Aide: Saddam Did Get Rid of Iraq WMD

[Grojlach]

Aide: Saddam Did Get Rid of Iraq WMD

Fri Aug 1, 8:24 PM ET
By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it in an effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S. invasion.
The strategy, which turned out to be a serious miscalculation, was designed to make the Iraqi dictator look strong in the eyes of the Arab world, while countries such as France and Russia were wary of joining an American-led attack. At the same time, Saddam retained the technical know-how and brain power to restart the programs at any time.
Both Pentagon officials and weapons experts are considering this guessing-game theory as the search for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons continues. If true, it would indicate there was no imminent unconventional weapons threat from Iraq, an argument President Bush used to go to war.
Saddam's alleged weapons bluff was detailed by an Iraqi official who assisted Saddam for many years. The official was not part of the national leadership but his job provided him daily contact with the dictator and insight into the regime's decision-making process during the past decade and in its critical final days.
The official refused to be identified, citing fear of assassination by Saddam's paramilitaries who, he said, remain active throughout Iraq. But in several interviews, the former aide detailed what he said were the reasons behind Saddam's disinformation campaign — which ultimately backfired by spurring, rather than deterring a U.S. invasion.
According to the aide, by the mid-1990s "it was common knowledge among the leadership" that Iraq had destroyed its chemical stocks and discontinued development of biological and nuclear weapons.
But Saddam remained convinced that an ambiguous stance about the status of Iraq's weapons programs would deter an American attack.
"He repeatedly told me: 'These foreigners, they only respect strength, they must be made to believe we are strong,'" the aide said.
Publicly Saddam denied having unconventional weapons. But from 1998 until 2002, he prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country and when they finally returned in November, 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating.
Iraqi scientists, including those currently held by the U.S. military, have maintained that no new unconventional weapons programs were started in recent years and that all the materials from previous programs were destroyed.
Both Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have come under fire in recent weeks as weapons hunters come up empty and prewar intelligence is questioned.
The White House acknowledged recently that it included discredited information in Bush's State of the Union speech about alleged Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium - a key ingredient for nuclear weapons.
More importantly, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found.
Before the invasion, the British government claimed Saddam could deploy unconventional weapons within 45 minutes. The Bush administration insisted the threat was so immediate that the world couldn't afford to wait for U.N. inspectors to wind up their searches. Despite the warnings, Iraqi troops never used such weapons during the war.
Intelligence officials at the Pentagon, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said some experts had raised the theory that Iraq put out false information to persuade its enemies that it retained prohibited chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
"That explanation has plausibility," said Robert Einhorn a former assistant secretary of State for nonproliferation. "But the disposition of those missing weapons and materials still has to be explained somehow."
Iraq's claims that it destroyed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons materials could never be verified by U.N. inspectors who repeatedly requested proof.
However, U.N. inspectors, who scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the war, never find any evidence of renewed weapons programs.
"The longer that one does not find any weapons in spite of people coming forward and being rewarded for giving information, etc., the more I think it is important that we begin to ask ourselves if there were no weapons, why was it that Iraq conducted itself as it did for so many years?" Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, told The Associated Press in June.
Saddam's aide suggested the brinkmanship ultimately backfired because U.S. policy switched in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, from containing the Iraqi leader, to going after those who could supply terrorists with deadly weapons.
He described Saddam as almost "totally ignorant" of how Western democracies functioned and attributed his failure to grasp the impact of Sept. 11 to the fact that he increasingly surrounded himself with yes-men and loyalists who were not qualified to give him expert advice on economic, military or foreign policy matters.

Source: Yahoo! News

[Felix The Assassin]

Outstanding Article, good topic!

So does this really mean we won't find anything that we went there to find to start with?

However, it's not going to bring our "soldiers" home any sooner!

Hey TL, why don't we propose that the politicians who were dupped in this case go pound sand for a few months while we bring our warriors home? That way, maybe they will think twice before sending "Joe" to take care of business!

Felix

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Grojlach: (...) Publicly Saddam denied having unconventional weapons. But from 1998 until 2002, he prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country and when they finally returned in November, 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating. (...)

Originally posted by Grojlach: (...) At the same time, Saddam retained the technical know-how and brain power to restart the programs at any time. (...)

This article may indeed be read in a different way : No WOMD is found, however M. Bush's government looks good anyway.

As the article says :
1) As the inspectors couldn't work properly, Saddam having WOMD was a guess, and the guess that he had was as good as the guess that he hadn't.
2) Since "Saddam retained the technical know-how and brain power", he was indeed a threat even if no WOMD are ever found.

Call me a cynical, but I would like to know who inerrogated this guy, and in which conditions ...

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Moiraine: 2) Since "Saddam retained the technical know-how and brain power", he was indeed a threat even if no WOMD are ever found.

Well, I suppose you could read that bit in a way that it means that Saddam didn't eliminate the scientists who had the required technical know-how and brainpower. I mean, you can't just miraculously make those scientists forget about it, unless you're going to use extensive brainwash-techniques or some ordinary bullets.

On the other hand, all these interviews with anonymous former aides of Saddam are somewhat fishy either way; just like with the case of the former aide who described all of Udai and Qusai's supposed (?) criminal acts, I have no doubt that the person interviewed will say *whatever* the media or the coalition authorities would like to hear, just in order to save themselves. They probably reason that the greater dislike they'll show for Saddam and the higher number of supposed secrets they disclose will result in lower punishments for themselves (or in less torturing sessions, who knows ). I wouldn't doubt for a minute there may be some lies or exaggerations involved.

[ 08-03-2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Larry_OHF]

If a man is on a bus and says, "I have a bomb and this whole freaking bus is going down in flames if you do not cooperate, then a person jumps him as he is making his speech and kills him, then we learn that the would-be terrorist was only carrying a coke bottle...the would-be hero is still considered received with warm embraces, even if there was no real danger. Isn't this kinda the same, but to a larger degree? That is what I am getting out of the topic so far. If I am wrong, point me in the right direction to see another point of view.

[antryg]

Moiraine, if you want to read it negatively, why don't you just make the logical assumption that American military intelligence and the CIA were wrong and ill prepared to make an assememnt. You could then make a reasonable claim that Bush made an unjustified rush to war. You don't need to develop a conspiracy theory that the Americans have invented a "source" that says Iraq completely fooled the USA and made them look like idiots on the world stage. Usually when you try to justify yourself you don't say that you were wrong and completely fooled.

Groj, concerning the atrocities committed by the Hussein brothers; the only thing I know was a televised interview by "the liberal American media" with 2 of their former bodyguards and 1 body-double. All 3 spoke of torture and killings which they had seen the brothers commit. Since that time at least some of these charges have been corabborated. This interview occurred before the war with Iraq. Not everything said is done by nameless individuals. It is also worth remembering that since American soldiers are being killed by pro-Sadam forces, native Iraqi's may not want to go public with negative comments.

[Chewbacca]

Let's not forget we went to war becasue Saddam HAD Biological and chemical weapons, not becausue he had the tech and scientists to make them. The tech and know-how was the source of the nuclear concern. If we don't find actual chem and bio WMDs then a primary reason we went to war was either an "innocent" failure of intelligence or the intelligence was purposely distorted, which has been claimed by intelligence insiders.

Of course if the intelligence was purposely distorted, this would only serve to create controvery after the war when no WMDs were found. Was this a calculated risk that was taken that he public would conviently forget all the pre-war hype or just a different sort of "intelligence" failure?

[ 08-04-2003, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: If a man is on a bus and says, "I have a bomb and this whole freaking bus is going down in flames if you do not cooperate, then a person jumps him as he is making his speech and kills him, then we learn that the would-be terrorist was only carrying a coke bottle...the would-be hero is still considered received with warm embraces, even if there was no real danger. Isn't this kinda the same, but to a larger degree? That is what I am getting out of the topic so far. If I am wrong, point me in the right direction to see another point of view.

Larry, you make exactly my point. Your analogy is not accurate - you forget the little detail of the presence of the inspectors saying back then that Saddam did NOT have WOMDs. Let me propose this one instead : you have suspiscion that your neighbour next door is planning a act of terrorism - you go to the police and tell them of your suspiscions - they go to the guy's house, do a search, and come out saying that the current search showed nothing wrong but to be sure they will come again next Saturday - but you are so sure, so you don't wait until Saturday, you take your gun and storm the neighbour's house.

Now you have made a wreck of the guy's house and killed his dog - and the police further researches show that no evidences were found that the guy was planning anything. Will your other neighbours acclaim you as saviour, or will they look at you in suspiscion, thinking that they may well be your next target ? Of course, you are so sure, you can always argue that the guy KNEW how to make a bomb anyway ...

Antryg, I am not hinting at conspiracy - I am hinting at a guy who may well be trying to find a way to look good and win the next elections even in the case of no WOMD ever found.

EDIT : Typing too fast, spelling doesn't follow ...

[ 08-04-2003, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Moiraine: quote: Originally posted by Larry_OHF: If a man is on a bus and says, "I have a bomb and this whole freaking bus is going down in flames if you do not cooperate, then a person jumps him as he is making his speech and kills him, then we learn that the would-be terrorist was only carrying a coke bottle...the would-be hero is still considered received with warm embraces, even if there was no real danger. Isn't this kinda the same, but to a larger degree? That is what I am getting out of the topic so far. If I am wrong, point me in the right direction to see another point of view.

Larry, you make exactly my point. Your analogy is not accurate - you forget the little detail of the presence of the inspectors saying back then that Saddam did NOT have WOMDs. Let me propose this one instead : you have suspiscion that your neighbour next door is planning a act of terrorism - you go to the police and tell them of your suspiscions - they go to the guy's house, do a search, and come out saying that the current search showed nothing wrong but to be sure they will come again next Saturday - but you are so sure, so you don't wait until Saturday, you take your gun and storm the neighbour's house.

Now you have made a wreck of the guy's house and killed his dog - and the police further researches show that no evidences were found that the guy was planning anything. Will your other neighbours acclaim you as saviour, or will they look at you in suspiscion, thinking that they may well be your next target ? Of course, you are so sure, you can always argue that the guy KNEW how to make a bomb anyway ...

Antryg, I am not hinting at conspiracy - I am hinting at a guy who may well be trying to find a way to look good and win the next elections even in the case of no WOMD ever found.

EDIT : Typing too fast, spelling doesn't follow ... [/QUOTE]Your analogy isn't entirely correct either, Moiraine, because Saddam was had made threats before and had deliberately thwarted or hindered the weapons inspection process.

To be more accurate, you analogy would have to include the fact that the neighbor had made terrorist threats and that - when the police showed up to inspect the house - they were not allowed access to his basement or to a couple of rooms upstairs. The neighbor deliberately denies them access to areas they could reasonably expect to contain evidence of weapons to use in this terrorist act.

Now - even if the neighbor has no weapons hidden in the basement or upstairs - is it not prudent to proceed as if he does rather than hope he doesn't???

Getting back to Larry's original example...you could include the aspect of weapons inspections by saying a guy on the back of the bus speaks up and says "He's bluffing...the only thing I saw him put in his coat pocket was a coke bottle". NOW, the would-be hero has new information that he can use (or ignore) to determine how he should handle the situation. Does he take the word of the guy in the back (who is an impartial 3rd party)? Or does he decide that just because he didn't see him put a bomb in his pocket doesn't mean one wasn't already there before he got on the bus?

While the WOMD weren't the only reason the U.S. went to war, it WAS the biggest "selling point" of the war and it was all most of us heard. So the fact that none have turned up so far is placing larger portion of "eggs" on the face of the Bush Administration as time goes by.

On the other hand, I think it is now safe to say that U.S. isn't going to "plant" any evidence of WOMD (as many suggested would happen). With the lack of evidence found so far and the increasing accusations against the intelligence used regarding the WOMD, if the U.S. was going to "create" evidence, I think they would have done so by now.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

[Moiraine]

Cerek, I would like to add a couple of things.

In my analogy, OK, you have heard him say some threats across the fence, and later you have noticed strange trucks bringing stuff to his house, and that aroused your suspiscions. And if the police said they would come again next Saturday, that is most probably because they haven't collected - yet - all the informations they needed, because maybe some rooms were locked or some of the neighbour's family wasn't there at the time. . So there, in that case, do you wait until Saturday for the trained policemen to do their job, or do you decide to act on your suspiscions ? ...

And in Larry's analogy, it is not any guy who said the guy is bluffing, it is a policeman - that is, a peacekeeping trained officer. Don't you trust a policeman's accuracy and training ?

More generally, in a nowadays society, can a citizen act upon another based on what he perceives as a threat, or must he not handle the matter to the State peacekeeping force ?