Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Russian Special Forces Removed Al-Qaqaa Munitions

Drudge is running an "alert" to a story by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times that asserts that Russian Special Forces removed the explosives material from the Al-Qaqaa munitions depot before US Troops arrived.

According to John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, Russian troops working with Iraqi Intelligence, moved the material from Al-Qaqaa to Syria in the lead up to the war.

The obvious question is why Russian troops would help Iraqi intelligence move this material before the war? And if they did, why would they move the material to Syria? Military leaders and intelligence officers have stated on multiple occasions that they believe, based on sattelite imagery, that Saddam Hussein moved truckloads of material to Syria, where it was buried, before the war. Could this be what they saw?

The US government knew that the material was no longer in the bunker when US troops arrived in the spring of 2003. It is obvious that they were aware that Russia had aided in the removal of the material. They had chosen not to make this public, probably due to the sensitive nature of the information and the tenuous relationship of America and Russia in the War on Terror. The New York Times and CBS News were alerted to the missing weapons by the United Nations. They chose to take the information public, without knowing all of the facts or the consequences of publishing the story, in an attempt to damage the President. John Kerry immediately jumped on the story attacking the President and the troops serving in Iraq in a desperate attempt to garner votes. It now seems possible that the publication of the story could be detrimental to the war. Russia will no doubt deny the accusations, and the ramifications of such information becoming public could be the loss of some amount of cooperation in the war.

So far this story has proven a few things. The UN is a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution whose only goal is to see that the bureacrats within the institution can continue to hold on to their jobs. The story also proves that the argument or assertion that other countries in the world may be persuded to join the coalition in Iraq is nonsense. We now know that of the five permament members of the Security Council, only the United states and Britain were not engaged in some sort of corruption with the former Iraqi regime. The rest had vested interests in seeing that Saddam Hussein remained in power. The third thing this proves is that the President's statement today, that John Kerry is willing to say anything, no matter how innapropriate or damaging, to get elected. With his comments on this issue John Kerry has proven himself to be unfit to be Commander in Chief.

This is a developing story.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.