. Do you know what? He writes this. "I had forgotten that federal prosecutors designated Jack Murtha an unindicted coconspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago." Well, seems a lot of other people have forgotten this, too. How is it for months not a single Drive-By Media outlet mentioned Murtha's unethical past? They had to know about it. This underscores how biased the Drive-By Media are, manipulate the news. "Santorum is bad. He's a kook, Hookstra. You can't trust him. Murtha wonderful." Unindicted coconspirator, Abscam!
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Last night on Hannity & Colmes, Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, who is a Fox News military analyst, said this: "[M]y personal opinion is, I think the fact is that the Russians moved large stocks of weapons of mass destruction out of Baghdad and Iraq in the fall of 2002. We've all heard what General Sada, the Iraqi defector said. He said that they went into three locations in Syria and one location in the Bekaa Valley, and if you get in there and if you found those weapons and found the precursors, the fingerprints would go back to Russia, China and France." This is McInerney last night on Fox.

Now... "Those are the three countries that had the most conventional weapon sales to Saddam Hussein. We've done an inventory on that, so that's public, and I believe they were complicit, so I don't think the administration wants to trash three of the five members of this Security Council." Let me translate. What McInerney is saying is what a number of people think. Those weapons were there and they were moved out by the Russians and by the French, by the Chinese, primarily the Russians providing most of the actual manpower and equipment to do it. They were moved to Syria, Bekaa Valley and three other locations.

China and France and Russia -- we all know this from the oil-for-food program, by the way -- were all engaged in selling large stockpiles of conventional weapons to Saddam and in some cases some people think maybe weapons that could be converted to the so-called biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. But McInerney says I just don't think this administration is going to force the issue because he doesn't want to accuse three of our allies on the Security Council of being complicit here. So, folks, that's why it's going to require alternative voices to keep the pressure on, keep the heat on, and it can be done. Believe me, there are people livid about this, and the fact that it's being ignored and swept under the rug is only going to fuel the energy of those of us who want to spend time getting the information out.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...
(Fox: Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq)
(NB: Haditha Fades Away with a Whimper)
(NYP: Hill Labels GOP Tactics a 'Disgrace')
(CST: New star Murtha is worrying Dems - Robert Novak)


28 posted on 06/24/2006 11:55:53 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson