Saddam caught on tape talking of WMD's
- 02-16-2006, 01:58 PM
Saddam caught on tape talking of WMD's
This article is not saying he had them, but he definatly wanted them and was trying to decieve the U.N. that he had them. Also makes references to him having the supplies to make them.
Saddam talked of WMD attack in U.S.
Tapes show him ‘almost obsessed’ with weapons, don’t prove he had them
By Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit
Updated: 6:29 p.m. ET Feb. 15, 2006
WASHINGTON - Among the treasure trove of information captured after Saddam Hussein's fall were tape
recordings of the Iraqi leader discussing weapons of mass destruction with top aides.
Transcripts of Saddam's tapes reviewed by NBC News show him ruminating about future terror attacks
in the United States using weapons of mass destruction.
"We shouldn’t be surprised to see a car bomb with nuclear [material] explode [in] Washington, either
germ or chemical," Saddam tells aides. "So this is coming,” Saddam says on the tapes, “but not from
Iraq," he adds, seeming to indicate that Iraq would not be the source of any such attack.
An unidentified Saddam aide replies that biological weapons are easy to construct: “… any biologist can
make it in water tank and kill 100,000 person … so you can’t accuse a country, one person can do it.
One American person can do it in a house, next to the White House.”
On another tape, Saddam says future terrorism will be with WMD. "It is possible in the future to see a
booby trap and the explosion turns out to be nuclear, germ or chemical."
U.S. intelligence analysts have confirmed to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that
Saddam’s voice on the audiotapes is authentic. The analysts believe most of the tapes were recorded in
the ’90s, after the first Gulf War.
“What the tapes show is that between the first gulf war and the second gulf war, Saddam Hussein had
not lost his appetite for, or interest in, weapons of mass destruction,” says Gary Milhollin of the
Wisconsin Project, an advocacy group working to slow the spread of weapons of mass destruction. “To
the contrary, he was almost obsessed by them.’’
Importantly, though, many U.S. intelligence experts say the 12 hours of tape does not solve the riddle
of whether Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 U.S. invasion.
“It certainly shows that he was trying to deceive the U.N., but it doesn't show that he actually had
weapons in his possession at the time of the invasion,” says Bill Harlow, a former CIA spokesman and
an NBC News analyst.
In the transcripts, one of Saddam’s aides discusses filling missiles with germs. “Yes, the intention is that
the missile will be filled with chemical or germ, and when it comes down it will cover a wider circle than
the traditional missile,” the aide tells Saddam. Saddam replies: “That’s good, they are teaching us
things that will be useful in the future.”
Other aides seem to discuss hiding weapons from U.N. inspectors. “We have not told them the truth
about the imported material,” one says. He adds, “Where was the nuclear material transported to? A
number of them were transported out of Iraq.” He also says: “We will confess, but not to the biological
The debates over Iraq’s WMD will likely continue. The House Intelligence Committee is pressing U.S.
intelligence officials to publicly release more than 35,000 boxes of documents recovered in Iraq after the
U.S. invasion. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., does not believe the
documents have been fully translated and analyzed.
John Loftus, an author and former federal prosecutor, obtained the Saddam audiotapes through a
former U.S. military intelligence analyst, he says. Loftus tells NBC News he will play the tapes this
weekend at an intelligence summit he is hosting in the Washington area.
NBC News has not listened to the tapes and has not been able to independently confirm the accuracy of
Lisa Myers is NBC's senior investigative correspondent.
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
© 2006 MSNBC.com
- 02-25-2006, 10:46 PM
02-26-2006, 06:24 AM
Seems casual to blow it off as "well, just because he was hoping to have a chance to use WMDs in Washington doesn't mean he was gonna do it...like for certain."
**** the media machine...too busy covering a hunting accident.
02-26-2006, 07:48 AM
Media are a bunch of Brokeback Mountain lovin queers. All they know is sensationalism and the forward march of their idealist, Socialist, Politically correct, make me want to string someone up by the nutsack agenda.
02-26-2006, 11:05 AM
****ing seriously man. I mean I am not going to sit here and take political sides but I did take Bush's side on the whole WMD thing because whether they had them right this second or not, everyone should have known he was trying his ass off to get them.Originally Posted by diminuendo
02-26-2006, 11:32 AM
actually more of that story does say that saddam had them... one of his old generals is talking now and is going public with the whole plan they had and did to load these weapons both chem. and bio on two or 3 large cargo planes and get them out of the country while the US came in...
02-26-2006, 11:40 AM
any articles on this? Id be very interested to read them, also to have some documented sources to show others (then they cant say I am full of ****, ill have some thing to back it up)Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
02-26-2006, 11:56 AM
02-26-2006, 08:32 PM
It's definitely and interesting development. However as far as the media goes, I haven't seen this on Fox News either so there may be more to the lack of coverage than liberal bias and agendas. It may in fact be lack of credibility or confirmation across sources. In others words not a good, or more to the point factually solid story yet. Last article I read on this was posted here and according to that one the translation of the tapes had not been independently confirmed yet.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
02-26-2006, 09:14 PM
I'm not a fan of Fox news either. They may have a slightly diff agenda than other networks but an agenda it is. My rantings were more toward the media in general and not relating praticularly to this story. I was just being a bitter old man.Originally Posted by CDB
02-26-2006, 10:42 PM
I generally prefer FOX news to the other bilge out there, but that's not to say they don't have their particular opinion/slant/adgenda.
03-01-2006, 05:44 PM
Even if we establish that he had intent to create WMDs. I still disagree that he was a greater threat then those countries who right this moment are starting their nuclear weapons programs. Yeah we got rid of Saddam, but in his wake the rise of Iran, Hamas and islamofacism has taken hold.
03-02-2006, 01:59 AM
And we are now logistically in prime real estate to launch an assault into Iran.
03-02-2006, 10:47 AM
we will have a much better ability to go into iran after the port deal goes thru. and also protect the only water way to the ocean from iran sinking old cargo ships blocking the way...
03-02-2006, 11:20 AM
And the president, should these tapes prove out, would not be vulnerable to the He Lied Us Into War attacks except to the most aerdent democrats who wouldn't vote for the next Republican anyway. Basically if it turns out true Saddam either had WMDs or was vigorously trying to aquire them, and that gets broad exposure, Bush could probably get away with leveling France and not have to deal with much backlash from anyone. Also as has been pointed out the strategic position we're in now with regrds to Iran, oil and the ability to protect its shipment, ain't all that bad. Which makes me wonder just how dumb this president actually isn't, or at least his staff. I've heavily doubted the intelligence of this administration a lot of times, but I got to admit every now and then something like this pops up and makes me wonder.Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
03-02-2006, 11:44 AM
Even if strategicly we are in a good spot to launch an attack against iran. It does not take into account the fact that our military is highly over extended right now and thats according to research conducted by the federal government. This is the first time I've heard about the ports deal offering us some sort of strategic position. I thought it was primarily an economic decision. What troubles me about the deal is that dubai still has a huge amount of disdain towards israel which could lead to a conflict of interest in the future.Originally Posted by CDB
03-02-2006, 11:49 AM
it still is a great econmic thing in my opinion. gas prices should go down but like, how can pres bush go around and talk about that. everyone will be like "you are selling the country out for oil!"
everyone they interview on these docks doesn't care, i think their opinon counts here
03-03-2006, 04:09 PM
True. The most recent issue and the one just past of Foreign Affairs has some great articles on Iraq. Get yourself a copy if you haven't already, it's reall good reading. In the current issue the first article was on the Iraqization strategy and the author, Biddle, makes some pretty interesting points regarding that strategy and why it could be likely to be a loser in the end.Originally Posted by chauncy
03-03-2006, 04:31 PM
We cannot even hope to attack Iran and remove it's leadership until Iraq is fully stabilized. Iran knows this, thus the saber rattling and tough sounding rhetoric. I seriously doubt any military action will come out of Iran. If they so much as look at Israel they will be sorry and they know it.
Leaders of these Arab nations that pledge the destruction of Israel are just blowing smoke up their populaces' asses. They couldn't hope to win against Israel, they know it, but they have to sound tough against the Jews or they'll be taken out by zealots.
So if we march on Iran, we have to occupy if there is going to be any hopes of having it stabilize and keep the oil flowing. I'd be for surgical strikes to take out nuclear capacity but even that is reported to not be easy as Iran has placed these targets in hardened bunkers and the like.
IF Saddam really had WMD it would be the sensational story of the year and no media outlet is going to sit on it while the others run with it. There is not a worldwide liberal media conspiracy no matter how much some of you wish there was. It's an absurd premise to justify the actions of an absurd administration.
03-03-2006, 06:05 PM
The Israeli army is fairly impressive. But then again "winning" no longer means what it traditionally meant. Israel can very well win a war against Iran, but one well placed nuke from a suicide bomber or a missle and Israel would be crippled. It's possible to win while still sufferring losses in the hundreds of thousands in other words. I'm fairly sure the zealots know that too.Originally Posted by bioman
I don't think there's a world wide media conspiracy, I just think the majority of media is liberal. I have no problem with that, all media are biassed. The likely reason this hasn't been reported anywhere is lack of confirmation, etc.IF Saddam really had WMD it would be the sensational story of the year and no media outlet is going to sit on it while the others run with it. There is not a worldwide liberal media conspiracy no matter how much some of you wish there was. It's an absurd premise to justify the actions of an absurd administration.
03-05-2006, 06:40 PM
I saw it on Fox when it first hit. I did not see it on CNN and MSNBC has buried under the port deal.Originally Posted by CDB
It was on FOX the same night they ran the Cuban immigrant story (the bridge that isn't a bridge)
For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
03-06-2006, 06:17 AM
Interesting. I never caught it and that's the news channel I generally watch.Originally Posted by Bobo
03-06-2006, 06:58 AM
May I just say,
"What if Saddam was trying to get WMD's.....what right does that give the country that has more of them than any nation on earth to invade a sovereign nation illegally and in the process murder over 30,000 innocent women and children and destabilise the Middle East???"
03-06-2006, 10:25 AM
That statement is so rampant with error that I don't know whether or not it justifies a response. Are you that far out of the mainstream or have you just totally ignored the history of that region. I suppose Hitler should have been left alone as well huh? At least let him massacre Jews within the confines of his own sovereign borders. Destabalize the Middle East? Are you joking? How dare us take a peacefull tourist and resort area and turn it into a bloodbath. If you have a problem with the most benevolent nation in recorded history wielding the biggest hammer so be it. But if we were so bad your little island continent would be a US state by now.Originally Posted by mindgames
03-06-2006, 11:02 AM
Interesting wording. Assisting a country's removal of a barbaric, murderous tyrant (on trial now for crimes against humanity in his own country) is hardly an invasion (my opinion). And as far as the murdering, well, that was Saddam's specialty! Lastly, the idea that the US (or anyone, for that matter) will "destabilize" the middle east is pretty unlikely; place has been unstable for 1000+ years.Originally Posted by mindgames
03-06-2006, 11:15 AM
We should've took Sadam out when we had the chance! Now we got to worry about sadam, osama, iran, north korea....and list keeps going on and on. I spent four months over there when i was a medic in the army. It was not fun at all.
03-06-2006, 02:12 PM
Hannity covered it then saw it again briefly with Brit Hume. I was rather surprised that they didn't go into more detail though.Originally Posted by CDB
For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
03-06-2006, 02:14 PM
In a way I agree, but in a way I also have to disagree. It's kind of like my opinion on gun control. There's no reason to stop law abiding citizens from owning them, but criminals definitely. Any methods that don't impinge on the rights of the former but do stop the latter from aquiring firearms would be acceptable to me. Which is also why I have no problem with France having WMDs, because even though they seem kind of pathetic to me, I doubt they're going to nuke us. Saddam on the other hand, while he might not directly attack us, I would not put an attempt at an attack directly or indirectly outside the realm of possibility, which justifies some action.Originally Posted by mindgames
Now what action, how and when are of course arguable. But there is a distinct difference between Canada having nukes and Iraq and/or Iran having them which does justify different treatment of those situations. There are madmen in the world. They occasionally get a hold of knives, guns, and sometimes nations and armies.
03-06-2006, 03:40 PM
03-06-2006, 03:51 PM
If we are going to go along that line of reasoning than why not involve ourselves in darfur? How about North Korea ? This whole hitler reference I think is not totally applicable. Hitler was an active threat to all of the world. The power he had amassed and the power Saddam yield are not even close. Saddam was a threat , yes, but definitely not more than say Kim Jong-il. I certainly don't think that the threat posed by iraq was sufficient enough to warrant war. Also I think this idea of us as liberators is one that really was more of a side note during the initial build up to the war. My recollections are that our main goal was not to liberate a nation but to defeat a growing threat upon our nation. Maybe I'm simply not giving enough credit to Saddam.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
Similar Forum Threads
- By The Doberman in forum General ChatReplies: 4Last Post: 09-06-2005, 10:53 AM
- By Damien in forum Weight LossReplies: 8Last Post: 11-29-2003, 12:54 PM
- By neurotic in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 06-10-2003, 10:31 PM
- By ex_banana-eater in forum Training ForumReplies: 5Last Post: 01-28-2003, 09:50 PM
- By hamper19 in forum PicsReplies: 8Last Post: 11-15-2002, 10:25 AM