March 17, 2006
The Only Lies About WMD Came From SaddamWill the MSM splash this all over the news as a definitive refutation of the liberal calumny that "Bush Lied!"? Of course not.
Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein pretended to have chemical weapons because, among other reasons, he feared that Israel might attack if it discovered he did not. This is revealed in a recently declassified internal report by the American military.American (and French and British and Russian and Israeli...) intelligence was not as wrong or as flawed as the conventional wisdom contends. It is clear that Saddam Hussein's strategy was to make certain people believe he still had WMD. In a sense, that strategy worked, and led him to lose his dictatorship and end up in jail. This should be a huge news story; we'll see how much the MSM plays it up.The report was compiled from many dozens of interviews with senior Iraqi officials and hundreds of documents captured by the American forces during and after the war.
Hussein made the above statement at a meeting with leaders of the Ba'ath Party, said Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali, to American interrogators. Ali was in charge of using chemical weapons against the Kurdish forces at the end of the 1980s."According to Chemical Ali, Hussein was asked about the weapons during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary," the report states. Ali explained that such a declaration could encourage Israel to attack, the report says...
The report details Hussein's reasons for deciding to continue deceiving the international community into thinking that Iraq had WMD, despite the fact that such deception could increase the chances of a military attack on the country...
Hussein did not believe until almost the last moment that the U.S. would send its forces into Baghdad, the report says. He was much more afraid of subversive elements in Iraq - mainly the Shi'ites and Kurds - and from regional powers - mainly Iran but also Israel - than of an American invasion.
This is why he decided to leave the bridges leading into Iraq standing, believing he would need them, and to maintain ambiguity until close to the invasion, causing Western intelligence to believe he had WMDs.
"Many months after the fall of Baghdad, a number of senior Iraqi officials in coalition custody continued to believe it possible that Iraq still possesed WMD capability hidden away somewhere. Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them," the report says.
Posted by Jonathan R. on March 17, 2006 08:51 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/3337
Comments
Of course, the fact that numerous people (including the IAEA) knew that he was lying didn't stop Bush from invading on this flimsy pretext. I mean, why believe the inspectors when the weak liberals give you a blank check to indulge in your imperial fantasies
Posted by: Philip Damra at March 17, 2006 10:21 AM
Philip Damra:
Inspectors are by definition of no value. It is axiomatically true that it is impossible to prove a negative. To "prove" the non-existence of WMD would be an attempt to prove a negative. You can only prove or disprove a positive hypothesis, in this case the likelihood of WMD. Saddam's actions made it impossible to disprove the hypothesis. Intelligence analysis is an innately grey zone, with little chance to assert anything definitively. In the aftermath of 9/11, intelligence assessments had to be re-calibrated more conservatively within that grey zone, so that America would not wait until it was too late to react to threats. Based on the preponderance of the evidence gathered and analyzed not only by America but by numerous other intelligence services (including Russian, French, Jordanian and other nations not part of the "coalition of the willing"), the conclusion that Saddam retained WMD capabilities was far from a "flimsy pretext."
Posted by: Jonathan R. at March 17, 2006 02:06 PM
You logic is fallacious. It is indeed possible to prove a negative. For example, it was easy to prove that the aluminum tubes that Rice asserted were for enrichment of uranium were not.
It was easy to prove that the "mobile chemical weapons labs" were not.
It was easy to prove that they unmanned drones were not suitable for attacking Americans.
Weapons of mass destruction are impossible to develop, manufacture and deploy without leaving evidence in the form of a military-industrial complex that is fairly sophisticated.
Using your logic would actually create a tautology where evidence, or a lack of evidence, supports your proposition. What I mean by this is that according to your reasoning, there is NO scenario that you would accept as proof that Saddam did not have WMD. Since your theory cannot be disproved, it must be invalid.
The fact that neocons are still trying to convince people that their rationale for going to war was not based on lies is quite telling. Since reality has not proved to be justification for your actions, you must resort to tortured logic and post hoc rationalizations to sublimate the cognitive dissonance you must be feeling.
Posted by: Philip Damra at March 19, 2006 06:07 PM
liberals conveniently forget that clinton, kerry, the french, british, russians, jordanians and isreal (among others) all said that saddam had wmd. answer this, philip, were they all lying as well? i repeat, were they all lying. also, the existence and potential use of wmd was only one of four primary reasons stated by bush for removing saddam.
Posted by: robert cobb at April 21, 2006 12:32 AM
Post a comment
