The Secret Tapes -- Inside Saddam's Palace, Discussions of terrorism and <gasp> WMDs!
 

The Secret Tapes -- Inside Saddam's Palace
Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz
ABC News

Wow! ABC News is actually covering some real news!

They have obtained some videotapes of Saddam's meetings where he and his staff discuss terrorism and <shock> WMDs! Could ABC be admitting that America was right to bring Saddam down?

And yet, some people still cling to the fantasy that Iraq had no ties to terrorism whatsoever, the inspections were working, sanctions were working and that the Hussein government had completely abandoned its pursuit of WMDs. :rolleyes:

Sweet, 10 year old news that was already known and has nothing to do with the fact that it's now been discovered that since the time those tapes were recorded, Iraq had been steadily falling further behind in its efforts to create WMD. This changes everything!

Or was that nothing. I get the two confused.

Good luck in Iraq, Mr. The Shadoe. Stay safe.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but did you even read the story you posted?

(emphasis mine). This supports exactly what's been said before, that while obviously Sadaam falls in the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" category with terrorists, he was not friendly with them, did not associate directly with them, and certainly had no ties to Al Quaida.

I don't believe that at all.

Doesn't it seem suspicious that he is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that terrorism will come to America? And his emphasis on that it wouldn't come from Iraq might be because he would give the WMD to others who would strike America? Iraq itself might not do such a thing directly. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't/didn't do such a think indirectly.

I did read the article. I don't think Saddam is the best person to believe verbatim. He's not above lying. He continues to vehemently deny the crimes he committed at his trial, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Everything he says should be regarded with skepticism.

What possible reason did he have to lie in this scenario? He was having a covnersation with his closest advisors, not standing trial.

Every single bit of conversation in this story confirms exactly what the post-invasion intelligence reports have already discovered. It's over 10 years old. One of the people involved defected and already told the US all of this 10 years ago. All this tape does is confirm the obvious...that Sadaam really really wanted to restart the WMD program, but due to UN oversight could do nothing more than hid what little material he had left until some hypothetical future time when they'd stop watching. Until then, all they could do was leave them burried in the sand. Meanwhile, the facilities were left to deteriorate for the next decade to the point where they had less WMD capabilities than they dd at the end of Desert Storm.

Hell, Negroponte was the Ambassador to the UN when Bush was trying to convince the UN to go after Iraq. If anyone's gonna jump on this to say, "See! They DID have WMD's, we were right! Thake that United Nincompoops!" it'd be Negroponte. But instead he's got a spokeswoman who says, "Uuuuh, yeah, old news."

Just because he said it wasn't coming from Iraq [directly] does not mean that they weren't coming from Iraq indirectly.

Here's a good summary of the WMD situation from Jeff Goldstein.

There have been some interesting things going around. One is, of course, these tapes. The second is a former general in Saddam's army (Sara? I think that's his name) who has been talking about the WMD being shipped to Syria in modified passenger planes several months prior to the invasion. Another is someone who worked with Dulfer who has a higher security clearance and has been translating more tapes and other documents.

I find to be interesting, but there's nothing really new. I have always believed that the WMD went to Syria prior to the invasion.

Edited to add: The name of the general is Sada. Former head of the Iraqi Air Force.

Pure speculation...and even if true, these tapes don't prove anything. Again, 10 year old news that changes nothing.

I suppose I'm hopelessly naive. To me, it seems far more reasonable to spend our national brain power handling the situation that does exists, rather than debating whether the situation should exist. Particularly since discussions on "whether" seldom include the "what we learned and what we would do differently next time" element.