Bush Didn't Lie and More May Die by sarasloanemoney

VIEWS: 40 PAGES: 2

									The infamous mantra regarding the revelation that George W. Bush knew
Saddam Hussein had no "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)" prior to the
invasion of Iraq.

Apparently there were top-secret CIA briefings that "W" dismissed or kept
from Congress and the American people, thus cementing a positive
Congressional vote for force against Iraq.

It was indeed a scandal and one that seemed to leave egg on the faces of
the administration. I believe Colin Powell still has not forgiven Bush
for that.

The fact that virtually every country with an intelligence service
emphatically stated that Hussein did have WMD was of no account.

In 2006 CBS even interviewed a former CIA agent who claimed documentary
evidence for the lack of mass destruction weapons.

So why were all these countries intelligence services so convinced Saddam
did have WMD? Could it be that the dictator used chemical weapons to put
down his own people years before? That may have been a factor. Could it
also be that Iraq did in fact try to acquire yellowcake uranium despite
the fraudulent reports to the contrary?

Could all these countries, including our CIA and the Israeli Mossad,
quite possibly the best intelligence agency in the world, have been
mistaken?

According to some sources, Bush and the "NeoCons" warmongers had already
written the script. Regardless of what was known or not known of WMD,
America was going to invade Iraq and depose Hussein. That's what
"NeoCons" do, don't ya know.

I was not a big fan of George W. Bush, but I believe he would never
invade a country without actionable intelligence. One important factor
that was not widely publicized and that in most are unaware of even
today, is what I and very few others were convinced of, both in 2002 and
still today.

By all accounts of numerous intelligence agencies, Saddam did have
stockpiles of weapons and evidently, just like magic, they disappeared.

The press hailed Charles Duelfer, chief of the Iraqi survey group, when
he reported no WMD findings and the transfer of WMD did not occur.

But the press, as they too often do, failed to give us the specifics of
Duelfer's report. Deep within his report he concluded that he could not
confirm WMD or its movement, due to poor security situations.

Satellites and dissident intelligence did however confirm the movement of
some 50 trucks and two aircraft from Iraq to Lebanon and Syria in 2002
and in March 2003.
I surmised, as some others had, working off this intelligence, that the
Russians were helping move the WMD to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran and Syria, where it could be stashed away
in a remote location or locations.

This Russian maneuver was exactly what the Soviets used to do during the
Cold War. The Soviets called these types of covert movements, "Operation
Sarinder", which would scrub any evidence of underhanded Soviet weapons
involvement.

I believe that then and still do now, that George W. Bush knew it was the
Russians moving WMD from Iraq to Lebanon and Syria.

I also believe he purposely-kept quiet about it so as to not provoke an
international incident with the Russians.

So what is the point of this history lesson?

Well, it's simple. Syrian President Assad is said to have authorized the
use of chemical weapons against the rebel forces trying to depose him.
Where, pray tell, did he acquire said weapons?

Gee, I wonder. Maybe from the Bekaa Valley? Could it be he has had them
in his possession for all these years with the knowledge and blessing of
the Russians?

I guess the question we should be asking isn't whether he will use the
WMD, but whether Vladimir Putin will allow him to.

If Putin does, or even if he doesn't, would it be possible to trace them
back to Iraq and then to their origin, Russia?

If Assad is deposed, I doubt Vladimir would allow those weapons into
rebel hands.

The last question might be, where will the Russian WMD turn up next?

								
To top