Skip to comments.My Letter To Bill O'Reilly Tonight
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
"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
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
I entirely agree. Something's rotten in the State of the CIA and the whole pre-Iraq-invasion intelligence assessment. My mind keeps going back to Scott Ritter who said so confidently pre-invasion that no WMD would be found. I think he's a paid Hussein shill but maybe, just maybe, he's in on something the rest of us don't suspect. I want to know what it is if it exists. Is he part of a political set-up for Bush? (I just located the Alcoa Wrap -- doing head origami).
Except that when we sided with Iraq during its war with Iran, we revealed to Saddam our satellite technology along with its limitations. This was remarked on during the first Gulf War -- that Saddam knew the window during which he considered it safe to move his SCUD's around.
There is hope that during the intervening years we have improved or changed this window, but I've not heard anything -- and I doubt that we would. The rest of the world does not need to know every detail of our strengths, or our weaknesses.
Nevertheless, President Bush is responsible. If no WMD are located and destroyed then a lot of Americans gave up their lives to free the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator an admirable action but not worth a single American life, in my opinion.
You must be with the DU. Who let you out of the cage a week ago?
I see you've fallen for the leftwing propaganda.
The only American's who are raising hell over the lack of hard evidence involving Saddam's WMD programs, are the Bush bashers in the Democratic Party, their fellow liberals in the mainstream media and political malcontents on the fringe rightwing.
PresBush enjoys strong support from his conservative base, rank and file Republican's and fair minded independents.
He quite specifically told the American people that Saddam possessed WMD and posed a real threat to America.
PresBush wasn't the only one to warn the American people about Saddam's WMD programs. Bill Clinton also told the American people about Saddam's WMD programs and that the Iraqi leader posed a real threat to America. And both men where right. Along the way, Bush and Clinton were joined by the British government, Hans Blix, the UN, the French and the list goes on and on and on.
However, if he was wrong ...
There was no wrong doing on the part of PresBush. The President had nothing to gain by deceiving the American people. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Anyone with half a brain understands, invading Iraq was a huge gamble for the Bush administration. Saddam's WMD programs existed and the proof of their existence has been well documented through the years. The fact that hard physical evidence of the whereabouts of Saddam's WMD hasn't been found, at this point, means absolutely nothing.
The fact that you agree with Bill O'Reilly and are giving the President till the end of the year to turn up this evidence about Saddam's WMD programs, means absolutely nothing too.
She was being polite. While the Children said "are we there yet?",
The dems/media/leftists would be saying,
"Are we there yet?"
"You are on the wrong road"
"You don't know where you are going"
Get out of the seat and let me drive"
"You are lying about going to grandma's"
"You're a liar and a cheater"
"Boy am I sorry you are my parents"
That we were able to also free his civilian population from further despotic treatment was valuable, and a political move, but not the primary reason.
It is a reason the majority(being polite here) will accept and believe and support. Therefore it was the one headlined.
Because, President Bush did not lie.
The statements he made are accurate and it is the MEDIA and the DEMOCRATS who are attempting to MISREPRESENT what the President said, to disgrace him.
The statement of OD's that a President may (lie) not tell the truth to the public, is certainly true.
THE FACT is that the statement in question, is being misrepresented.
If one reads the entire statement made, you will see what he said, and that HE DID NOT LIE.
All the sources that tell you the PRESIDENT LIED , are the LIARS. It is a matter of DOCUMENTED PROOF.
You may want to open your eyes and ears. Most Conservatives are smart enough to think for themselves and do not follow lockstep to a party line.
Bill Clinton also told the American people
Somehow this doesnt offer me much comfort. Clinton is a habitual liar! Are you seriously comparing President Bush to Clinton????
The fact that hard physical evidence of the whereabouts of Saddam's WMD hasn't been found, at this point, means absolutely nothing
It may mean nothing to you but you are in for a big surprise if WMD are not located. You may find it perfectly ok that American lives were lost to free the Iraqi people. Personally, I think that the lives of American soldiers are worth much more than that. The military exists to protect America and American interests freedom of the Iraqi people (or freedom of the Liberian people) is not enough to sacrifice American lives.
You know that nut who killed his kids, buried them, confessed, and nobody can find the bodies?
Where are the WMDs dammit!