Revisiting the Saddam Hussein/Al-Qaeda Relationship
M.E.: Former interrogator and Iraq Ministry Of Interior liaison Matthew Degn said in his dealings with current Iraqi officials, Ba’ath detainees, and other terrorist detainees that while he saw a lot of conflicting evidence on the topic of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, many detainees claimed Saddam Hussein’s regime and al- Qaeda cooperated financially and through Iraq’s provision of safehaven for training camps. Is this possible? Did this information make it to the CIA during your time there? (High ranking Iraqi officials, including Ayad Allawi and Barhim Salih, have made similar claims)
P.P.: I am aware of no such evidence relating to financial ties or training camps.
M.E.: Was there internal debate at the CIA about the nature of the Iraq/al-Qaeda relationship or non-relationship or did the CIA’s analysts come to pretty conclusions?
P.P.: There always is discussion and debate among analysts. The conclusions that have become publicly known as CIA’s conclusions were fully coordinated among all the relevant analysts.
M.E.: The postwar cooperation between some of the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s formerly ruling Ba’ath party and al-Qaeda can be documented (hundreds of ex-Ba’ath who were found working with al-Qaeda listed here) as going all the way back to just after the invasion. Is it possible that these relationships were all forged post invasion or did Zarqawi have some contacts in the Iraqi government and how high were they? What about other al-Qaeda associates? What contacts, if any, did they have?
P.P.: See earlier comment about Zarqawi. I am aware of no credible evidence of prewar contacts between the regime and al-Qaeda types inside Iraq.
M.E.: Former CIA analyst Bruce Tefft agreed with your assertion that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had no “operational relationship” (definition below) with al-Qaeda as an organization but individuals from al-Qaeda (including Zawahiri, as mentioned in that Institute for Defense Analysis report) made arrangements with contacts in the Iraqi government. What do you make of this analysis?
P.P.: I don’t remember enough of the details of any reporting from the 1990s to comment specifically. I would not be surprised by such contacts but would question what any “arrangements” resulting from them would have amounted to.
M.E.: Were the regional Sunni militant groups (in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain, Philipines, Turkey, etc.), that have been listed in recovered Iraq documents, as groups Saddam assisted clearly not “al-Qaeda” in your view? Or was the reported support for these groups in question? Or was the reported support for these groups never discussed?
P.P.: I don’t know what “others are pointing to,” but the only ties of any solidity or significance between the regime and terrorist groups were the well-established ones with the MEK and the some of the secular Palestinian groups. If one were interested in what really was significant about what Saddam’s regime was doing or not doing, and not just in playing on the post-9/11 resonance with the American public of the name al-Qaeda, then the distinction between core al-Qaeda and like-minded Salafi nasties in other groups is not the most important distinction anyway. This was the respect in which a lot of the discussion about Zarqawi in Iraq was misguided. There is no doubt that he was a major league bad guy, even if he was not taking orders from al-Qaeda central. If Saddam’s regime had been somehow supporting him this would have been significant, with or without a link to al-Qaeda central. But it wasn’t supporting him.
M.E.: You mentioned that there was some debate before final analysis was agreed upon but in your recollection, is it true that counterterrorism analysts (according to former CIA Director George Tenet’s account) viewed the meetings between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda as more worthy of concern than the Near East/South Asia desk?
P.P.: I think it would be misleading to make anything of this. Analysts in different components discuss and debate interpretative and analytical issues all the time, on lots of topics.
Pillar said he believed that around the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks al-Qaeda’s ranks numbered in the low hundreds and was mainly a centralized, top-down organization. The Council on Foreign Relations online datbase also states that al-Qaeda was once hierarchical but splintered into autonomous cells. CFR‘s online database also says that there is and was large disagreement over al-Qaeda’s size, stating that the 9-11 commission estimated its legion of fighters to be between 10,000 and 20,000 from 1996 to 2001 — noting that the 2001 State Department report on terrorism indicates that al-Qaeda became an umbrella group for regional Sunni fighter groups after 2000. This discrepancy in numbers and relationships is certain to have played a role in the dispute on the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda questions.
Pillar did say that there were confirmed contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda in Sudan, but the CIA’s analysis led them to believe that those contacts and meetings had not led to any relation of consequence — while noting it was not beyond those two parties to “make pacts with the devil” if needed.
Bruce Tefft spent 21 years in the CIA, including time analyzing and as an operations officer for the Middle East at the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center. Tefft was cited for his knowledge on Middle East terrorism for a CNS News piece on Iraq documents and continues to assist government and non-government entities in analyzing terrorist groups.
M.E.: Have you heard any updates on the CNS story, by Scott Wheeler, you contributed to a number of years ago relating to documents from Saddam Hussein’s regime discussing links to terrorism?
B.T.: No … I’ve heard nothing more at all about this story … which is suspicious in and of itself. The documents were genuine and in the hands of the USG [United State Government] … Unless they’re being held as evidence for a Gitmo trial or hearings, there is no reason I can think of to not release them or comment on them.
M.E.: Did you ever get a feel from ex-colleagues at the agency regarding what they thought of this story?
B.T.: I’ve only discussed the documents with one other ex-colleague and he confirmed my evaluation but also had no further info.
M.E.: Is information on this topic still being held back? Who has it? What’s being done with it now?
B.T.: Apparently so … the man who brought it to me told me it was in the hands of the Pentagon … but I don’t know specifically which office … this might tie into #1 above re: Gitmo hearings and evidence issues.
M.E.: What is your current overall assessment of the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda controversy?
B.T.: There’s no controversy. Saddam was in contact with al-Qaeda. Saddam was detested by bin Laden who refused an “official” relationship but, as he always did, permitted local cells to act autonomously; plus, his #2 Zawahiri had preexisting relationships (as head of an Egyptian Islamic Jihad faction) which was confirmed by those documents that I evaluated.
M.E.: Can you elaborate further on the links between Ayman al Zawahiri and Saddam Hussein’s regime? Where, when did they meet? What kind of support was exchanged?
B.T.: All the Iraqi intelligence documents that I reviewed indicated was that Zawahiri had a prior relationship with Saddam’s regime and that Saddam was trying to establish an official contact with bin Laden. There was no indication of other support or meeting details.
M.E.: What is meant by analysts who talk about there being no “operational relationship” between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda? Do you agree with this assessment? What term would you give the relationship?
B.T.: There was no operational relationship between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda. An operational relationship means that operations are initialized, planned, financed, supported and executed together. There has never been any indication that this took place between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime … There were preexisting personal relationships between certain terrorists (al Zawahiri and Zarqawi, for example) who happened to also be al-Qaeda members, and Saddam’s regime.
M.E.: What do you make of the suggestion that Saddam Hussein could have been converted to a U.S. ally in the war against terrorists?
B.T.: Only a very ignorant or stupid person would make such a statement. Saddam could never have been a U.S. ally in the war against terrorists. That would be like recruiting Hitler to be a U.S. ally against Nazis … or Stalin to be an ally again world communists. Saddam was a terrorist himself, and hosted and supported a wide range of terrorists ranging from Abu Nidal to the PLO and other Palestinian terrorist organizations.
M.E.: Did bin Laden know that some al-Qaeda cells (as well as Sunni militant groups loosely aligned with al-Qaeda) were receiving assistance from states such as Saddam’s? If so, how did he handle it?
B.T.: If we knew that some al-Qaeda elements were receiving assistance from Saddam’s Iraq, bin Laden certainly did. Bin Laden is an organizational genius … he knows and understand perfectly well what is going on with al-Qaeda and all of its affiliates … he permits a great deal of autonomy as long as the main objective is kept in mind: Conquest of the world by Islam.
M.E.: What do you know of reports of there being multiple al-Qaeda cells and multiple al-Qaeda camps in areas of Iraq that Baghdad controlled prior to invasion?
B.T.: There are no credible reports of al-Qaeda camps or cells operating in Iraq before the invasion. Al-Qaeda individuals passed through and may have even received training (notably Zarqawi and Zawahiri and some of the 9/11 hijackers) but no autonomous al-Qaeda camps or cells were actually doing anything in Iraq. The al-Qaeda group Ansar al-Islam operated in the Kurdish areas of Iraq prior to the invasion precisely because they were not under Saddam’s control. Saddam permitted no terrorists to operate in Iraq who were not under his direct control. This obviously would exclude al-Qaeda, even if bin Laden were inclined to work with an apostate, which he was not.
M.E.: On the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda question overall would you classify the meetings as a “link” instead of an operational relationship, or do you have another term you would use to apply to what was going on between the two? Were the terms “connection,” “link,” and “operational relationship” used inside the CIA when discussing state and non-state actor relationships or was there another specific term that was used? When you say there was no “operational relationship” is that because there is not evidence to support that phrase or because there is evidence to the contrary?
B.T.: Regarding the Saddam regime and al-Qaeda I would say that there was no linkage or relationship between the regime and the organization. What there was were preexisting and/or parallel relationships with people (such as Zawahiri and Zarqawi) who coincidentally also became members of al-Qaeda. The al-Qaeda connection is therefore so indirect (since bin Laden firmly and flatly rejected the idea of either refuge in Iraq or a relationship with Saddam) as to be objectively non-existent. We have to be very careful in applying Western notions of operational relationships, etc. to Muslims/and al-Qaeda. There are no equivalent western models to al-Qaeda, for example … Yes … connection, links, operational relationships, and liaisons were all terms of art in the intel world … I never heard of any of those terms being used with Iraq/al-Qaeda … in fact … They were never linked … but if they had been (I didn’t hear everything of course) it would definitely have been “indirect connections.”
Revisiting the Saddam Hussein/Al-Qaeda Relationship
Why not? Its apparent the people who read this thing will believe just about anything.
Mr Eichenlaub:
Thank you for a thorough and well researched disquisition on Saddam / Al Quaeda. Anyone who would assert that cooperation between enemies is impossible should consider the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact).
The central and overriding point, however, is that those links, and the presence or absence of WMD, are secondary motivations for our invasion of Iraq. I believe the overriding concern was that the regime of non-proliferation was crumbling, and absent the global community’s willingness to enforce it, we had to step in. Unfortunately it seems we only postponed the day when many of the current players will nuke up. A nuclear-armed Iran will put enormous pressure on the other Middle East countries to protect themselves by acquiring their own nukes. The UN is toothless; if the US will not guarantee the peace then MAD becomes the most rational solution. One of the more vivid descriptions I saw of that Middle Eastern future was “think 1914, only with nuclear weapons”.
It’s still to early to close the case on linkage between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We’re much to close time wise to view any of the information through anything but a political lens and should not base a conclusion on the “findings” of a political party with a known agenda and bent on a witch hunt. Gather information and let history sort it out. That’s what will happen regardless of what we decide at this point in time anyway.
Moho,
What exactly is written that people should not believe?
If all of the evidence of connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam can fill book, the evidence of connections between Al Queda and the Saudi royal family will fill library. Why not examine that to expose the past accomplice and potential future supporter of terrorism.
It may be safe to assume that the CIA was in the administrations pocket on the run-up to the war. Look at the preinvasion, slam-dunk evidence presented that was proven false. Chemical weapons vans, trying to procure weapons grade nuclear material from Africa, etc… Administration players touted the AQ/Saddam connections at every turn without presenting much proof while down-playing the mounting case against our Saudi “friends”.
I think you would have a way more compelling, productive and impacting(future)story there.
“The person [being waterboarded] believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,” said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.
The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques “appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention,” the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.
It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough,” said former CIA officer Bob Baer.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Investigation/story?id=1322866
“Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee “was compliant” (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, “revealed” such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.
There in fact were no such contacts.
- Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff of the Department of State during the term of Secretary of State Colin Powell
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/05/the_truth_about/
Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link. There’s a word for this: it’s evil.
- Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/grand-unified-scandal/
You folks can continue to do your pathetic little dance to defend the Bush Administration as long as you’d like. It doesn’t matter. History has already been written; the book’s been closed:
We now know for a fact that the Bush Administration, under the direction of Dick Cheney, instructed the CIA to brutally torture Iraqis until they got a forced confession that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda that would provide the Bush admin with a “smoking gun” case for invading Iraq.
The evidence is all there and it’s compelling.
But clearly, if you’re the kind of person who believes that the President was born in Kenya, that FEMA is building concentration camps, or that death panels will be established to turn your granny into Soylent Green, then I’m sure you’ll have no problem believing that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were holding weekly tea parties to gossip, share anthrax recipes, and mastermind the nuclear destruction of the United States.
Bar,
I don’t doubt that the Saudis supported al Qaeda at one time but al Qaeda as actually attacking the Saudis and Saudis were rounding up killing al Qaeda after 9-11, unlike Saddam.
Todd,
I am curious if you even read the piece. I said that examples of limited cooperation, NOT a full blown alliance, were something that was missed by the CIA, which those folks basically admitted.
Why the ad hominem non related comments? Pretty irrelevant to me.
Also, the evidence came from docs, intercepted calls, defections and lots of interrogations, interviews. To claim the only evidence was from “torture” is flat out wrong.
Salman Pak
ME, The Saudis also released 60,000+/- political prisoners(many AQ linked, many Shiite)and gave them a one-way ticket to the Syrian/Iraqi border in the aftermath of the invasion. They fully understood that these would become jihadi against the US. Saudi Foreign Legion?
Bar,
That is interesting. I didn’t know that. This article wasn’t meant to be exclusive as to what states assisted al Qaeda. Thanks for sending that along.
Knowing that Saddam paid the family of Palistinian suicide bombers $25K each, how is a Saddam/Al Qaida connection difficult to contemplate?
Good point Thomas. Knowing a lot of what Saddam and his goons did with the acid baths and whatnot make it hard to disbelieve him capable of any evil.
Todd S, thank you for giving us such ‘great’ information from the Human Rights Watch and ABC.
I hope Human Rights Watch will be available in California when, not if, the state releases tens of thousands of inmates early to society. You know, the same state controlled by progressives and rinos, running the World’s 8th Largest economy into the ground. You think unemployment, crime is high now Californians, wait until thousands of parolees are denied a job, denying visitation rights to the parolee’s children, et al..
As for your reference to Paul Krugman, oh I forgot, ‘Nobel Prize Winning Economist’ – is no different than ‘..spread the wealth around’ Teleprompter Guy’s tactics.
He too is a globalist, defends the use of child labor in 3rd World countries, et al. You can find writers falling over themselves in admiration at counterpunch.org, socialistworker.org, etc., Wow, what an inspiration!
Here’s a great article in the National Review in regards to Krugman’s intentions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200406080847.asp
I stopped reading when I saw the name Paul Pillar. He’s the CIA leftist who traveled the country giving “private” talks during the 2004 election to benefit Kerry.
Mark: About Saudi Arabia: Yes, the Saudis carry some baggage. That is a discussion for some other time.
But do note that Saudi Arabia has a common border area with Iraq. I have heard no reports of terrorist support coming from that area. Only from the Syrian and Iranian border areas.
Now that ought to tell you something.
And as a person who successfully interrogated over 200 prisoners in the past, let me tell you that interrogation techniques, both coercive and non-coercive, are N-O-T for the purpose of eliciting “confessions”. They are for the purpose of gleaning information. Said information has to then be refined into intelligence. Interrogation reports are written in a manner that reflects this procedure. Should the interrogator(s) feel the need to venture an opinion, that will be offered as an appendum, not as part of the report itself.
The procedure is such that the very concept of ordering torture to manufacture grounds for a war is preposterous. Doing things that way is tantamount to manufacturing a cast-iron airplane. Within the bounds of theoretical possibility but not exactly a useable product.
Thanks for your write-up. Your interviews with the two show how tricky gaining both accurate information and precise intelligence can be.
Your two subjects are Fine Spooks and Christian Gentlemen! (ahem)
Mark, great work!
Would have been interesting to ask about the meeting in Prague between Atta and Al Ani. Also Salmon Pak as one other commenter mentioned.
Todd S:
Sorry, but anyone who quotes ABC News or Krugman in polite society immediately looses all credibility. I would suggest you please contribute something of substance to the discussion beyond the usual “progressive” talking points, but it appears likely that’s beyond your skill-set.
Thanks,
Occam
What an excelent interview. I would love to talk to these guys, so many questions, what justifies the disapriy between the view-points of these two veterans and so on….
One issue I always wanted elaboration on was regarding a Stephen Hayes article in which he asserts Zawahiri visited Baghdad in 1998 and was given $300,000 by the Iraqi government. Knowing Saddams support of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the association of Zawahiri to that organization and Al Queda it would be intersting to understand how one draws the line between support of one terrorist group from another. Did this $300K pay-off truly occur? Was is to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Al Queda or for some other purpose? If you follow up with either of Pillar or Tefft, be sure to ask.
It is very easy to conclude that Langley is monolithic. It isn’t. There are those like Valerie Plame who bedevil, and torment the Joel Mowbray’s in this world (Dangerous Diplomacy is the playbook).
*Sigh* There was no “relationship” — the best intel indicates that there was a few tentative discussions of cooperation back in 90′s between lower level reps, but nothing came of it. And why should it: Hussein was running a secular state and had no use for Islamic fundamentalists like al-Qaeda and their supporters. Bin Laden himself was on record labeling Hussein an infidel, which probably normally translates into a death sentence unless you have an army to protect you. Bush knew all this going in, making all of his and his people’s attempts to tie in Hussein with bin Laden, and therefore 9/11, all big time, lying-ass BS.
Hussein and Reagan, though, now *that* was a relationship.
Dave, Can you please shoot me an email through my website, http://www.regimeofterror.com?
Thanks, Mark
Thank you to all who read and commented…even if you didn’t like it.
Just as money is the mothers milk of politics, so to is it for terror. If Iraq ever handed money to AQ, then that to me is no different than the narrowly defined “operational relationship”. Further, if Iraq funneled money to someone who in tern handed it to AQ, then where is the difference in that? Arbitrary lines, nothing more. Money is money and OBL isn’t going to turn away money just because it’s from an “Apostate”.
Good points Peter. I’ve asked that question to those who argue “no links” and usually am told that “it’s complicated” or doesn’t mean “operational” and won’t really elaborate.
How about Hussein’s links to the US? You know, Rumsfeld and company under Reagan supplying them with chemical weapons.
How about Bin Laden’s links to the US? You know, Cheney and company under Reagan supplying weapons to the Taliban.
Or you could go with the Bush family’s strong ties to Bin Laden’s brother and the Saudi’s. You know, Saudi Arabia where 17 or the 19 highjackers came from.
All you guys know damn well if the ties were to the Democrats you’d be ALL over this. Why the silence now? Is partisan politics above patriotism? Apparantly so. TREASON is a word you guys should be familiar with. You should look up ACCOUNTABILITY as well as JUSTICE.
When you ignore all of these things, it’s hard to take you serious when you whine about Obama. Can you see my point at all?
BC, so why, as his grip on power became more uncertain after the first Gulf War, did Saddam Hussein turn increasingly to displays of religious piety? Because he understood the value of images and symbol in the Muslim mind. Islam is littered with secular rulers who are given wide powers by a cowed religious establishment provided the religious authorities bless the rulers political decisions; the same could be said of the Saudi government and it’s relations with the religious figures there. To say that a “secular” ruler in the Muslim world will not work with religious fanatics is simply wrong; just look at Syria, a regime very similar to Hussein’s, they’ve been using religious thugs to do their dirty work for decades. Actually, history is filled with “allies” who form but have no natural affinity whatsoever.
Part of the point that ME seems to be making is that what you know does not constitute “the best intel”.
usafirst:
I think you make a great point. For decades the world intelignece agencies reported that Iraq possessed various wmds. How did they know? In part because the world supplied Iraq the capability; the United States (my country) in particular had a dubious relation with Iraq regarding Iran. Ishan Barbouti, Walter Bassoon, the Iran/Iraq conflict, Gulf War Syndrome and Amerithrax; there’s a linkage that has been broken by the assertion that Iraq possessed no WMDs. Is that the truth? Iraq possessed no WMDs? If it is then it buries questions of who supplied the non-existant WMDs.
usafirst – I’d like to see the proof of Rumsfeld and the U.S. supplying CHEMICAL weapons to Iraq.
Please, don’t use ‘counterpunch’, ‘greenleft’ or NYT’s infamous, ‘quoting ANONYMOUS Senior military intelligence officers, the NYT revealed’ byline of every , ahem, political fiction newsflash story their infamous for. Total crapola.
BTW, Reagan’s Congress was heavily controlled by Democrats.. how could this happen?
Yeah, I know. We didn’t go to the moon either. I saw the proof in the picture with O.J. Simpson..
Paul:
Ever hear of GOOGLE? Look it up. I assure you I am not making it up. Hell they have videos and picture of them shaking hands. As an envoy under Reagan, Rumsfeld helped shore up Saddam’s arsenal with chemical weapons, including anthrax. It happened, and it was a mistake. As was arming Bin Laden, and trading arms for hostages with Iran. Hell, I liked Reagan, but that didn’t make him infallible. Mistakes were made. Everyone makes them.
The facts behind the invasion of Iraq should be uncovered. Any wrong doing, by anyone regardless of rank or party affiliation should be exposed. Denying and blocking the truth from coming out is not so much being loyal to your ideology or party as much as being unpatriotic and treasonist.
People make mistakes, and can be forgiven.
People break the law, and should be punished.
The truth should be exposed.
Do you disagree?
As an envoy under Reagan, Rumsfeld helped shore up Saddam’s arsenal with chemical weapons, including anthrax.
———————————————-
“chemical weapons, including anthrax”
Links, proof of U.S. sending chem weapons to Saddam?
I stand corrected as anthrax is a biological weapon. Good catch. Of course it doesn’t change the facts that Rumsfeld working under Reagan supplied these nasty little things to Iraq.
Are you saying that it never happened?
USA,
Can you please provide some evidence?
biological weapons had not been used during the iran-iraq war,
United States didn’t give iraq such weapons.
usafirst,you’d better stop talking about Reagan’s links to the Taliban(which didn’t exist prior to 1994 )
why not go to my website and listen to the music instead?
so you guys are saying that when Rumsfeld himself admitted to all of this he was lying, and when even Fox news reported it they were lying because we all know they are the ‘left wing media’
None of this is new. It’s all documented. Why all the denial?
Reagan worked with Saddam because he was at war with Iran
same as why he worked with Bin Laden (Taliban name or not) because they were fighting the Russians. No one knew at the time that it would later bite us in the ass. It was an honest mistake. I said so. But to later pretend that we didn’t make that mistake is dishonest. To torture people to confess to something because it meets your political or financial objectives is evil.
Why would you defend this? It’s not about politics, it’s about right and wrong.
Is there nothing that is more important than political ideology?
PS: you may attack me all you want, but it doesn’t change what happened.
Mark: look it up. Do your own homework. Be objective about it. Don’t just pick my arguments apart, find out the truth, whether you like it or not. Then tell me Rumsfeld had no connection whatsoever to Saddam.
PSS: another thing, why defend Rumsfeld at all? He was terrible at his job. Even by Bush standards he was horrible and was fired. Where exactly do you guys draw the line?
USA”first” still waiting for a single link or piece of evidence.
United States gave saddam the intelligence which saved him.
United States openly condemned the use of CW by Iraq.
Saddam had CW long before Rumsfeld met him.
Saddam did not use BW in any war.
Rumsfeld did not condemn the use of poison gas when he talked to saddam,that’s the only thing he “admitted”.
I haven’t seen any proof “Rumsfeld” supplied Iraq chemical or biological weapons. There is definitive evidence that the US Department of Commerce, a cabinet level department under the export authority of the US Senate, provided US suppliers export liscneces to Iraq of of items considered “dual use” that could have been used by the Iraqi Chemical and Biological weapons industry.
This information came out during hearings in 1994 over Gulf-War syndrome (GWS), notably the Riegle Report.
Other countries, most notably Europeans countries which protestsed agaisnt the Iraq War the loudest supplied Iraq much more, even primary items. That effort even continued after the Gulf War as revealed thru investigation into Oil for Food episode.
The only way to truly proove that a US supllier’s items were used to make Iraqi weapons, would be to either find the Iraqi reciepts or to examine the chemical signatures within the weapons themselves. Barring a recorded converstaion or document discussing the intent to provide Iraq WMDs the issue of dual purpose items allows credible doubt. To me there’s more evidence that Saddam was reposnsible for 9-11 than “Rumsfeld” supplied Iraq WMDs, there’s evidence but simply “not enough to convince everybody”.