Skip to comments.Don't Be Surprised When Iraqi WMD Found (Rush)
Posted on 04/20/2004 5:23:18 PM PDT by Bayou City
Don't Be Surprised When Iraqi WMD Found
April 20, 2004
I don't know if you heard about this, because it has not been widely reported. Terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda were poised to detonate a chemical bomb in the heart of Amman, Jordan, that would have killed 20,000 people and contaminated a large area. King Abdullah praised Jordan's intelligence service for foiling a crime never before seen in the kingdom of Jordan. The target was a headquarters of the general intelligence department on a hill in Amman.
King Abdullah was to be in America to meet with President Bush, but decided not to come because of this threat. Where this story gets interesting is that King Abdullah of Jordan says that the vehicles carrying these explosives, the chemical bomb, were smuggled over the border from neighboring Syria. Syria is denying this, but these are weapons of mass destruction.
Syria is a transit point for weapons of mass destruction. The whole subject of where are the weapons of mass destruction remains a focal point of mine. It remains an area of heightened curiosity, because I do not believe that they have been destroyed. I do not believe that Iraq never had them. I think Iraq had them. I think Iraq was working on them. I don't think the world's intelligence agencies are as woefully incompetent and bad and inept as the whole weapons of mass destruction issue would lead us to believe.
There are some things missing from buildings in Iraq, and there's too much speculation out there about how some of this stuff can be miniaturized and transported out of the country easily. Syria is an obvious place, and many people I respect have pointed to the Bekaa Valley as a place as well. We're not going to invade Syria any time soon to find out, but this is the second example of weapons of mass destruction-type coming out of Syria.
Now, they had to get to Syria somehow. I just want to keep your mind open to the possibility that these weapons of mass destruction from Iraq are somewhere, and they've not been destroyed. They haven't just vanished into the ether, and I'm going to make a prediction to you that all of the liberals and critics of the president who have harped on this and jumped on this have once again jumped the gun. They are a little premature here because we don't know yet what, if anything, did happen to those weapons of mass destruction, despite knowing that they did exist. So keep your hats on and don't be surprised down the road what is learned at some point.
Yellow cake uranium has been found at junk yards in Rotterdam and that's exactly what Iraq was looking for. This stuff could have been disbursed over the years to any number of places, and if you think that an Al-Qaeda related group is going to blow up Amman, Jordan with weapons that were procured from Syria, if you think that Al-Qaeda is not related to what all was going on in Iraq, and the Middle East, then you are engaged in blindness or wishful thinking. That is the position of the left, and that's why they can't be trusted to be placed in a leadership position.
|Read the Articles...|
|(CNN: Jordan 'thwarts massive attack')
('UK Telegraph: Al-Qa'eda plot would have killed 20,000')
(NewsMax: King Abdullah: Al Qaeda WMDs Came From Syria)
If you're near Virginia maybe this is what you saw:
9:24 a.m.: NORAD orders the 1st Fighter Wing from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia to scramble two, possibly three F-16 fighters. This time NORAD does not sit on this vital information for six minutes before notifying Langley AFB. Langley is 130 miles south of Washington D.C. and the Pentagon. The F-16 has a top speed of 1500 MPH.
9:30 a.m.: Two maybe three F-16 Fighting Falcons code-named Huntress take off from Langley AFB headed at first toward at NYC. A couple of minutes into their mission, according to General Haugen "A person came on the radio and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service" and said, "I want you to protect the White House at all costs." The F-16s laid in a new course and vectored to Washington D.C.
Among other things, Iraq was paying Palistenians to blow up Isralis. Iraq had launched scuds against a non-combatant Israel. That should say something about Iraq's intentions.
More likely it is not democracy we try to bring them. There is no way they could understand it or practice it. At least it is not going to happen so quick. Everyone must (or should) understand this.
Anyway, I think it more what we are trying to do for ourselves. I hope so. I hope our government understands nothing changes so fast. The reason the government give, demcracy, is not the real reason is what I mean.
Everything now should be about our security. Hitting back and hitting back very hard is what most of the world understand and respect. U.S. people are the only ones that think being nice in time like this show strength. All it show is weak and get no respect. That is really the way the world works and with some bad people you must just kill all of them because they never be good and they never give up.
Syria has no interest in attacking Jordan.
So that leaves about 20 minutes for the United States to make and execute a decision to shoot down civilian airliners over the heavily inhabited northeast.
I already posted the answer to that question here on this thread. It has nothing whatever to do with Gephart. Irving Kristol takes full credit for creating the word "neo-conservative" and the neo-conservative movement. Unlike some others like Jonah Goldberg and David Frum who try to pretend that it doesn't exist, Kristol is very forthright about the meaning of the term and the significance of the movement. Here is the link again:
The Neoconservative Persuasion
From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol
"Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."Clinton would be a "despot" by those standards. So is Clinton a neo-con?
Clinton was clearly a despot. As far as being a neo-con, like everything else, he was whenever it suited his purposes. He talked about "national greatness" and "extending our power" whenever he wanted to distract people from what was going on at home.
No, there was no direct threat Serbia posed to the US.
Thank you for this candid admission. I appreciate your honesty.
Our mission there was to stop the atrocities and separate the factions. The goal was to allow them the chance for peace and freedom.
I can agree with what you are saying if you are referring to Bosnia-Herzogovina. But I fail to see how the subsequent bombing the Serbian infrastructure falls under the rubric of "stopping the atrocities and separating the factions."
It was mistake from the previous administration to take down the interceptor flights (no Cold War you know..bad PR to have fighters ready to go) and create confusing rules of engagement for the pilots.
Thank you very much for documenting these facts. My point was not whose fault it was, although I am more than willing to believe that it was entirely the fault of the Clinton administration. The point was that while we were busy engaging in quarrels all over the world, our actual defense of our own country was sorely lacking, as was proven in a time of need. Your information confirms that we had been gutting our actual defense at the same time that we were spreading our forces more and more thinly around the world. Do you disagree with that assessment?
I am impressed though by your mastery of all the mindless progressive talking points... "guarantee"... "nation building"... "crap"... "enlightened despotism", the usual wannabe eloquent empty phrases, conveying a psychological tick and void of any real information.
8:21 was the time of the phone call from the flight attendant. The air traffic control signal went dead and the plane stopped following orders at 8:13. The second plane didn't hit the WTC until 9:03 AM. That's 50 minutes. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at times published as between 9:37 and 9:43. That's 90 minutes. Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 AM. That's just 7 minutes short of 2 hours.
Or is your drinking just sporadic
There was 1 hour and 53 minutes between the first notification that flight 11 was off course and not responding and the time that flight 93 crashed.
For that matter, what is your official source to back up your statement that fighters are scrambled within 5-10 minutes of a hijacking (prior to 9/11)?
A former Pentagon air traffic controller says "All those years ago when I was at the Pentagon, this wouldn't have happened. ATC Radar images were (and are) available in the understructures of the Pentagon, and any commercial flight within 300 miles of D. C. that made an abrupt course change toward Washington, or turned off their transponder and refused to communicate with ATC, would have been intercepted at supersonic speeds within minutes by fighters out of Andrews AFB. Why there were no fighters from Andrews AFB up baffles me. If we could get fighters notified, scrambled, and airborne within about 6 minutes from Andrews AFB then, we could now."Before the attacks, the protocols had been relaxed during the Clinton administration.
I'm happy to place the blame on the Clinton administration. But the fact is that one way or another our defense was not ready to defend us when an actual attack occurred.
AGAIN, I ask you, were those two F-16's on afterburner that I saw peeling overhead that morning at about 9:20am just a figment of my imagination? I will answer it for you.
I already posted answers to that question twice.
Shouldn't there have been a plan for that contingency already in place? And what evidence do you have that there isn't such a plan in place? And maybe it was even put into action. One would hope that our national defense forces would have considered this possibility, since even the Columbine killers had thought of the same plan, hijack a plane and crash it into NYC.
Thanks for the confirmation, nut case. Ted Kazynski thought he was too smart for the rest of us to understand him too. Where is he now? The booby hatch? Delusional twit!
Tell me your politically acceptable plan to prevent the next really big terrorist attack.
Please bear in mind that preventive measures are generally known to the public, and terrorists will know them and attempt to plan around them. They might even take advantage of your policies and past behavior.
So knock yourself out. Predict the future.
With unanswerable arguments like those, I will have to give up and admit defeat. How could I have ever hoped to match my puny wits against erudition of this magnitude?
OK Max I have to ask... How do you know there is no evidence connecting Hussein to 911? If you can give a credible answer I'll be impressed, if not your statement is nothing but pure innuendo.
... According to the official story, at least, they did absolutely zero to protect us from the 4 hijacked planes...
So what is the official story? Do you have one?
I absolutly agree that, under Clinton, the defense of the contenental USA, and our overall defense ability (from civilian defense capability to miitary) was gutted to the point we could not function. This, combined with our lack of decisive response to multiple terrorist attacks during the same administration and several other cultural and societal factors lead to the US becomming an underdefended target as well as a high visibility one.
I will say there have been vast improvements in the past couple of years. Unfortunatly, it usually takes a 9-11 or Pearl Harbor type event to wake people up to the fact the world has evil people in it. We have made great strides with little negative impact to the economy and civilian life in the US. In WWII, we had to impose rationing and force ourselves to improve our industry and infrastructure quickly. We now have several layers of defensive preparations in place. Are they inpregnable? Absolutly not. We have to be right 100% of the time, but the terrorists only have to be right once. But we are doing everything we can, under the law, to prevent them from being right that one time. Is there more work to be done? Absolutly! And we have to keep improving, but that improvment becomes unfeasable when it starts encroaching on American civilians. The goal then becomes how to improve our defense without upsetting the American People. Unfortunatly, this will probably only effectivly happen when a hole in our defenses in exploited.
LOL! I didn't notice the spelling. I meant ininformed of course.
The Brigadiers would draw the line before we got to that point...
What would make you think that we MUST treat the terrorist problem the same way in every country? The Saudi situation is a lot more delicate. So?
"Instead we attacked Iraq which had nothing whatsoever to do with 911. "
Just for the sake of arguement why does Iraq need to have anything to do with 911?
"So America is going to stay in Afghanistan forever, to make sure the Taliban doesn't return? Are we going to stay in every country of the world to make sure that terrorists never form anywhere? "
It would be nice if we don't have to face this but we do.
"So how did we choose Iraq?
Mainly, because we beleived they had WMD that they would sell to terrorists.
"Iraq would be the least likely country in the Middle East if their support for Islamic fundamentalism and harboring of terrorists were the criteria we were using."
I would not say that. We and every other nation believed that Saddam had WMD. After 911 it became crystal clear what can happen if you wait too long to deal with a threat. As Bush said there was no smoking gun but if you wait for it to smoke it means you have been shot and it is too late. In addition Saddam tried to kill Bush 41, he thumbed his nose at the UN, he was a danger to his neighbors, he was a murdering tyrant, and so were his macabe and evil sons.
LOL, very true. You just hang around long enough to stink up the thread a little, then move on.
It seems every family has one of those loudmouthed relatives that smokes cheap cigars and makes everybody else miserable.
I guess Freerepublic is a family after all...
The curious lack of curiosity about WMD
By Larry Elder
"Week after week after week after week," said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., about President Bush's rationale for going to war with Iraq, "we were told lie after lie after lie after lie." Were we?Hmmm. Interesting. I didn't think that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with Al Qaeda.
Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others. But the media seems curiously incurious about whether one could reasonably trace this stuff back to Iraq. Had the terrorists released a "toxic cloud," Jordanian officials say 80,000 would have died!
So, I interviewed terrorism expert John Loftus, who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. Loftus, a former Army officer, served as a Justice Department prosecutor. He investigated CIA cases of Nazi war criminals for the U.S. attorney general. Author of several books, Loftus once received a Pulitzer Prize nomination.
John Loftus: There's a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al Qaeda, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace.
Larry Elder: They couldn't have obtained it from Syria?
Loftus: Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gasses, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq. The best U.S. and allied intelligence say that in the 10 weeks before the Iraq war, Saddam's Russian adviser told him to get rid of all the nerve gas. It would be useless against U.S. troops; the rubber suits were immune to it. So they shipped it across the border to Syria and Lebanon and buried it. Now, in the last few weeks, there's a controversy that Syria has been trying to get rid of this stuff.
They're selling it to al Qaeda is one supposition. We know the Sudanese government demanded that the Syrian government empty its warehouse in Khartoum where they've been hiding illegal missiles along with components of weapons of mass destruction. But there's no doubt these guys confessed on Jordanian television that they received the training for this mission in Iraq. . . . And from the description it appears this is the form of nerve gas known as VX. It's very rare, and very tough to manufacture . . . one of the most destructive chemical mass-production weapons that you can use. . . . They wanted to build three clouds, a mile across, of toxic gas. A whole witch's brew of nasty chemicals that were going to go into this poison cloud, and this would have gone over shopping malls, hospitals . . .
Elder: You said that the Russians told Saddam, "There is going to be an invasion. Get rid of your chemical and biological weapons."
Loftus: Sure. It would only bring the United Nations down on their heads if they were shown to really have weapons of mass destruction. It's not generally known, but the CIA has found 41 different material breaches where Saddam did have a weapons of mass destruction program of various types. It was completely illegal. But no one could find the stockpiles. And the liberal press seems to be focusing on that.
Elder: It seems to me that this is a huge, huge story.
Loftus: It's embarrassing to the (press). They've staked their reputations that this stuff wasn't there. And now all of a sudden we have al Qaeda agents from Iraq showing up with weapons of mass destruction.
Elder: David Kay said, in an interim report, that there was a possibility that WMD components were shipped to Syria.
Loftus: A possibility? We had a Syrian journalist who defected to Paris in January. The guy is dying of cancer, and he said, "Look, my friends in Syrian intelligence told me exactly where the stuff is buried." He named three sites in Syria, and the Israelis have confirmed the three sites. They know where the stuff is, but the problem is that the United States can't just go around invading Arab countries. . . . We know from Israeli and defectors' intelligence that the son of the Syrian defense minister was paid 50 million bucks to bring the stuff across the border and bury it.
Elder: Why would al Qaeda attack Jordan?
Loftus: Jordan is an ally of the United States. It's at peace with Israel. And Jordan has a long history of trying to prosecute terrorists. . . . There are a lot of reasons. . . . They want to make an example of them. They want to terrorize as many of the Arab states as possible. This is sort of a political dream for the president. The worst nightmare is al Qaeda gets weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. And it looks like it's coming true.
A Syria/Iraq/al Qaeda/WMD connection? Why, this calls for a congressional investigation.
[All emphasis added].