On May 1st, 2007, http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/ wrote...

The question of whether or not Dave Gaubatz is a rogue agent or an honest and
truthful man is among the most important that can at present be asked.

Questioning a rogue agent's rogue tale does not sound like "the most important"
question we could ask right now.

If he is truthful...

Read: there is doubt he is truthful.

...then the fate of the world may well hang on what he has been trying to 
tell us since he found weapons of mass destruction in southern Iraq in 2003.

Mr. Gaubatz was for 12 years an agent in the Air Force Office of Special 
Investigations. In 2003, he was posted to Nasariyah in southern Iraq. His 
mission was to identify suspected weapons of mass destruction sites, and he has 
been claiming for some time now that he did just that.

Not only that, he says that these sites are now empty because they were looted 
by Iraqis and Syrians in the chaos that followed the inept US invasion of Iraq.

Between March and July of 2003, he claims to have been taken to four sites in 
southern Iraq which contained biological and chemical weapons, nuclear 
materials, and parts for medium range missiles of a type prohibited by the UN.

The sites were gigantic bunkers buried beneath the Euphrates River to hide them. 
Mr. Gaubatz says that he told the Iraq Study Group of his findings, but they 
refused to bring heavy equipment to the area to open the bunkers.

The comical elusiveness of the alleged Iraqi WMD has made the United States the
laughing stock of the world. I remember once upon a time when a simple Ice Cream
truck could transform itself into a "mobile germ factory". No, really! The
vastly superior satellite technology of the United States confirmed massive
quantities of WMD in 2001 but the primitive Iraqi natives magically caused all
the WMD to instantly disappear before the all-seeing satellite eyes, because
when the United States invaded Iraq, not a single solitary WMD was found.
Stories started to circulate among the gullible then, about how the missing WMD
must have been shipped to Syria or put into massive underground bunkers. Those
stories would have lived on forever if it weren't for the fact that the United
States confessed that the intelligence they had gathered was flawed and invalid,
and there never really were any WMD after all. Oops! Our mistake.

The upshot of all this is that everything in the bunkers was apparently taken to
Syria.

And who saw Syria take these weapons? No one, not even Dave Gaubatz saw that.

More disturbing are rumors...

People who are on "the cutting edge of news" do not report on the hearsay of
rumors unless the source of those rumors can be verified. Otherwise what you
have is rumor of a rumor and that isn't cutting edge news, that is gossip.

They aren't going to let the world know that the administration, by sending too 
few troops into Iraq, actually allowed the WMDs to be stolen by Syria.

That is utter nonsense and shows a complete lack of education in recent history.
Troops are not qualified to make those kind of ascertainments, so the number of
troops is irrelevant. Before the United States invaded Iraq, the first thing
they did was send experts across Iraq to document anything they could find on
the alleged WMD. What did those experts find? Absolutely nothing, not even a
hint of a single solitary WMD. Even after the invasion, the experts still found
absolutely nothing. So the story we are asked to believe, is that the United
States had almost supernatural capabilities to monitor and find any and every
WMD Iraq ever owned before they invaded Iraq, but after they invaded Iraq they
were utterly helpless and incompetent in finding just one single WMD and tell us
where it went. And you wonder why the United States has become the laughing
stock of the world because of this?

So, what does that mean?

How would you know what it means or what makes you qualified to tell us what it
means?

The plan is likely to be much more audacious...It would begin with a nuclear
explosion of undetermined origin in a great American city--perhaps Los Angeles,
possibly Washington, probably New York.

After the bomb exploded, an unknown terrorist group would then announce that it 
had nuclear weapons planted in a number of other cities, American and otherwise, 
and it would forbid the US government and the president to leave Washington, 
saying that, if they try to protect themselves, another great city will be 
destroyed.

A 'tough' president might call their bluff--with the certain result that another 
nuclear explosion would occur somewhere in the west. Possibly, this time, the 
target would be London.

Still, the terrorist group controlling the weapons would remain unknown and, in 
fact, any attempt to investigate would likely result in further nuclear assault.

The west would, in effect, be ended at that point as a factor in the 
geopolitical future of the world. Islam would have won--not over Christianity, 
because that isn't the real battle. It would have won over secularism, freedom 
and individuality, which, far more than Christianity, are its real enemies.

This doesn't sound like their plans, but your plans. How would you know what the
terrorists are planning to do? What are your sources? Do you think like a
terrorist does? Do you have that much in common with them?

If Dave Gaubatz is right, we're on a superhighway to destruction. Islam is much 
farther along the road to nuclear success than we have yet imagined.

All you've been doing is imagining. Is this a case of wishful thinking? Do you
hate humanity that much that you would give terrorist such awfully good ideas of
how to conduct their next attack?

More than that, though, we need to send an audacious message to Syria, Iran and 
North Korea, and their Russian and Chinese supporters, to the effect that, if a 
nuclear weapon goes off anywhere in the west, the immediate and unquestioned 
result will be the total and complete destruction of all three countries. We 
will not wait for proof, or even for evidence of who did it.

Is that your idea of diplomacy? Threats of massive destruction to all the
countries we don't like or we fear? Does that sound like the talk of a country
that boasts "of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has
guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights -- and in contrast with Islamic
countries -- respect for religious and political rights, a system that has as
its values understandings of diversity and tolerance"? No, but that does sound
like the only country to ever use WMD against civilians and the only country to
threaten to take the shotgun approach of using WMD against multiple countries.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
                                      -- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================