Didn’t Iran know that Saddam had no WMDs?
posted at 6:15 pm on January 24, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Old news but I didn’t understand it when it first broke in November and I still don’t. So let’s try again. Says 60 Minutes:
Saddam Hussein initially didn’t think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture…
“He told me he initially miscalculated… President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998…a four-day aerial attack,” says Piro. “He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack.” “He didn’t believe the U.S. would invade?” asks Pelley, “No, not initially,” answers Piro…
Saddam still wouldn’t admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, “For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,” he tells Pelley. He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. “Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there,” says Piro. “He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program.” This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.
So, because he so feared an Iranian invasion, he decided to keep mum about his meager weapons stockpile and hope that Bush would beg off after a week or two of sorties over Baghdad. Did he … not follow American media at the time? It was transparently clear that the goal was to dislodge him and that hundreds of thousands of troops were on their way to that end. I can understand the initial calculus of worrying more about Iran, but once you know that America’s coming, the calculus changes and you do and say whatever you can to prevent it. An imminent U.S. invasion is a sure loss; a hypothetical Iranian invasion, less so. Beyond that, though, didn’t Iran have enough of a below-radar presence even in Saddam-era police-state Iraq to know whether he had a WMD program or not? He was their archenemy, had invaded once before, and was notorious for his nuclear aspirations. It was of urgent concern for them to know. Surely there were some Shiites connected to SCIRI or the Sadr family inside Iraq willing to risk death to find out. I understand why Iran wouldn’t share that info with the U.S. if they did know — why stop Bush from slaying the dragon next door? — but I’ve always assumed that they did. And Saddam, being the paranoid type and no fool, presumably would have assumed the same. In which case, why not just come clean? Especially since everyone knew for a fact at the time that Iran was working on its own nuclear, ahem, “energy” program with which it would doubtless attempt to intimidate Baghdad in the future. What am I missing?
Update: I’m not so sure I agree with Robert Bidinotto about this. Not being a member of the nutroots I don’t believe BUSH LIED!, but it doesn’t follow that just because Saddam lied Bush didn’t. It could, theoretically, have been the case that BUSH KNEW! Saddam was lying and kept that secret.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I think Saddam lied about lying.
Vinnie on January 24, 2008 at 6:20 PM
My head is spinning; perhaps a beer or two will help.
Frozen Tex on January 24, 2008 at 6:21 PM
He was probably informed by advisers whose heads were attached to their bodies based on Saddam’s pleasure. So bad news likely didn’t filter through, at least without the happiest spin possible.
It’s difficult to prove a negative. I really doubt the mullahs thought Saddam had no weapons program, even if they did have a few spies sprinkled here or there.
When people have insufficient information, they made choices that don’t make much sense upon the revelation of more accurate information. And that applies to all corners of the Iran-Iraq-U.S. triangle of hostility.
calbear on January 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM
wow. Just wow.
Mazztek on January 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM
“I lie about everything; in fact, I’m lying right now!”
Saddam “Spock” Hussein
Frozen Tex on January 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM
His invasion of Kuwait was no lie, nor the mass graves uncovered over there because of him, and using gun ships to kill instead of transport supplies as approved..
johnnyU on January 24, 2008 at 6:23 PM
But the mere fact that he thought that Bush would be like Clinton belies the reason for lying. If he really thought the result of continuing WMD programs would be minimal bombing, then why not do it for real? I’m much more incline to think the after effects are where the smoke and mirrors are.
Spirit of 1776 on January 24, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Enough of this who knew what and who didn’t know what regarding WMD’s. Bush’s biggest mistake was stating the invasion was to find and dismantle the WMD program nut job had going. All he had to do, by international law, was say that since the Butcher of Bagdad had failed to comply with umpteen (how many was it again?) UN (insert laugh track here) resolutions, and we the good old USA were the ones to bear the brunt of the initial invasion that led to these resolutions, we were obliged to invade and see justice done. That’s all that should have been/had to be said and then the whole Bush lied crowd would not have had anything to yell about. I see recently the UN decided to modify the current sanctions against Iran. Who will it be that enforces those restrictions as you damn well know they won’t be followed as directed by Ahmadamadingaling.
rayvet on January 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM
This is ridiculous. That doesn’t take away the justification for invasion…furthermore, Saddam may have known he had weapons, but also knew that the international community was of the opinion that he didn’t, or that the people involved in his program lied to him.
Isn’t it possible that Saddam knew that the Intl. Community knew he didn’t have them, while really having them..sending them to Syria with the help of Russian Spetz-naz (Bekka Valley) keeping this secret because it would make Bush look worse–left hanging, with no real vindication?
PS
(everyone knows we have found WMD’s)
ColdBore76 on January 24, 2008 at 6:28 PM
lol
ColdBore76 on January 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Much of Saddam’s delusions - and they were delusions - are documented here: Link.
Essentially, until the very end Saddam continued to believe that the US invasion would halt or that Russia or France would come to his rescue. This was up to the very last days of his rule.
He just didn’t believe that we would overthrow him. So, he was more concerned with Iran.
Amazing.
SteveMG on January 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Saddam wanted the Iranians to think he had WMD’s, so clearly the poison was in HIS cup. But Bush would have known he was lying, so the poison must be in the Iranian’s cup. But knowing his opponents would expect a lie, Saddam would say he had WMD’s to convince us that he did not, so the poison must be in Bush’s cup.
The lesson: Never match wits with a Sicilian when death is on the line!
iurockhead on January 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM
I can’t wait to see the nutroots move the goalpost to this
jp on January 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM
You know, there’s some space for a Nader of indeterminent origin to come from the left, and basically say, “if you think bush lied, why are you supporting the democrat candidate that put out the same lies?”
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 24, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Sweet.
Frozen Tex on January 24, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Directly? Probably not. He was most likely informed by his advisers who liked to kiss some Saddam @ss for their benefit.
I understand the reasoning that he was lying about his nuke program in order to deter Iran. If Iran believed he had nukes, they’d be much less likely to invade. Once it was obvious, outside of the media, that hundreds of thousands of troops from the world’s most powerful militaries were barreling down his @ss? Not so sure. Did he honestly believe his own bull that he’d survive the invasion and come back to power? That would require a massive willing suspension of disbelief.
amerpundit on January 24, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Lets look at Moonbat class 101,
before the exam,this is what
needs to be covered:
BDS is a neocan codeword
WMD never existed
the Kurdish village was never attacked
woman and children were never harmed
chemical weapons were never used,hence no deaths
If Iran was that sure Saddam didn’t have WMD
those crazys,the Iranians certainly would have
tried to invade,and for some reason(WMD)they didn’t!
canopfor on January 24, 2008 at 6:35 PM
In the Middle East, there is no such thing as an Agreement. Whether a verbal commitment or a look straight in the eye or firm handshake or even a written contract, these things here are worth next to nothing. Rather than organizing or finalizing anything, these acts merely serve as a continuation of the struggle by one party to screw the other party more than they plan on getting screwed themselves. Accomplishing a given task, taking pride in one’s work, achieving competence, and even basic concepts of economic gain through mutual trade, take a far back seat to the massive satisfaction gained by getting something more out of someone else then they get from you.
In addition to trying to screw each other, there is the opposite condition of trying to avoid embarrassment — to “save face” or keep one’s “honor” in front of each other. Under this cultural imperative the lies fly, efforts die, but the Muslim, forever, keeps his head held high.
Lying is the only way a completely incompetent person who is trying to screw everyone can possibly retain any sense of dignity among others. Welcome to the Middle East.
source
RushBaby on January 24, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Didn’t he still refer to himself as the President of Iraq, and say he thought he’d end up back in power during his trial?
amerpundit on January 24, 2008 at 6:37 PM
maybe Baghdad Bob was advising him on strategy?
jp on January 24, 2008 at 6:39 PM
So at what moment did Saddam realize that the American’s were serious about “invading Iraq”?
When he deployed troops along the Kuwait border? Nope.
Was it when they pulled the statue down? Nope.
Was it when the tanks were in the background of the video shot of Saddam strolling through Baghdad? Nope.
Was it when the soldiers pulled him from the spider hole? Maybe then it dawned on him.
Saddam may have told Piro that ’stuff’, but why would you believe what he said. He was trying to save his neck, literally. He was going to say anything he could think of to stay alive.
Piro can’t be that obtuse.
PappaMac on January 24, 2008 at 6:41 PM
All I know is we know longer have to guess whether Saddam has WMDs or if he is continuing to persue WMDs.
Sue on January 24, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Steve is correct. The French Minister to the UN admitted as much. Saddam had been assured by Chirac that France would not allow the UNSC to approve an invasion. Silly men thought Bush would bow to the UN. Also factor in the scenario of what would have eventually happened to the sanctions, they were crumbling and Saddam was courting the French and Russians to help ease them. Once that was done, Saddam had the resources, as is clearly stated, to restart his WMD program and pursue his nuclear ambition. No doubt he was in a race against Iran to go nuclear. And let’s also factor in the missle deal that Kimmy had made with Saddam but not delivered.
Texas Gal on January 24, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Most of the March 6, 2003 UNMOVIC Unresolved Disarmament Issues (ie, WMD) proved to be realistic assessments. Missiles were ordered, NIE said Saddam could have a nuke IF he got matl from outside (like Libya or AQ Khan or DPRK). Bio program was over assessed, and about 1/2 of the chem stuff was found in “dual use” (peaceful chlorine plants surrounded by thousands of empty mortar and artillery shells, same at pesticide plants, schools and hospitals turned into military HQ’s with empty mortar and arty shells stored next to drums of concentrated pesticide, and so forth). Fact is simply that Saddam was threat for a lotta reasons-including WMD…just not WMD stockpiles.
The idea that Bush lied because he knew Saddam was lying is stupid.
The idea that Saddam lied is stupid because ya don’t accidentally send convoys from WMD storage facilities then to Syria. And to quote the Russian generals that flew to Baghdad and then rode the convoys to Syria, “We didn’t come here to drink tea.” For whatever reason they went there, Saddam gave them medals (according to CNN-pics are great btw). Sat pics and US Spec Forces confirm this happened as do msm reports from the time.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364
Nah, to say Bush lied is to give the US intel agencies too much credit for their incompetence from 1998-2005, and saying Saddam lied is like saying Polar bears are white. Besides, if one accepts that Saddam lied, then one must also accept that he couldn’t be trusted, and since inspections clearly weren’t going to prove anything (Scott Ritter says so in his books, and so does Dr Blix in his, but the pics from the ISG report make it completely obvious), then the invasion was the last resort to answering a question too dangerous to leave to trust of a man one believes is a liar.
scottm on January 24, 2008 at 6:46 PM
so, did we invade iraq for a false reason then?
offroadaz on January 24, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Really, I strongly suggest that folks read the Foreign Affairs piece. They interviewed all of his top commanders and advisers. It wasn’t Saddam saying things to cover his rear end; although I’m sure some of what he said was intended to do so.
It is astonishing to get a glipse into his mind: Link.
SteveMG on January 24, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Good point.
And if Iran had invaded Iraq would we have just stood by and let it happen? (I honestly don’t know the answer to that, but I kind of doubt that we’d have let this mega-Islamic State emerge).
Buy Danish on January 24, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Israelis I know tell me that the WMD’s or ingredients for them are in Syria. I tend to believe them, considering they were the ones who informed me what Arafat died off.
Beh, to Iran. Lying seems to be second nature to Papa Smurf in a Windbreaker so beh to this story.
mjk on January 24, 2008 at 6:48 PM
RushBaby on January 24, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Great link, thanks.
jerrytbg on January 24, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Hey, I’m just waiting for that sweet, cheap oil I was told we invaded Iraq for. Any day now, right?
Sugar Land on January 24, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Paper Tiger, Hidden Dragons?
SouthernGent on January 24, 2008 at 6:56 PM
–Allahpundit
So now you are a conspiracy theorist too? How about you just start believing that every word your government officially puts out has some modicum of Truth and validity in it, until someone actually has some proof otherwise. The government is made up of bureaucrats who feed facts to the leadership. Wrong facts or poorly written or understood point papers given to a Congresscritter or the President will still yield inaccuracies, but likely not serious lies. I’m sick and tired of hearing from folks who hate the government, whether it be bureaucrats or Dhimmicrats or Rethuglicans, because “they always lie”. Bullsh*t.
The US government is the most truthful entity in our history. They make mistakes, to be sure. But they have not, since the 80s, done so with the intent to cheat or lie to the American public about what their government is doing. National Secrets must remain secrets and there are cover stories for those. But automatically assuming there is some conspiracy in what our enemies say in public, as well as what our Leaders say in public, just makes us all appear to be a bunch of bed wetting pansies.
Grow a pair, Oh Omnipotent One. Stop with the conspiracy mongering on a site I have come to count on for facts, not handwringing.
Subsunk
Subsunk on January 24, 2008 at 6:56 PM
It doesn’t make sense. Why did Saddam boot out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998? Was it because he didn’t want them to declare Iraq WMD free?
infidel65 on January 24, 2008 at 6:59 PM
…
I think Allah was providing what a new rationalization for the Moonbats could be. In other words, this won’t stop the “Bush Lied. People Died.” meme, because the Moonbats will simply alter the claim to one like Allah provided.
amerpundit on January 24, 2008 at 7:00 PM
The 2002-2003 Bush narrative held that it was of urgent concern for us to know. And we sure didn’t. I think it’s plausible that Iran didn’t know. It’s also plausible that they knew, but kept their mouths shut and watched as we eliminated their major enemy and made them into a major regional player. Not sure any of this really matters. Even had Saddam opened up to inspectors, we might have invaded regardless. And if we didn’t, he’d still lose street credibility in the region and in the country for bowing to America. Maybe he honestly thought that Bush was bluffing.
What’s the impact for us here? (Sounds like you’re asking the same question.)
Mark Jaquith on January 24, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Saddam was soothed into thinking the US wouldn’t attack because France and Russia assured him so, with their Security Council veto powers.
Too bad Bush outfoxed them all. Hah.
Seixon on January 24, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Sadam had little reason to believe the US would invade. Bomb a Marine barracks and the US runs as fast as it can. Knock down a Blackhawk and kill some soldiers and the US runs. Years of Al Quada attacks and the US doesn’t seem to notice. Desert Storm reveals more American unwillingness to fight a difficult battle. In fact after Desert Storm Sadam must have felt like The Man and probably thought he knew how to beat a Bush.
snaggletoothie on January 24, 2008 at 7:16 PM
What about the Syria connection? Didn’t Saddam have some of his WMD’s moved to Syria?
SoulGlo on January 24, 2008 at 7:24 PM
I feel like I’m in the prescence of the Sicilian. “But you would have counted on that, so I clearly not drink the wine in front of you!”
Who knows why any of those maniacs do anything?
TX Mom on January 24, 2008 at 7:35 PM
But you have to remember, Saddam had just enjoyed 8 years of Clinton do-nothingness. So why should he have been worried. We’d shown under Clinton that we didn’t have the courage to follow through on our threats.
Texas Rainmaker on January 24, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Ah, you beat me to that punchline. I didn’t read all of the thread before I posted. We’ll just go with great minds think alike . . .
TX Mom on January 24, 2008 at 7:38 PM
I think this point is key. If the US appears weak through inaction for years, then when we rattle our saber no one pays attention. This is why it is important for the US to appear strong. Why didn’t Saddam do like Iran circa 1979, though? Play games with the weak democrat Pres. and then snap to when the strong Republican came into power.
The truth is, Saddam wasn’t rational and didn’t get accurate information from his advisors, as others have pointed out. So he can’t make smart decisions.
I’m just starting The Suicide of Reason, and Harris makes some good points in his introduction about leaders in the rational world trying to deal with leaders of a “tribal mentality”. I think that also applies here.
TX Mom on January 24, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Ask Bill Clinton for an interpretation…..
He’s the master of lies….
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21615320@N06/2091715592/
awesum on January 24, 2008 at 7:45 PM
The Iraqi AF general who wrote Saddam’s Secrets said the WMDs were moved to Syria under cover of relief supplies for a dam break and flood that happened prior to the invasion.
Now what kind of facility was it that Israel obliterated ? ? ?
Hmmmm….
silverfox on January 24, 2008 at 8:05 PM
While I think the entire premise here is wrong, and still believe that Saddam HAD WMD, and that they were moved to/through Syria, I have to respond to the hypothetical anyway:
Didn’t we learn years ago that the French (among our other “friends” at the UN) were promising Saddam that they wouldn’t allow us to wage the all out war that we did? What he told that FBI agent was what we knew he believed based on assurances from our “allies” at the UN, and this is old news. As for why he didn’t fess up when it was clear that war was coming… well for one, it was too late. Second, again, I believe he DID have them, and they were in the process of being moved when he had his last chance. And lastly, he knew he was screwed. He either had to take the chance he did, or just surrender his life anyway, because we were on the move and one way or another he would no longer be running that country when the dust settled.
RightWinged on January 24, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Resolution 1441 and the amount of times it was broken were one of the oral and written reasons for the invasion
Pam on January 24, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Reason for War the Dems would have accepted:
The no-fly zones over southern and northern Iraq had a humongous carbon footprint. And smog. The air quality of the Middle East was suffering. We had to bring those patrolling AF jets down.
silverfox on January 24, 2008 at 8:23 PM
How about we read what Congress actually passed regarding the use of force in Iraq. Doesn’t anyone in our country have a memory longer than 90 days? It is out there for all the world to read, and still no one uses it to beat the Dhimmis with it every freakin’ time I hear this crap. No wonder our soldiers are tired of fighting while the Dhimmis mouths are moving.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-2.html
I hate Congress. I hate Dhimmicrats.
Subsunk
Subsunk on January 24, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Apparently the NY Times lied also…
“Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away” NY Times 11/3/06
faraway on January 24, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Given the events that preceded the invasion of Iraq(9/11 and all that)I can begin to understand President Bush’s action. He could be known as the President who did nothing while Iraq re-constituted its WMD program right under the U.N.’s or he could settle the question once and for all as to whether or not he truly had WMD. Neither option is good but something had to be done. If it were up to the U.N. we’d still be in the desert playing a shell game of ‘Where’s The WMD?’
It’s too bad that so many otherwise ‘intelligent’ people cannot distinguish a lie from a bad decision
c3ichief on January 24, 2008 at 9:01 PM
I realize the satire here, but I have a serious similar thought. Given the way some of the large bombs were used in Afghanistan to utterly destroy caves and to burn the lungs of anyone in them, I think we should just say chemical warfare is ok and go back to doing it. With chemical weapons we could have burnt the lungs of anyone in the caves without so much environmental damage.
thuja on January 24, 2008 at 9:09 PM
The interrogator says…. bla bla bla…
Well, he is only saying what SADDAM wanted him to hear.
SADDAM is dead after being on trial by his own people and hanged and now, with elections looming, its just a very convenient time to start dredging this all up now isnt it?
johnnyU on January 25, 2008 at 9:04 AM
The news is even older than some think. Just after the fighting ended the Washington Post interviewed a number of Iraqi officers, asking them about WMDs, specifically why weren’t they used?
That story indicated that when the officers asked Saddam if these weapons would be released to them, he would respond by telling commanders that the weapons would be assigned to other units. Saddam’s deception worked far too well for his own good. It’s no wonder every intelligence service in the world believed in WMDs, Saddam wanted his enemies to believe he had them in useful quantities.
Clearly it takes little effort to produce poison gas weapons, but my personal view is that Saddam would not want those to be produced in large quantities too far ahead of their intended use (such as against civilians). I don’t think he trusted his military enough to put such weapons in their hands. They too easily could have been turned against him.
doufree on January 25, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Given that Saddam made extensive use of nerve gas and bio-weapons in both the Iran-Iraq War and the so-called Anfal campaign against the Kurds, it would be reasonable on our part, the Iranians’ part and by everybody else to assume the probability of Iraqi WMDs.
.
In fact, given Saddam & Co’s history of use of WMDs, it would be totally imprudent to assume other than that they had WMDs until and unless Saddam & Co. proved otherwise.
.
That is the basis of the 16 UN sequential resolutions between 1990 and 2003 concerning Iraq. The UN put the burden on Iraq at all times to prove it’s compliance on surrendering all WMDs and equipment used to manufacture them.
.
Incidentally, the Israeli Mossad believes that Saddam DID have a huge amount of chemical and bio weapons. The Mossad believes that much of the components were obtained from Russia; that a specialist unit of Russians cleaned out all the weapons and evidence, trucking and flying the weapons to Syria, where they were stored at the same sites that the Syrian regime uses to store it’s own WMDs.
.
All of this info and much more previously published related info are readily available by Googling.
DavePa on January 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM