FBI Interviews: Saddam Bluffed About WMD Out of Fear of Iran

[rjd970]

just ask the Kurds if he had them.

"had" being the qualifying word here. If Tenant and the CIA reports were correct, we would have found some sort of substantiation by now that he had them at the time they were reporting this stuff.

 

[MG1968]

Furthermore, if foxnews is just now reporting Saddam's two-sided game with the US and Iran concerning WMD's, as if it wasn't known all along, they are even more inept than I thought.

The non-governmental National Security Archive obtained the summaries through a Freedom of Information Act request.

FNC is just reporting the news here.

 

[volinbham]

I love this argument.

So WMD's, defying the UN, and human rights abuses was...or was not...the primary reason for going into Iraq? Seems to me NK is far more guilty and more of a threat on all these charges, which would leave the primary reason for going into Iraq being "because we could".

Iraq was part of a larger strategy of ME realignment. That was clear from day 1 to anyone that listened. It was a neo-con strategy.

Doing the same with NK had no perceived regional upside relative to Iraq.

The situations were materially different. That doesn't mean invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

 

[volinbham]

Furthermore, if foxnews is just now reporting Saddam's two-sided game with the US and Iran concerning WMD's, as if it wasn't known all along, they are even more inept than I thought.

Read the story or others like it.

The FBI reports, released on Wednesday, said Saddam asserted that he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for blocking the return of UN weapons inspectors who were searching for WMD.

From Reuters (equally inept?)

FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran | Special Coverage | Reuters

This has nothing to do with Fox News or right wing spin. The report just came out - Fox is reporting it.

 

[KB5252]

Furthermore, if foxnews is just now reporting Saddam's two-sided game with the US and Iran concerning WMD's, as if it wasn't known all along, they are even more inept than I thought.

They are commenting on a recently obtained document gathered via the FOIA.

 

[hndog609]

I love this argument.

So WMD's, defying the UN, and human rights abuses was...or was not...the primary reason for going into Iraq? Seems to me NK is far more guilty and more of a threat on all these charges, which would leave the primary reason for going into Iraq being "because we could".

I've always been under the impression that the argument against Iraq is that Hussein was, in fact, a bigger threat with what he (supposedly) had. For instance, we not only knew he had chemical weapons but actually deployed them. Other than Hussein who was the last leader that invaded another country for the express purpose of just taking over? Does anyone honestly doubt that if left alone Saddam wouldn't still be in Kuwait, if not simply have annexed it by now?

Now the big one; does anybody really believe that if Saddam really did obtain nuclear weapon technology it would be unrealistic to assume he would be willing to give it to those that would deploy it against us?

Regardless of what you personally believe I think that is the prevailing mindset of those who saw Iraq as a more real threat than NK...at least to this point.

JMO

 

[lawgator1]

Where's the claim of the relationship to BL?

The second paragraph of the FOX story mentions it as an issue. I recall that at the time Cheney and his minions were claiming a link to Bin Laden. That and WMD. By and large over time they have conceded lack of a link to BL, though Cheney (and even Bush to some degree) at this point still seem to want to cling to a WMD theory.

 

[rjd970]

I was commenting on the earlier sarcastic comment that it must be false because foxnews is reporting it. I understand where this is coming from.

 

[lawgator1]

I was commenting on the earlier sarcastic comment that it must be false because foxnews is reporting it. I understand where this is coming from.

I don't think its "false." Who is saying that? I mean, I'm no fan of FOX, but this article seems entirely consistent with the history that has developed on all of these issues. History that to this day Cheney and to a lesser degree even Bush will simply not fully acknowledge.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

Thoughts?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

Thoughts?

 

[KB5252]

I don't think its "false." Who is saying that? I mean, I'm no fan of FOX, but this article seems entirely consistent with the history that has developed on all of these issues. History that to this day Cheney and to a lesser degree even Bush will simply not fully acknowledge.

When politics are at play those involved will often deny the obvious.

 

[rjd970]

I've always been under the impression that the argument against Iraq is that Hussein was, in fact, a bigger threat with what he (supposedly) had. For instance, we not only knew he had chemical weapons but actually deployed them. Other than Hussein who was the last leader that invaded another country for the express purpose of just taking over? Does anyone honestly doubt that if left alone Saddam wouldn't still be in Kuwait, if not simply have annexed it by now?

Now the big one; does anybody really believe that if Saddam really did obtain nuclear weapon technology it would be unrealistic to assume he would be willing to give it to those that would deploy it against us?

Regardless of what you personally believe I think that is the prevailing mindset of those who saw Iraq as a more real threat than NK...at least to this point.

JMO

Claiming Iraq was in any way more of a threat than NK, especially to us directly, is an excercise in futility.

Saddam was contained post Desert Storm, plain and simple. NK is not contained in the least.

Nobody is arguing Saddam "had" WMD's, the question is did he have them at the time we used it as justification for invading, directly making him a threat to us.

As to the bolded..ie..."the big one"...NK already does this on a regular basis. You would be surprised how similar Iran and NK's missile technologies and hardware are.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

No doubt North Korea is a greater threat than Iraq. The whole mess should have never happened but my biggest concern is for our soldiers.

We cannot do to them what we did to the Vietnam generation.

 

[rjd970]

No doubt North Korea is a greater threat than Iraq. The whole mess should have never happened but my biggest concern is for our soldiers.

We cannot do to them what we did to the Vietnam generation.

I agree.

This idea that you can't support the troops without supporting the war is crazy. The war was a mistake IMO, but I appreciate the sacrifice our soldiers make everyday.

 

[VolDad]

4323 American men and women. Dead.

That is an awful number and I pray their families find peace but to put things in perspective, 12,998 people were killed in the U.S. by drunk drivers in 2007 alone.

 

[lawgator1]

When politics are at play those involved will often deny the obvious.

Oh, absolutely 100 % agree with you there. And that is true of Democrats and Republicans and everybody in between.

 

[hndog609]

Claiming Iraq was in any way more of a threat than NK, especially to us directly, is an excercise in futility.

Saddam was contained post Desert Storm, plain and simple. NK is not contained in the least.

Nobody is arguing Saddam "had" WMD's, the question is did he have them at the time we used it as justification for invading, directly making him a threat to us.

As to the bolded..ie..."the big one"...NK already does this on a regular basis. You would be surprised how similar Iran and NK's missile technologies and hardware are.

You missed where I was going with the threat. NK's threat is more of a national one. The danger (argued to whatever degree works for whoever is doing the arguing) with Saddam is not that he'd launch a nuke missile at us. (though lobbing one into Israel would have put us straight into the hornets nest) Rather, that there is almost no reason to believe Saddam wouldn't provide such a weapon to those that would use it in a terrorist role, not a warlike role.

And c'mon, claiming Saddam didn't have access to people that would carry such a mission out is like saying Woody Harrelson doesn't know anybody with some good weed.

Now remember, I'm not making any claims whatsoever as to what Saddam DID have and when, only what could in fact be a reasonably argued as a risk if he in fact were allowed his own descretion with WMD's.

And just to add something I always wanted stronger complience guidelines. Basically, if the UN inspection teams weren't allowed immediate access to anywhere they wanted to check...we just blow it up and move on. I'd have wanted to at least up the inspection ante before going to outright war.

 

[rjd970]

You missed where I was going with the threat. NK's threat is more of a national one. The danger (argued to whatever degree works for whoever is doing the arguing) with Saddam is not that he'd launch a nuke missile at us. (though lobbing one into Israel would have put us straight into the hornets nest) Rather, that there is almost no reason to believe Saddam wouldn't provide such a weapon to those that would use it in a terrorist role, not a warlike role.

And c'mon, claiming Saddam didn't have access to people that would carry such a mission out is like saying Woody Harrelson doesn't know anybody with some good weed.

Now remember, I'm not making any claims whatsoever as to what Saddam DID have and when, only what could in fact be a reasonably argued as a risk if he in fact were allowed his own descretion with WMD's.

The connection between NK and Iran makes all this a wash. There is nothing stopping NK's WMD and missile programs, and there is nothing stopping them from selling it to Iran. Saddam, unlike the other two in the axis, was at least contained. From an imminent threat perspective, the list in order should have gone NK, Iran, then Iraq.

It's like alcohol, tobacco, and pot. You outlaw the least dangerous, and ignore the reality of the danger and cost of the other two because it isn't politically feasible to outlaw them.

 

[hndog609]

The connection between NK and Iran makes all this a wash. There is nothing stopping NK's WMD and missile programs, and there is nothing stopping them from selling it to Iran. Saddam, unlike the other two in the axis, was at least contained. From an imminent threat perspective, the list in order should have gone NK, Iran, then Iraq.

It's like alcohol, tobacco, and pot. You outlaw the least dangerous, and ignore the reality of the danger and cost of the other two because it isn't politically feasible to outlaw them.

I see the points you're making but again, outside of much bluster and posturing there's really not a lot of actions taken by Iran and NK. Hussein deployed WMD's against human targets and militarily invaded, for the unrepentant purpose of conquest, another country.

Your last example actually points out how difficult making the call on such issues is. The argument, and it has legs, is that your entire premise of labeling pot as the "least dangerous" is flawed since it has never been available and used on anything near the scale of the other two. Even if I agreed with your assessment it would be little more than an opinion since there is a huge gap in the sample size for longterm effects of MJ as compared to that of alcohol and tobacco.

Remember I'm not trying to make the argument for or against, merely pointing out that I can at least see the reasoning in how those that saw it the way they did acted the way they did.

 

[volinbham]

One, you are assuming that the story is accurately reporting what he said.

I don't think its "false." Who is saying that? I mean, I'm no fan of FOX, but this article seems entirely consistent with the history that has developed on all of these issues. History that to this day Cheney and to a lesser degree even Bush will simply not fully acknowledge.

Seems we have a disconnect here...

 

[rjd970]

Remember I'm not trying to make the argument for or against, merely pointing out that I can at least see the reasoning in how those that saw it the way they did acted the way they did.

I can see the reasoning too, but it doesn't mean that the reasoning is good, or even makes sense. Just like Obama and his garbage healthcare plan...I can see his reasoning, ie.."healthcare is a problem and it needs to be fixed" but that doesn't mean what he is doing about it makes sense, or is even justified.