We Never Had WMD, Saddam Hussein Tells US Interrogators

[G_j]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1215-01.htm

Published on Monday, December 15, 2003 by the lndependent/UK

We Never Had WMD, Former President Tells Interrogators
by Chris Bunting

 Saddam Hussein told his American interrogators that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction, claiming that they were an invention of the US government to justify an invasion, it was reported last night.
Although Saddam was captured without a fight and was initially said to be co-operative, US intelligence sources said that he had since been unco-operative and defiant under questioning.

Time magazine, quoting an unnamed intelligence official, said Saddam was taken to a cell at Baghdad airport after his capture and interrogated. According to a transcript seen by the official, Saddam was asked: "How are you?" He said: "I am sad because my people are in bondage". He was offered a glass of water but refused, saying: "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?"

The official said that Saddam avoided answering questions directly and at times appeared less than coherent. But when he was asked whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction the official said he said: "No, of course not. The US dreamt them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us."
..more..

[LSparkle]

1. I hope this gets some coverage but probably won't

I love the line about "the U.S. dreamt them up" because at least he's telling the truth ... even if it exposes him as a fraud. Wish we had a leader who could do the same!

[Frangible]

2. Really? Then what did all the Kurds die from?

Or the Iranians?

[mistertrickster]

3. Well, he had some fourteen years ago . . .

Also, why is it okay for Iran to use poison gas but not Iraq?

Iran must have WMD's--therefore we must invade!

Doesn't make good nonsense.

[Frangible]

5. I never said I agreed with the war

Just pointing out this obvious lie. As for him having WMDs today... survey says no.

[mhr]

4. Frangible, You Need To review Your History And Facts!

1st. We supported Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war. He used gas with our blessing because we wanted him to kill as many Iranians as possible.

2nd. There are credible reports that the supposed gassing of Kurds was not done by Saddam at all. The alternate explanation is that this was Iranian gas that accidently blew over the Kurdish positions. There was a report in the NYT over a year ago about this. Of course this is the not the version that the BFEE wants you to hear.

Please do more investigation before you post.

[xchrom]

7. when it comes to the kurds

iran, iraq and turkey have had no qualms about killing as many as were necessary to make their point.
kind of like first nation people here -- everybody likes to kill a kurdish person or three.

[treepig]

12. i suspect the only wmd's saddam ever had

were the ones directly given/sold to him by us (with "us" meaning the usa and possibly france/germany/uk/and russia - but mostly us under the reagan administration).

and as for the "credible reports" you cite - i've posted the details before on DU and they were rebutted as follows:

1. saddam really did gas the kurds (as opposed to them being caught in the crossfire of iranian gas)

2. the cia then invented the it-was-the-iranian-gas-actually-killing-the-kurds story because it was looking awfully bad for the reagan administration to have supplied saddam with the gas to kill his own people.

in any event, it would appear that the cia has been inventing "intelligence" about iraq/saddam for some 15 years now - and it's hardly to clinton's credit that he fell for it (as discussed elsewhere in this thread) - but at least it give sean hannity a good talking point (without it, he'd have absolutely nothing!!)

[LastKnight]

6. both the kurds and the iranians died from...

weapons we gave saddam, just an interesting little tidbit of info.

-LK

[rman]

11. artilery /w chemical payload is not WMD

back in WW1 mustard gas wasn't considered to be a WMD, which is comparable to what Saddam did. Not that this makes it right, but it's not a WMD. It also isn't terrorism because it was not (primarily) directed at civilians, it was used in the context of a traditional war.

Even if you'd stretch the definition of WMD real far: how would such chemical weapons be a threat to any nation outside the ME region?
It wouldn't, that's why along with the suggestion of mushroom clouds the US gov suggested Saddam might have unmaned aircraft with a chemical payload, able to reach the US.

This appart from the fact that everyone knew Saddam was using chemical weapons which he got from the US - and everyone looked the other way. Especially the US because they liked what Saddam was doing to Iran.

[stickdog]

18. The shit Rummy sold Saddam. (nm)

[tlb]

8. So the repubs were right when they said Clinton stopped the impeachment

vote with his 4 day attack on Iraqi WMD targets, he was just " wagging the dog " ? You do understand that is the implication of this do you not?

Do you actually believe every administration and congressional spokesman of the last asministration was knowingly lying all those years? Or that the UN Security Council maintained the embargo of Iraq just for fun ?

It may yet turn out Saddam fooled everyone. But I recall too many people like John Kerry assuring us the WMDs did exist. Until there is something more definite, I don't think Saddam is the one I shall trust.

[rooboy]

9. Yes...

I do believe that people in the previous administration lied. The US hasn't had an honest administration since Carter.

[papau]

14. "US hasn't had an honest administration" meaning CIA /NSA?

The Clinton Admin was honest - IMHO.

The Carter era CIA - 1979 - said that the USSR was on an unchangeable slide to destruction because of over spending on military. So Carter released the 1980 US 5 year budget plan for the Pentagon - the same plan Reagan followed for all those years - and indeed a few years after Reagan left office, Bush41 had the pleasure of seeing the USSR fold and the Berlin wall to come down.

Since/with Reagan - political types running CIA telling lies - like greed - became "good" - so I believe Clinton did indeed believe Saddam had WMD - but held that belief with a grain of salt.

Bush43 believed only what helped the project - CIA said what it had to say - albeit with all the if and buts toned down, but it did not matter to Bush, and post-Reagan our CIA does not fight the political nuts quite as hard.

[treepig]

16. seymour hersch (sp?) had a good article in the new yorker

(sorry, i don't have my links available right now), but he detailed the cynical thought process behind clinton's bombing of baghdad in retaliation for the alleged assassination attempt on bush I. there never was any solid evidence that saddam was behind this attempt (or really, that there was even a credible attempt at all) and clinton knew very well that the evidence supplied by the cia was shaky at best. but, he yielded to editorial pressure from the wsj and bombed baghdad anyways. saddam, of course, was not in any way injured - however, eight civilians were killed (including one of iraq's top artists). this level of collateral damage was deemed acceptable by clinton (and so the bombing and sanctions continued apace through his administration - killing 500,000 by conservative estimates).

ok, maybe this story doesn't make clinton "dishonest" - but doesn't portray him in a very good light, either

[Tinoire]

17. I'll give you that they were more honest than this one but I wouldn't

go as far as calling them honest. You can only be so honest at that level and Clinton, IMO, was a fast talker with a great team that controlled the media well.

I DO give great kudos to Clinton for not beginning the war as he was supposed to (Berger, Albright, OSU) and going through that entire impeachment farce where his personal life was exposed to the international media. It takes a courageous man to not cave in like that but honest? I wouldn't go that far. If you keep digging into Yugoslavia, he comes off looking rather bad.

[Tinoire]

10. Well...

This is a point not many of us want to face and it's a point, I'm afraid, that the Republicans have every right to make as they accuse us of moral hypocrisy since under our watch Iraq was starved and sanctioned for 8 years and Clinton kept talking about WMDs to the point of sending Berger and Albright out to Ohio State University to prepare people for beginning the war against Iraq (thank God all the protesting Leftists showed up and booed and pelted them). Not to mention the war against Yugoslavia which some people would have you believe was a "humanitarian effort".

So in answer to your question yes I believe that even the last administration was knowingly lying. At the kindest, I will say that they were willfully misled by manufactured intelligence coming from the same people who collaborated with Bush on it this time. Read the letters to Clinton in the archives and note the names of the neo-cons on those letters.

As far as the UN goes, the UN did not go along with the US/UK happily. They were coerced and rebelling in a major way against us over this issue even before Bush got into office. It was always the US/UK demanding the sanctions, demanding no-fly zones, demanding the embargo etc...

Until the day we own up to our lies we can not morally expect the Republican supporters to own up to theirs and there will be no healing, no progress.

[RPG-7]

13. right..

The Iraqi military had at it's disposal chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and rather than use them they scattered and created suicide squads.

[papau]

15. sarcasm is fun!

:-)