Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US 'misread Saddam's order'
Herald Sun ^ | 15 March 2006

Posted on 03/14/2006 2:59:01 PM PST by Aussie Dasher

US intelligence analysts misunderstood intercepted Iraqi communications, believing the orders were meant to deceive UN weapons inspectors searching for chemical or biological agents, a new report says.

Instead, the conversation between two Iraqi Republican Guard Corps commanders that included the order to remove reference to "nerve agents" from "wireless" communications was intended to ensure the regime was in compliance with international demands to disarm, the Foreign Affairs magazine reported in its online edition this week.

That conversation was intercepted by the United States in 2002.

The article was based on a recently declassified US Joint Forces Command report assessing Iraqi internal developments prior to the war. The report said that US analysts had no way of knowing Saddam Hussein was trying to comply, since Iraq had spent a decade trying to hide evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

According to this report, Saddam was insisting that full access be given to weapons inspectors "in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war".

Allegations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was Mr Bush's chief reason for launching the March 2003 invasion. In the months leading up to the war, Iraq did give access to UN weapons inspectors.

The comments about "nerve agents" featured prominently in then US secretary of state Colin Powell's February 5 presentation at the UN security council that aimed to win support for a military conflict with Iraq.

After the invasion, the US military searched for unconventional weapons but were unable to find any, adding fuel for war critics who insisted the Bush administration purposely deceived the US public about the reasons for going to war.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2002; 20030205; 200603; 20060314; chemicals; chemicalwarfare; colinpowell; gas; intercepts; iraq; mediabias; misread; misreadmeme; nerveagent; nerveagents; nervegas; powellspeech; powellunspeech; prewarintelligence; republicanguard; saddam; us; usjfc; usjfcreport; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
I still reckon the WMDs were shipped across the border while the UN buggerized around!
1 posted on 03/14/2006 2:59:04 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

THE LATEST LIBERAL CLAP TRAP.


2 posted on 03/14/2006 3:01:05 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher; maica

Is this to keep the huge number of documents about to be released off the front pages...or at least diminished?


3 posted on 03/14/2006 3:01:11 PM PST by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

This is so bogus.


4 posted on 03/14/2006 3:02:18 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame

Yup. It is an MSM preemptive BS strike.


5 posted on 03/14/2006 3:02:54 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

They have no shame, do they?


6 posted on 03/14/2006 3:04:03 PM PST by eureka! (Hey Lefties and 'Rats: 3 more years of W. Hehehehe....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

"Instead, the conversation between two Iraqi Republican Guard Corps commanders that included the order to remove reference to "nerve agents" from "wireless" communications was intended to ensure the regime was in compliance with international demands to disarm, the Foreign Affairs magazine reported in its online edition this week."

Sure. Who wrote this? Baghdad Bob? Besides, I thought they didn't have any WMD before the war. If they're talking about removing nerve agents to comply with UN sanctions, then doesn't that imply they had them or were these imaginery WMD? Anyway, maybe I'm missing something here. This article is vague on what it's trying to say. One has to wonder how intentional that is.


7 posted on 03/14/2006 3:04:22 PM PST by MikeA (Rigged polls are what the news media uses to measure impact of their falsified anti-Bush reporting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

I remember this being posted on FR before, but can't remember when. Probably after the 9/11 Commission Report came out.

I wonder, what's the use of repeating the story?


8 posted on 03/14/2006 3:04:25 PM PST by LurkedLongEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

They read all 48,000 boxes of documents & tapes already?


9 posted on 03/14/2006 3:05:55 PM PST by Mo1 ("Stupidity is also a gift from God, but it should not be abused." Pope John Paul II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

"According to this report, Saddam was insisting that full access be given to weapons inspectors "in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war"."

No Way. THAT is made up, pure manure. Not even good quality manure. Saddam talked too tough to have said such a thing. He thought he could make us blink, and we surprised the hell out of him when we didn't. He thought when we did roll in, we'd stop in Basra, but we kept going to Bagdad.

The quote above is inconsistent with his words and actions at the time.

The MSM is trying to wildly block the information in the Bagdad Boxes.


10 posted on 03/14/2006 3:06:52 PM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Yes, this does explain why Saddam hid himself in a pit.


11 posted on 03/14/2006 3:07:30 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Well, this is the state of the US media; it has become little more than agitprop for the American left. To hell with reporting, it has become editorialising disguised as reporting. They ignore all facts that conflict with their preconceived ideas.
12 posted on 03/14/2006 3:07:41 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

By the way, on what basis does this article claim to know the intercepted conversation was misinterpreted? According to whom? That to me sounds like someone's pro-Saddam spin on that conversation to paint it in the best possible light. "It's not proof Saddam is trying to hide anything! It's proof he was doing his utmost to cooperate!" Spare me. And what about this...

NY Times: Saddam's Generals Believed They Had WMD to Repel US
by Jim Kouri
Mar 14, 2006


The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.
According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

While reporting on this story, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly said he is not surprised that the CIA and other nations believed Saddam had WMD since Hussein's own generals believed they had them. He said that this proves President Bush did not lie and that he believed what Saddam's own generals believed -- that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.

Continue reading this article below


O'Reilly also rhetorically asked when the Democrat Senators Reid, Kennedy, Durbin and others would apologize for calling President Bush a liar about WMD He also asked when liberals such as Barbara Streisand, Jessica Lange and other would apologize to Bush for calling him a liar.

According to the Times story, Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he possessed WMD in order to create fear and thwart any war plans by the US. The revelation that Saddam's generals believed they would use WMD against American, British and other invading forces explains why the US military found protective gear had been issued to Iraqi soldiers. The top commanders wanted their troops protected from the WMD they intended to use.

"The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense, " stated the New York Times on March 12.

The Times story supports the testimony of two former Iraqi generals who said that prior to the war, Saddam was in possession of WMD.


13 posted on 03/14/2006 3:07:43 PM PST by MikeA (Rigged polls are what the news media uses to measure impact of their falsified anti-Bush reporting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

14 posted on 03/14/2006 3:08:12 PM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
the conversation between two Iraqi Republican Guard Corps commanders that included the order to remove reference to "nerve agents" from "wireless" communications was intended to ensure the regime was in compliance with international demands to disarm

Oh come on! They expect people to swallow this!!!

15 posted on 03/14/2006 3:10:42 PM PST by Bahbah (An admitted Snow Flake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Finally, after how many years? I finally understand.

To the Left, "is" means not necessarily "was," if that's what best promotes their agenda.

Interpret however you want, libs. The truth is obvious to anyone who hasn't blinded themselves with their ideology.


16 posted on 03/14/2006 3:11:01 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

BS


17 posted on 03/14/2006 3:12:37 PM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

(Not you of course, the liberal trash...)


18 posted on 03/14/2006 3:13:10 PM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Re#12 Yep. W is fighting two wars on terror, one of them here at home against the 'rats and MSM. Here's hoping that we win both, in a big way (and I think we will)....


19 posted on 03/14/2006 3:13:33 PM PST by eureka! (Hey Lefties and 'Rats: 3 more years of W. Hehehehe....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Libertina

I thought so :)


20 posted on 03/14/2006 3:14:13 PM PST by Aussie Dasher (The Great Ronald Reagan & John Paul II - Heaven's Dream Team!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson