Posted on 03/11/2006 8:10:33 PM PST by demlosers
Mar 11, 2006 — NEW YORK (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein's fear of internal rebellion led him to distrust his military commanders even after U.S. forces began their invasion in 2003, crippling the country's defenses, the New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
Citing a classified U.S. military report as well other documents and interviews, the Times also said that top Iraqi commanders were shocked when Saddam told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction.
Prepared nearly a year ago, the classified military report shows that Saddam discounted the possibility of a full-scale American invasion, the Times said.
Two weeks into the war, Saddam and a small circle of aides remained convinced that the main threat came from within, leading him to deny a commander's request to blow up the Euphrates river bridge to slow the U.S. advance, the report said.
His main concern over a possible American military strike was that it might prompt the Shi'ites to take up arms against his Sunni-led government, it quoted Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, as telling interrogators.
"He thought they (the United States) would not fight a ground war because it would be too costly" in terms of casualties, Aziz was quoted as saying.
To collect the material, U.S. military analysts questioned more than 110 Iraqi officials and military officers, sometimes posing as military historians and treating officials to lavish dinners to pry loose their secrets. Others were interrogated in a detention center at the Baghdad airport or Abu Ghraib prison, the Times reported.
The accounts, it said, were viewed as credible because they were largely consistent.
After the invasion began, Saddam continued to make crucial decisions himself, and relied on his sons for military counsel, the Times said. It said his military leaders were demoralized to learn there were no WMDs, as they were counting on stocks of poison gas or germ warfare for defense.
The report also said that Saddam put a general considered to be an incompetent drunk in charge of the elite Republican Guard because he considered him to be loyal. It said commanders were in some cases banned from communicating with other units and were unable to get maps of areas near the airport because those would have disclosed the locations of Saddam's palaces.
Maybe because they knew better?
Because Saddam dispersed them to wherever.
Syria is not wherever.
It seems ABC wants to pound again, that there were no WMDs. But how can they then say "Bush lied" if even Saddams top aides thought he had them 3 monthe before the war.
So, the slimes is citing "classified" reports...AGAIN?
The spin has now begun! Reports have been coming out that there was indeed WMD and it was moved to Syria. Now the slimes has to discount and smear that revelation with new "classified" reports. The slimes has got to go!
"Citing a classified U.S. military report "
If they are once again using classified info instead of declassified info, the traitors should be shut down. The media in this country should be lined up in front of a firing squad.
You nailed it. Exactly right.
Meaning what? That Saddam never had WMD? No. He had WMD. He used WMD to gas and murder his own people, as well as Iranians during their long war.
Saddam meant he no longer had WMD? Possibly. The evidence seems to suggest that Saddam had WMD spirited out of Iraq to Syria. Possibly, with help from Russians.
Saddam lied? Possible. If Saddam feared his own military, perhaps he feared that, given the absolute fact that the US would win a war with Iraq, his own military might use WMD for their own purposes.
In any case, just more propaganda from the American Left.
;-)
Parenthetically, it's interesting how the MSM has sort of soft-pedaled the Saddam trial since he began yelling out Democrat Party talking points.
Makes a nice headline, now if only some MSM outlet would do the report that goes with it.
The DOJ is investigating this leak nonsense. They need to step it up...put everything else on hold and get these b-turds out of business and locked up.
What kind of horrid torture is this!? I demand an immediate investigation. Call the Red Cross! Call all humanitarian agencies! But first, call David Gregory.
LOL!
US intel has no credibility. IMO
Wait, I'm confused. If they knew he DIDN'T have WMD, why did our troops find brand new chem suits and atropine injectors all over Iraq at the beginning of the invasion?
What the heck were those for if he "didn't have any WMD".
Methinks that the Times is trying to diffuse the Saddam tapes and papers by putting their own advance spin and assessment on them. I wish the tapes and documents would be released and COVERED. I would love to see the egg all over their face, and crow dripping from their lips. (If a newspaper had a face and lips...;^)) Though I'll settle for a prosecution for exposing national secrets. That would be lovely.
Either they are acting as enemy spies... or they are lying outright. Which is it, NY Times?
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.