AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Saddam discussed a WMD attack on the US?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
MSNBC: Saddam talked of WMD attack in U.S.

Quote:WASHINGTON - Among the treasure trove of information captured after Saddam Hussein's fall were tape recordings of the Iraqi leader discussing weapons of mass destruction with top aides.

Transcripts of Saddam's tapes reviewed by NBC News show him ruminating about future terror attacks in the United States using weapons of mass destruction.

"We shouldn’t be surprised to see a car bomb with nuclear [material] explode [in] Washington, either germ or chemical," Saddam tells aides. "So this is coming,” Saddam says on the tapes, “but not from Iraq," he adds, seeming to indicate that Iraq would not be the source of any such attack.

"But not from Iraq" kind of kills this as evidence....but still interesting.
I heard about this on the radio while driving home. SoDameddInsane said "not from Iraq," but seems to knew OF plans to do so at least in the 90's when this was supposedly recorded. That was..........10+ years ago? And, there are those reports from one of his former commanders (?) who said the Iraq WMDs were transported to Syria and otherwise scuttled/hid........while the UN was being detained/entertained just prior to the invasion of Iraq..

There are troves of untranslated documents. This is just a scratch on the surface, as you well know.
It doesn't mean he knew of concrete plans to explode a WMD in America. I think he was just saying 'It is inevitable that it will happen'. Which is what a lot of people over here have been saying for a long time.
Some more details from Wash Times

Quote:............................
One new piece of information revealed on the tapes, released Saturday by Mr. Tierney at the Intelligence Summit, a private conference held in Arlington, is that Saddam was actively working on a plan to enrich uranium using a technique known as plasma separation. This is particularly worrisome because of the date of the conversation: It took place in 2000, nearly five years after Iraq's nuclear programs were thought to have stopped.
Perhaps most disturbing of all, according to Mr. Tierney, was the fact that the Iraqi scientists briefing Saddam about the uranium enrichment plan in 2000 "were totally unknown" to U.N. weapons inspectors. The plasma program also appears to have escaped the attention of the Iraq Survey Group, which reported two years ago that it had ended back in the late 1980s.
.........................

Another speaker at the conference was John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who charged that Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were moved by Russian special forces into Syria and Lebanon. According to Mr. Shaw, former Russian intelligence boss Yevgeny Primakov came to Iraq in December 2002 in order to supervise "cleanup" operations to remove WMD production materials from the country. This operation, carried out by GRU military intelligence and Russian "spetsnaz," or special forces, troops, was designed to make it possible for critics of the war to be able to claim that Iraq had had no WMD. Mr. Shaw claims that officials in the Pentagon and the CIA, who were fearful of alienating Moscow, actively worked to discredit his efforts to bring this story to light, and that some derided it as "Israeli disinformation."
.....................................
But is this just fantasy, or did Saddam actually have a good shot at 'plasma separation'?
I think the comment "it won't be Iraq" could potentially be seen as him knowing this was taped and he might have been winking at his friends .
In a meeting of the state council,what use is speculation about a foreign nation's potential problems if Iraq was not to be involved?

Furthermore,2 Iraqi agents were apprehended in early 2001 attempting to blow up US consulates in Indonesia. His actions indicate his words were a legal smokescreen,IMO.
Mr. Shaw was speaking of the "Sarindar" contract that Russia had with Hussein to make sure no WMD were found that could link Russia to them.

And please remember that Iraq has been described by several al Qaeda and other major terrorist leaders as being the prime supplier to the terrorists. If he said the attacks may not come from Iraq - it does not follow that the materiel used in the attacks didn't have "made in Iraq" stamped on it.

I read his statement more in the line of bragging about outcomes he would generate through the use of cats paws and cannon fodder to endure his own deniability. Sub rosa, he would brag about it in his own tongue, but deny it in English.
I think when we know all there is to know,we will realize this was the right move,even if for the wrong reasons.

I never fully was confident that Bush gave me compelling evidence to support war in Iraq. His WMD stuff did not impress me as we had not invaded Iraq since 1991 and WMD had always been there.

Since we've been there,it seems sort of obvious to me that at the least he was interested in using jihadists against his enemies otherwise the ansar and Zark groups would not have been so substantial there.

Spengler felt it was a war too soon,which was preferable to a war too late like the Brits and Frogs had in 1940 with the Hun. I still think Bush used limited intellect in deciding for war,I don't think Bush had a clue the extent to which Saddam was dealing with Zark and ansar,otherwise that would have been his primary pr angle, after 9-11,IMO.
Palladin Wrote:His WMD stuff did not impress me as we had not invaded Iraq since 1991 and WMD had always been there.
How could we? Clinton was in charge, he stripped away all our human intelligence assets in the entire Middle East and we only had second hand reports from our allies. He treated terrorism as something to try in court.

It took the second attack on the WTC to motivate us enough to stop following the UN and begin to lead. Face it, the MSM and the Left has always been wrong, have been proved to be wrong, and won't change their tune, now that we know that Saddam did have WMD, did move them out, and bragged about it.

What didn't impress you... that the useful idiots have been wrong? They've always been wrong. Time to straighten up and fly right Pal.
William,

I opposed invading Iraq because I saw it as the secular state and our opponent in 9-11 was nutcase and delusional religiously motivated.

Since the invasion,I have joined all loyal Americans and prayed for victory. As well,since the invasion I have concluded that I was right in that Iraq was mostly a secular run state,but I was wrong in not realizing that even a secular state could use religiously deluded lemmings in assymetrical attacks against us like Osama did.

Now,I think it was inevitable we did this,but it can still end in failure and I share the generic complaints about Bush's pre conflict planning and executions. They were of the worst sort.

I still pray and I still have serious concerns about us losing this attempt to transform Iraq into a self sustaining non terror state without US troops having to do the fighting.
Palladin Wrote:William,

I opposed invading Iraq because I saw it as the secular state and our opponent in 9-11 was nutcase and delusional religiously motivated.

Since the invasion,I have joined all loyal Americans and prayed for victory. As well,since the invasion I have concluded that I was right in that Iraq was mostly a secular run state,but I was wrong in not realizing that even a secular state could use religiously deluded lemmings in assymetrical attacks against us like Osama did.

Now,I think it was inevitable we did this,but it can still end in failure and I share the generic complaints about Bush's pre conflict planning and executions. They were of the worst sort.

I still pray and I still have serious concerns about us losing this attempt to transform Iraq into a self sustaining non terror state without US troops having to do the fighting.
Here's a thought: Give us time to train the infrastructure, so that Iraqis can teach Iraqis how to fight. West Point takes 4 years to do the same, and they all speak the same language and have the same culture from which to work. We've had...........two years?

Also, speaking to the backbone of these folk, they had 70% turnout while under threat of murder/sniper fire. Speaks of something other than cowardice.
Palladin, don't be confused about Iraq being a secular state. Saddam wanted to be the dominate force in the Middle East, and to do that he had to have the acceptance of the theocracies and oligarchies that surrounded him. To be accepted, he targeted Israel as the enemy of all people in the Middle East, which made the other Arab countries believe the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Secondly he became the de facto supplier to the terrorists. It was Iraq that bin Laden's captured lieutenants all admitted was the source of so much money and military materiel.

He also played the bad guy on purpose. When Saudi princes and Arab Emirs made nice to be acceptable to the UN, he became the screaming meanie to represent the common Arab in the street. The funny thing is, Iraq was secular in comparison with other nations who had religious leaders in charge - but it was built on as much of the trappings of Islam as any other theocratic state. His multi-hour long speeches to the people were similar to Castro - but his speeches used the Koran for justification for his actions as likely as not.
Where is evidence that Saddam's 'lieutenants'(whatever is meant by that), said that Iraq was al-Qaeda's main supplier? Financing networks in Saudi Arabia were the main suppliers.

Second, the last thing Hussein wanted in his country were Muslim fanatic terrorists. Not only would their presence give the U.S. pretext to invade Iraq, but their would threaten to destabilize Hussein's regime.
Anon fanatic Muslim terrorists were in his country - but as willing associates because he was a source of lucre to them. He set up a shopping mall for terrorists where they could place orders. I doubt he left sales receipts where you can examine them.

He showed his support in many ways which is documented far more believability than from his captured lieutenants. It's too easy to say they lie to protect their own skins. You do agree he paid thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers, don't you? Do you for a moment doubt what that signal was all about? He also gave amnesty to wanted terrorists - and gave them money and salary to exist and prosper in his country as a sign to others.

As for more verification did you ever read the Butler report? This was the British Parliament's efforts to undermine Prime Minister Blair, but ended up verifying everything ever said about Iraq. Sections 227-232 sum up the readiness with which Saddam was ready to fire up his WMD.
He did pay money to the families of suicide bombers. But that was more about maintaning prestige in the eyes of the Muslim world than funding a vast terrorist network. That was also about his only real link to terrorism.
Anonymous24 Wrote:He did pay money to the families of suicide bombers. But that was more about maintaning prestige in the eyes of the Muslim world than funding a vast terrorist network. That was also about his only real link to terrorism.

There were several other links, but overall you are correct:

Saddam's involvement in terrorism was minor comparing to several other regimes around.
I think it is close to ludicrous to claim that Iraq's support for Zarqawi and ansar were minor compared to other regimes.

Name us a regime that supported someone as vicious as Zarqawi in the Arabian peninsula? OPENLY.

I think we need a little honesty here,how can anyone claim Iraq is less a terror state than anyone of it's neighbors? Even Hezzbollah is not remotely as avaricious as Zarqawi. That's Iran's big terrorist group.

Iraq was the worst supporter of Islamic terrorism on earth with the exception of Afghanistan only.

Solo,

You're preaching to the choir,I have never remotely intimated I see the Iraqis as cowardly,those are the comments of Anon.
One problem with the Zarqawi example is that no one even knew who Zarqawi was before we removed Saddam; Zarqawi was a minor thug.

And "no one" very likely includes Saddam.
Saudi Arabia was the worst supporter of terrorism. It was Saudis who were giving al-Qaeda the big bucks. They're also the ones who are most responsible for brainwashing young men to become terrorists (15 of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 were Saudis, who probably grew up in Saudi Arabia, experiencing their unique brand of religion and education - never forget that fact).
Anon, were they? The Saudi's said the Hijackers were not from Saudi Arabia - a case of identity theft. Some have made a pretty solid case that several of the 9/11 Hijackers were from Saddam's own Secret Service.

Iraq did provide training for Mohammed Atta, the leader of the airline hijackers on 9-11. This proved by the discovery of a hand-written memo dated July 1, 2001 (a couple of months before the attacks in America on 9-11), which provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad. In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy." The memo was written to Saddam Hussein by the former head of Iraqi intelligence service Tahir Jalil Habbush Al-Tikriti. Here is a link to a published article about this, dated December 14, 2003

Allawi said the incriminating memo was accurate.
Pages: 1 2