Saddam Hussein Regime ordered chemical attack, investigator says

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe ^ | 8/8/2003. | Bryan Bender

[rface]

WASHINGTON -- A top Bush administration weapons investigator told Congress in closed testimony last week that he has uncovered solid information from interviews, documents, and physical evidence that Iraqi military forces were ordered to attack US troops with chemical weapons, but did not have the time or capability to follow through, according to senior defense and intelligence officials.

[rface]

Ashland, Missouri

[cake_crumb]

If the mainstream media can't get away with insisting this is proof that the administration 'lied' to us, this story will be buried.

[Chi-townChief]

Sounds like the plot persists in thickening regardless of the whitewash (or maybe blackwash is more apropos) by the media.

[Lazamataz]

A summary of his report, described by officials who have seen it, said Republican Guard commanders were ordered by Hussein's regime to launch chemical-filled shells at oncoming coalition troops, and that Kay believes he will soon know why the shells weren't launched.

I know why.

Pucker factor.

US troops unquestionably had some nukes with them for a response in case Saddam did use chemical or bio weapons. I remember us sending a not-so-veiled threat along those lines.

Saddam's Generals wimped out.

[TonyInOhio]

May the truth be known. Thanks for transcribing this!

Tony

[sam_paine]

Maybe the Globe is warning fellow Demmy terrorists to calm down the rhetoric....or at least begin to retool for the inevitable Kay Report, and perhaps get ready to discount his credibility.

[livius]

I agree. Saddam's generals responded the way we hoped they would, and, being more rational than Saddam himself, simply didn't fight.

So it was a victory for us, none of our troops died horrible deaths from chemical attacks, and the war ended quickly. And this is what the press is COMPLAINING about?

You'd think the press wanted our guys gassed.

[eureka!]

NZ, as a follow up to yesterday, ping....

Otherwise, cake, methinks that this dribble will reach a tidal wave when the time is right. Politics will, as they should (because the Rats and presstitutes made the "no WMD/W lied/16 words etc" mantra for politics) dictate when that wave hits. And it will be so big, it cannot be ignored. Hehehehe....

[mombonn]

You'd think the press wanted our guys gassed.

Of course they did - that way they'd have something else to pin on Bush. Disgraceful presstitutes.

They carried on and on about the antiquities being looted, how much did they trumpet their return?

[lasereye]

But Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that it would not justify the adminstration's depiction of Hussein as an imminent threat to the United States.

They didn't say he was an "imminent" threat. In his State of the Union speech, Bush said we can't wait until a threat is imminent, because of the nature of the weapons involved. Bush wanted to eliminate a future threat.

''Most of us believe that there was some program and some weapons hidden,'' he said. ''But the debate wasn't over weapons, it was over war. In four months, not a gram of anthrax has been found, not an ounce of mustard gas. Was the threat so great we had to go to war? The question for Kay is not was there mustard gas, but was there a substantial amount of mustard gas? If this is all he has -- if he has it -- this just isn't enough.''

He has actually made the administration's case, because the threat they were stopping did not have to be imminent. Plus, having programs was illegal, not just the weapons. They didn't need to have any anthrax stored. According to the former U.N. Commisioner for Iraq, the Iraqis were having trouble making their bio-weapons with a longer shelf life than a few weeks (but they were working to lengthen that), so if they were going to give some to terrorists to use, they would have had to make a new batch anyway, which they could do at any time.

In order to say the administration's case was phony, you have to say they had no programs of any kind, especially biological and nuclear, which he isn't willing to say. The Dean supporters are the types who actually believe there was nothing at all.

[Republican Red]

But Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that it would not justify the adminstration's depiction of Hussein as an imminent threat to the United States.

President Bush never said IMMINENT THREAT. Clinton said it in his 1998 speech. President Bush said it was a growing threat. We got to get the bad guys before it reaches immenet level.

From the State of the Union, January 2003:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

[cake_crumb]

"Sounds like the plot persists in thickening regardless of the whitewash (or maybe blackwash is more apropos) by the media."

May it thicken enough to become the equivilant of a pair of cement overshoes for the careers of those who prefer to write lies about the administration rather than the truth.

[WestPacSailor]

Actually, none of this is surprising. Most likely explanation is that the order was given but comunications between the national command level and the troops who actually had the chem weapons was destroyed early on in the war. There was no coordinated tactical picture for the Iraqi generals to make decisions from. Also, the speed at which the situation developed on the ground made it impossible for the Iraqi units to get in position to use any chem weapons.

Bottom line, Saddam wanted to use the weapons, but couldn't get the order to the troops who would have launched the attacks. Also, the healthy fear of being dead kept most Iraqi troops from doing much of anything.

[cake_crumb]

I can't wait either. It will likely be VERY fun to watch.

Lazz, agreed: most of Saddam's military had no wish to be nuked in response.

[oyez]

Given the fact the the Iraqi's had an over supply of Gas maks and other PPE the media can't can't come to the conclussion that the enemy was up to no good. Pathetic.

[b4its2late]

Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton are deeply saddened by this news....

[oyez]

conclussion = conclusion

[cake_crumb]

My take has always been that, though the Iraqi army hate the United States, neither did they have much loyalty to Saddam. The bulk of them simply didn't feel he or his regime was worth dying for.

They may not have a sense of humor, and they may hate Americans to varying degrees, depending on the individuals, but all the subjects of dictatorships tend to be pragmatists. They preferred to save their own behinds, because their behinds were more important to them than Saddam's regime.

[cake_crumb]

"Given the fact the the Iraqi's had an over supply of Gas maks and other PPE the media can't can't come to the conclussion that the enemy was up to no good. Pathetic"

Yep. Perverse, even.

[swany]

This is so true! It just frosts me that even the pro-war pundits in the media do not use this fact when debating!

I tried paying close attention to debate before we went into Iraq. The main point I saw was whether we should go to war if we could not prove Iraq posed an imminent threat. It was a legitimate arguement. Even I could tell, based on what I followed, that the intelligence we had could not be proved 100% and much had to be based on common sense due to the history Saddam's seeking, procuring, and willingness to actually use this arsenal. Not to mention his sheer brutallity to his own people.

The tragedy of 911 showed us just how far these nuts are willing to go. Can anybody seriously think the Iraqi regime would not have ever proliferated any amount of these weapons if someone was willing to bring them here?

The President took a stand that should have been taken years ago. He showed leadership and made the decision. Had he had the full support of the UN, Saddam may well have stepped down and we would have had unfettered access to settle this WMD thing once and for all with much less bloodshed on both sides.

I fell in line with President Bush's case, knowing full well he understood Iraq may not have posed an "immenent" threat to the U.S. Being your average citizen, I figure if I can see this clearly, why has this turned into he lied about and "immenent" threat, pushed faulty intelligence, etc....?

If they want still argue we shouldn't have gone to Iraq because THEY think the threat wasn't "immenent" enough, fine. But what's done is done, quit undermining our credibility and slowing our progress in rebuilding by giving fodder to the diehards over there who now think if they can keep it up long enough, we just may buckle.

Also, average joe citizen here, even understands the rebuilding process over there is going to take a long time, a lot of effort and it won't be easy. This President is not going to buckle on this! Can't these dissenters see that? The only thing that will make this process easier and quicker is if we stand united.