T Nation

This Should Be FUN!!! WMD.


"Intelligence Summit to Air 'Saddam's WMD Tapes'
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 15, 2006

See Related Story: Secret Saddam WMD Tapes Subject of ABC Nightline Special

(CNSNews.com) - Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which according to the New York Sun has already authenticated the Saddam tapes, has reopened its investigation into the possible existence and location of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But some long-time liberal skeptics are showing no inclination to change their minds.

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, the Bush administration argued that the war was necessary as a preemptive strike because the Iraqi president had WMD and there was a danger that he would use them against the United States.

On Oct. 6, 2004, Charles Duelfer, advisor to the director of Central Intelligence on Iraqi weapons, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the invasion and that the weapons were likely destroyed following the first Persian Gulf War in 1991. On Jan. 12, 2005, the U.S. announced that is was stopping its search for the weapons in Iraq.

But a four-day Intelligence Summit, to be held Feb. 17-20 in Arlington, Va., is re-igniting the debate over the Iraqi WMD. The featured discussion, on Saturday, Feb. 18, is titled: "Saddam's WMD Tapes: 'The Smoking Gun' Evidence." The agenda for the event indicates that the person who will speak about the tapes is at this point "anonymous."

The New York Sun on Feb. 7 reported that Rep. Peter Hoekstra's (R-Mich.) committee had obtained the audio tapes from former federal prosecutor John Loftus. According to the report, Loftus received the tapes "from a former American military intelligence analyst." Loftus is president of the Intelligence Summit, which is a yearly gathering of experts in the fields of counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering.

Jodie Evans of the anti-war group Code Pink, however, told Cybercast News Service that she does not think the Saddam recordings will lead to any new information. The government, according to Evans, has "said a lot of things for a long time."

"There's a difference between what they've been saying and what's real, and when they find something real, I'll comment."

Danny Schechter, author and producer of the film version of "Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception," said he is "weary of these intercepts."

"Nobody denies that Saddam Hussein did have a WMD program. The United States knows that, we have the receipts, we supplied some of the initial technology," Schechter said.

But the weapons were destroyed in 1991, after the first Gulf War, he asserted.

"The question is not, did he have a program, but did that program represent a threat to the United States, to England, or to anywhere else," Schechter said. "I would be hesitant about raw intelligence that has not been analyzed, but that is being used in a partisan way by members of Congress," he told Cybercast News Service.

"Saddam Hussein is probably one of the most demonized world leaders, with Dick Cheney a close second," Schechter added.

Saddam is currently on trial in Iraq for ordering the killings of more than 140 Shiite Muslims in 1982. One of his former military advisors and top generals, Georges Sada, has written a book titled: "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein."

Sada, who is a national security adviser in Iraq's new government, alleges that in June 2002 Saddam transported weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and into Syria aboard several refitted commercial jets, under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission for flood victims.

A Feb. 2 Cybercast News Service article quoted Jamal Ware, the communications director for Rep. Hoekstra as saying that "the chairman has read General Sada's book ... He will meet with General Sada to hear first-hand him laying out the case that this transferal may have happened." The New York Sun article from Feb. 7 indicated that Sada has since met with Hoekstra to talk about the issue."

3-2-1----"It can't be!!!", "No, the Administration would have publically announced this," "If he talks about hitting Washington with WMD, he would have been an immediate and obvious threat. CAN'T BE!!!", "We would have had to fight him, we are glad he is gone, but why didn't we invade north korea, yemen, iran, syria, china, and guam at the same time."

This should be fun!!!!



Well I've listened to the report from ABC on their website.

Here we go:

"U.S. officials have confirmed the tapes are authentic, and that they are among hundreds of hours of tapes Saddam recorded in his palace office."

"The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s. In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program ? a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.

At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.

"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct." "

Oh, wanted to share an interview with the liberal darling, scott ritter from October of 2005.

Here is Mr. "I know it all:"

"They blew up all their weapons and buried them in the desert, and then tried to maintain the fiction that they had told the truth. And by 1992 they were compelled again, because of the tenacity of the inspectors, to come clean. People ask why didn't Saddam Hussein admit being disarmed? In 1992 they submitted a declaration that said everything's been destroyed, we have nothing left. In 1995 they turned over the totality of their document cache. Again, not willingly, it took years of inspections to pressure them, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS BY 1995 THERE WERE NO MORE WEAPONS IN IRAQ , THERE WERE NO MORE DOCUMENTS IN IRAQ THERE WAS NO MORE PRODUCTION CAPABILITY IN IRAQ because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control."

Sorry, Mr. liberal darling, you were wrong.


P.S. There are 35,000 hours of tape left. These tapes encompass twelve hours.


35,000 hours / 24 = 1,458 days

1,458 days / 365 = 4 years.

Not that this isn't a great story that should make some people think, but FOUR YEARS of tape? Are you sure that's not a typo?


No replies yet? I want to know what everybody thinks of this.


Some people will be called flaming liberal commies. Some people will be called fascist neo-cons. Bush will be bashed. Bush will be defended. Tempers will flare. Names will be called. Nothing will be resolved.

OK, so maybe that's more what I think about how the thread will turn out and less on the WMD issue... but you know it's coming.


Hey Fonebone,

Sorry, you are correct. That was my error. It was 35,000 boxes of tapes.

I appreciate you taking the time to read so closely.



Of course Saddam had WMD at some point.

Did he get rid of them all? If so why were they always expelling the UN inspectors?

Was Saddam kept in the dark by his own people regarding WMD capability?

Did he send some to Syria? He sent his fighter planes to Iran so this is possible.

This stuff gets so politicized hardly anyone cares about the truth, just something to support their political candidates.


Kuz and Zap,

Let's keep it from devolving into that. With your help, we will focus on this key issue.

These tapes show quite clearly that not only was saddam informed, but that the regime was actively seeking to hide their capability.



Jerffy and accuracy are not generally in close association with each other... perhaps "strangers" would be a nice descriptive for the relationship.


Of course.

I have done searches on the news sites...nothing to verify anything besides what you put.

I've said it before though. There are plenty of crazy fucks in the world who have nuclear weapons, and WMD. Doesn't make us any more right for invading him.

Pete Hamill wrote this in January of 2001- before Sept. 11. He was right on many counts.

Pete Hamill on the Bush Presidency
Published in Letras Libres

January 2001

The coming presidency of George W. Bush should fill intelligent people with fear and trembling. It was one thing to have presidents stained with illegitimacy in the 19th century; it is quite another to have an illegitimate president in full possession of the mightiest military machine in the history of the world. Rutherford B. Hayes, a mediocrity who lost the popular vote and became president in 1888, did not have the hydrogen bomb.

The bizarre circumstances that brought Bush to the White House will be examined by historians for many years. But we should all be worried right now, in present time. Here is the basic problem: Bush will try to be president in circumstances that make almost all domestic movement impossible. The Congress is split almost exactly in half. The Republicans ? the only true ideologues in the 21st century United States ? will be frustrated in their attempts to impose fundamentalist Christian beliefs on a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation. The Democrats ? who still believe in the ability of a nation to repair its social inequities -- will be unable to move any of their own mildly liberal agenda . The imams of the Republican Party from the South and Midwest will continue to see the presence of the Great Satan among the Democrats. And many Democrats will continue to be unforgiving for the vicious Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton. The result: impasse.

Bush will then be tempted to do what most American presidents do when they can?t make anything happen at home. He will look beyond the borders of the United States. That is, he will try to find some small nation to beat up, wrap the assault in flowery idealistic language, and thus try to look presidential. He will talk about sacrifice and honor, and the brave American fighting man. He will try to force unity upon the fractious Congress. He will cite his rise in public opinion polls as proof of his wisdom and his ?courage?. In that spirit, John F. Kennedy ? who won his 1960 election by a mere 100,000 popular votes ? allowed the Bay of Pigs operation to go forward, and sent the first substantial numbers of troops into Vietnam. Ronald Reagan was content to beat up Grenada while creating and funding (illegally) the Contra War in Nicaragua. Bush the Father went after Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War and killed 2000 human beings in Panama to arrest Manuel Noriega in the bloodiest drug bust in world history.

It?s unlikely that George W. Bush will be more prudent than his predecessors. Many Americans, led by cartoonists and comedians, believe that Bush ? in spite of degrees from Yale and Harvard ? is a bit of a dunce. During the campaign, his advisers wisely kept him away from reporters who might ask tough questions; they packaged him shrewdly, preventing all possibilities of spontaneity. In the 36 uncertain days after the election, he looked more uncertain than ever, while Daddy?s Boys (James Baker, Dick Cheney and others) showed up to handle the tough battle over Florida. In fact, George W. looked eerily like an American Dauphin, a forlorn rich kid in over his head, eyes blinking anxiously in his few public appearances like a POW in the Hanoi Hilton sending secret messages in Morse code. The basic message seemed to be: ?How do I get out of this??

In a sensible nation, Bush would be forced to create a coalition government, dumping Cheney (who has had four heart attacks) for a Democrat, forming a cabinet with Democrats in some of the most important jobs. Again, this is unlikely. The Republican ideologues would abandon him; the Democrats want him to fail.

So we should be prepared for armed melodrama. Bush is not a worldly man. His father was head of the CIA, ambassador to China, and president of the United States. The son stayed home. During the Vietnam War, he hurried into the Texas National Guard, defending the skies over Houston. He has visited only two foreign countries, one of them Mexico (the other seems to have slipped his mind). He was the first presidential candidate in memory who needed briefings about geography.

But he knows where Iraq is, and is completely aware of what his father failed to do in that country: remove Saddam Hussein. A son in rivalry with a father can be a very dangerous man. To show "leadership", the new President Bush might defy the European allies of the United States, and risk another oil crisis, by seizing on some slight -?real or imagined ? to finish off Saddam Hussein. He would thus force his father to admire him and get a boost in the public opinion polls.

Bush could also let his eyes drift to our own hemisphere. He is the tenth president to deal with Fidel Castro (an incredible fact in itself). Under pressure from the Cuban exiles of Miami, who helped him ?win? Florida, he might be tempted to step up the pressure, fund an internal revolt (in the style of the Contra War), and then step in militarily to support the ?forces of freedom?. But Cuba is not the only possibility. Much more dangerous is Colombia. Bush would be able to tell his domestic audience that the alliance of the FARC and the narcotraficantes ?will not stand.? He would blame Colombian Marxists ? the perfect opponents -- for the drug problem in the United States, rather than those millions of American who insist on paying money to get stupefied on cocaine. (It is widely believed that among those millions of cocaine users was the young George W. Bush). Instead of initiating a vast drug rehabilitation program in the U.S., he could expand the war in Colombia. He would be told my his advisers that such a war would unite his fractured country; drug rehabilitation would end up on page 17 of the newspaper.

Alas, an expanded war in Colombia would almost certainly lead to an Andean War, with guerrillas rising everywhere, driven by nationalism rather than Marxism. As should have been learned from Vietnam, nothing unites a people more effectively than the presence of foreign soldiers. An Andean War could be a calamity for everyone in the region. American troops would be back in Panama to ?protect the Canal?, and to deny refuge to guerrilla cadres (and the narco-bankers). Peru is already shaky; the military could be tempted to get rid of democracy ?because of the emergency?. Every nation in the hemisphere, starting with Mexico, would be pressured to take sides.

I hope none of that happens. I hope Bush resists all such temptations. But in 2002 the United States will have Congressional elections. The Democratic Party, bitter over the presidential election, will turn out every possible vote in order to seize control of Congress. The Dauphin will be under intense pressure from his advisers to do something dramatic. We should all be prepared for the sight of corpses.

Amazing how some folks can just see history coming, even through the fog of politics.


So does this mean he had them and got rid of them or that he had them and was just "lending" them to Syria?


Liftis wrote:

"So does this mean he had them and got rid of them or that he had them and was just "lending" them to Syria?"

That's a great question.

Makes you wonder what other sort of stunts he was pulling.

Either way, this certainly should cool down some of the "Bush lied, everyone died" crap.



Why don't you ask him? And while your are at it, ask if he ever got back the fighter jets he sent to Iran during Gulf War 1.


cnn has been forced to look into the tapes:

Here is cnn today:

"U.S. officials who have reviewed the tapes said Hussein was "fixated" on acquiring weapons of mass destruction and preventing U.N. inspectors from finding out.

On the tapes, Kamel and Hussein discuss whether Iraq should disclose information about its biological weapons program to U.N. inspectors. Iraq had previously denied having any such program.

"The question becomes, do we have to disclose everything or continue to keep silent?" Kamel said to Hussein. "I think it would be in our interest not to, because we don't want the world to know about what we possess because it has become clear to the countries who are forced to be allies of the U.S. that our position is untenable.""

I find the silence to be deafening.

I remember many dems saying circa 2003 "The inspections were working," or (my favorite) "We have saddam contained."

I'm very interested in learning what else is in those 35,000 boxes.



Irish gave us a hint of what is to come.

"So what if he had them?"

Oh, lord. Hopefully Carville or Gore can come up with better spin than that.


The tapes don't seem to contain very much of import... at least not that I've seen so far.

I have seen some incredible spin on the contents, but if you take excepted analysis, instead of FOX entertainment segments, it seems pretty uninteresting so far.

No smoking gun yet.

I haven't watched the news today, so if something new has come out, I'm not aware of it yet.


This kind of jumps here and there, mostlikely due to the translation, but very interesting indeed.


Tapes Show Son-in-Law Admitted WMD Deception
In Recording, Iraqi Dictator Is Briefed on Efforts to Hide Weapons Programs

[i]Feb. 15, 2006 ? The following is a translation of portions of one pivotal tape-recorded meeting that took place in late April or May of 1995. In it, Saddam Hussein and his senior aides discuss the fact that United Nations inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program ? a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied. At one point, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.

SADDAM HUSSEIN: Lieutenant General Hussein

HUSSEIN KAMEL: Thank you, sir.

Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons.

We did not reveal all that we have. On the subject of missiles, they can bring up three issues with us now, in one year or in two years' time. They are undeclared ? one of them being the location. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. Sir, this is my work and I know it very well. I started it a long time ago, and it is not easy. The issues are more dangerous, a lot more dangerous than what they came to know. I am explaining to your excellency, sir.

With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, which we assume that they have not raised, and our belief that the sole problem is that of the biological weapons. No, sir. I think they have detailed information about the missiles, and if they want to bring them up, they will as I said because we did not complete. In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological.

Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not say we used them on Iran. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. Therefore sir, if they want to create problems, I see that our argument now is that biological is everything. No, sir, I disagree and I have to be candid in front of your Excellency. I substantially disagree on this issue. They want it item by item. For the time being, they are not raising all of them with us and we did not declare. I will come back, sir, to the question of whether is it better for us to declare or to stay? In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. Not the 17 tons, no. We have a disagreement which is essential and known. We know it ourselves.

All this, sir, and we have some teams working; one team working in the same direction, but the other team does not know. How come they [the inspectors] don't know ? if they want to? There is what leads to knowledge. There are materials we have imported from America by volume. We have imported from Europe by volume.

As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them.

Sir, I regret that I am speaking so candidly but although everything has ended, if they find out. No, sir, they didn't know, frankly speaking not all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists and not all the places. Yes, some of the activities have been uncovered but so that you know, sir, when they say biological is the issue, no sir, the biological is the least [important]; I am sorry to say it is the most futile of the problems. OK, the 17 tons is no problem but thousands of tons here and thousands of tons there. Where did they go? How were they manufactured? And how were they used? Sir, we really have to be frank, so that the resolution that comes is not restricted to the biological and the next day the missiles and then the nuclear the next day and then the next day and the next day.


I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent. Sir, since the meeting has taken this direction, I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work. No. The game has gone on for too long. And now it has become clear to many officials of countries that are coerced to work with America?[/i]


I believe we will see some incredible spin put on these tapes from the left. Political futures do indeed depend on it. The democratic party itself could take a huge hit on this one.


EXCLUSIVE: The Secret Tapes -- Inside Saddam's Palace

[i]Feb. 15, 2006 ? ABC News has obtained 12 hours of tape recordings of Saddam Hussein meeting with top aides during the 1990s, tapes apparently recorded in Baghdad's version of the Oval Office.

ABC News obtained the tapes from Bill Tierney, a former member of a United Nations inspection team who translated them for the FBI. "Because of my experience being in the inspections and being in the military, I knew the significance of these tapes when I heard them," says Tierney. U.S. officials have confirmed the tapes are authentic, and that they are among hundreds of hours of tapes Saddam recorded in his palace office.

One of the most dramatic moments in the 12 hours of recordings comes when Saddam predicts ? during a meeting in the mid-1990s ? a terrorist attack on the United States. "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well ? that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. "In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."

Also at the meeting was Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who said Iraq was being wrongly accused of terrorism. "Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it."

The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s. In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program ? a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.

At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.

"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."

Shortly after this meeting, in August 1995, Hussein Kamel defected to Jordan, and Iraq was forced to admit that it had concealed its biological weapons program. (Kamel returned to Iraq in February 1996 and was killed in a firefight with Iraqi security forces.)

A spokeswoman for John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, said information contained in the transcriptions of the tapes was already known to intelligence officials.

"Intelligence community analysts from the CIA, and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that, while fascinating, from a historical perspective the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their post-war analysis of Iraq's weapons programs nor do they change the findings contained in the comprehensive Iraq Survey group report," she said in a statement.

"The tapes mostly date from early to mid-1990s and cover such topics as relations with the United Nations, efforts to rebuild industries from Gulf war damage and the pre 9/11 situation in Afghanistan."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, says the tapes are authentic and show that "Saddam had a fixation on weapons of mass destruction and he had a fixation on hiding what he was doing from the U.N. inspectors." Hoeckstra says there are more than 35,000 boxes of such tapes and documents that the U.S. government has not analyzed nor made public that should also be translated and studied on an urgent basis.

Charles Duelfer, who led the official U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the war, says the tapes show extensive deception but don't prove that weapons were still hidden in Iraq at the time of the U.S.-led war in 2003. "What they do is support the conclusion in the report, which we made in the last couple of years, that the regime had the intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass destruction, when circumstances permitted."

Tierney, who provided ABC News with the tapes, plans to make the 12 hours of recordings public at a nongovernmental meeting ? called Intelligence Summit 2006 ? this weekend in Arlington, Va. John Loftus, a former federal prosecutor, runs the meeting. "We think this is a tape that is unclassified and available to the public," says Loftus "[I] just want to have it translated and let the tape speak for itself." [/i]


Keep in mind that there are different time periods in the Iraq situation...



Excellent posts. Do you get the feeling that we are looking at the tip of the iceberg?

It's fascinating to read how kamel delineated each of the weapons systems and their disclosure/non-disclosure to the inspectors.

This has already confirmed many of Bush's main contentions (and the democrats' before their power hunger overrode their common sense).

The sanctions were a failure, the inspections were a failure, and saddam was intent on preserving and safeguarding his WMD capacity. His advisors were confident they could reconstitute production quickly.

I believe these tapes will convince many reasonable people. However, I'm not satisfied, yet. I want some evidence that is so persuasive that we can convince the farthest left loons.

I'll be watcing this story closely.