
US 'got it so wrong' on Saddam Hussein, says CIA agent who interrogated dictator - lisper
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-wrong-iraq-saddam-hussein-cia-interrogator-john-nixon-george-w-bush-invasion-a7482456.html
======
DrScump
“We never thought about using weapons of mass destruction. It was not
discussed. Use chemical weapons against the world? Is there anyone with full
faculties who would do this? Who would use these weapons when they had not
been used against us?”

Is there any sincere military historian who questions that Hussein used
chemical weapons first against Iran?

~~~
Nomentatus
Indeed, the purpose of having biological and chemical weapons - as well as the
delivery system he was perfecting before the invasion - was to ensure he had a
free hand in whacking his less powerful neighbors, aiding terrorism in the
region, and hitting his Kurdish population. They were a threat designed to
prevent EU and US intervention. His four-stage rocket, which came close to
completion, was designed to have enough range to strike European capitals. Of
course, he's putting the best spin on it all that he can - whyever not?

------
464192002d7fe1c
And, yet, this is the same CIA who we're listening to when they claim Russia
hacked the election.

~~~
vinay427
It doesn't seem very logical to dismiss evidence from an organization because
of a few mistakes. Consider also the wealth of things they got right, some of
which may never be made public.

~~~
lossolo
What evidence you are writing about? Did you seen any? that shows what mass
media are saying? I didn't. And after seeing how US lost in Syria with Russia
and suddenly CIA talks about Putin directly involved in hacking US election I
would be really cautious to make any judgments without seeing hard proofs.

~~~
lisivka
You saw lot of evidences. You just not attributed them to Russia. Russia
doesn't tries to make a direct action for their benefit, but to create
situation to benefit from. Moreover, they are not trying to force single exit
from a situation, but to limit number of exits, so they can prepare a solution
for all of them beforehand.

I clearly see goals and actions, and I attribute them to Russia, because they
will benefit a lot from resolution, but I have trained eye because I watched
how Russians are working in Ukraine at time of Maidan.

~~~
464192002d7fe1c
All of the actual evidence that I've seen so far is equivalent to an
investigator seeing "made in china" written on a hammer used to smash a store
window and saying "china broke into wal-mart".

As far as Russia benefiting from the election, what benefit do you think
Russia gets out of the situation that isn't just a large, common benefit that
could be equally attributable to anyone?

EG: if you say Russia wanted Trump elected because Trump would be a better
friend to Russia that doesn't convince me that Russia was involved in that at
all. Fixing Russia/US relations has massive, global benefit, it seems equally
fair to say that Belgium hacked the election (whatever that means) to prevent
Hillary from ending up in a nuclear war with Russia which would obviously be
bad for, well, everyone (to be crystal clear, i'm not saying this is true or
that I believe this would have happened).

My point isn't that everything I'm saying is correct, merely that there are
lots of equally plausible scenarios here.

~~~
lisivka
Republicans are natural enemies of Russia, so preferred exists for Russia:
democrat elected OR distrust in government happens, which then can be played
into something like massive protest.

I also unable to see how Russian-US relations can be better than now. Russia
captured Crimea, while USA and Britain are ignored their obligations. It's
looks like a gift. Yeah, sanctions can be canceled, but even if not, sanctions
are doing very minor harm in compare to gained benefit: Russia now controls
Black Sea and can intercept rockets launched from Turkey, so USA bases in
Turkey are useless now. Also Russia prevented Shell from pumping of natural
gas from Sloviansk (their second goal after Crimea) to Europer, so they saved
lot of money on that war.

------
lisper
I submitted a similar story earlier
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13206344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13206344))
and it was flagged to death because it was just an excerpt from the book in
the Daily Mail. So I'm submitting this version because it's an actual story
from a more reputable outlet.

~~~
brownbat
It's flagged because it's a misleading attempt to relitigate only one of many
causes of the war in Iraq.

Among other causes were Saddam's attempts at genocide against the Kurds,[0]
his attacks on US and British forces patrolling the no fly zone,[1] his
defiance of UN regulations,[2] his redirection and delay of distributing aid
to hurt his own people while blaming the international community,[3] his army
of fascist goons running the country--to include his serial rapist sons,[4]
the training and financing of international terrorist groups,[5] and his
attacks on and threats to destroy Israel.[6]

The ideal of providing a democratic model for other authoritarian regimes,
proximity to Iran, a need for strategic air bases to support anticipated
regional conflicts, and oil politics all may have played some role as well.

Moreover, information declassified in 2015 showed that Iraq had stockpiles of
missiles armed with sarin, and internal plans to halt production during
sanctions while retaining the capital and facilities to resume production as
soon as sanctions were lifted.

The US had a policy of regime change in Iraq as early as 1998, and the
conflict should really be seen as one from 1991-2003. In the 2000 Presidential
debates, even Al Gore said Saddam should have been removed earlier, and that
he wanted to arm rebels to topple Saddam.[7]

It was flagged because Saddam promising an interrogator he wouldn't use
chemical weapons to start WWIII doesn't change any of that, and is barely
relevant to anything.

Granted, it's an extremely unpopular war. It's extremely unpopular because it
was one of the most poorly prosecuted wars in history, partly due to de-
bathification deteriorating civil government and partly due to it becoming a
magnet for rising violent jihadism.

It's not an unpopular war because Saddam was some noble innocent, some
scapegoat who wandered into the crosshairs of geopolitical forces outside of
his control.

[0]
[https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm](https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm)

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-
conf...](http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-
conflict.html?pagewanted=all)

[2] [https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/dec...](https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html)

[3] [http://www.usip.org/events/iraq-sanctions-what-have-we-
learn...](http://www.usip.org/events/iraq-sanctions-what-have-we-learned)

[4]
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannego...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegoldenberg)

[5] [http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-
iraq/p9513](http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513)

[6]
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/956084.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/956084.stm)

[7]
[http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-11-2000-debate...](http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-11-2000-debate-
transcript)

~~~
lisper
> It's flagged because it's a misleading attempt to relitigate only one of
> many causes of the war in Iraq.

It's a firsthand account from someone who was there at the time published in a
reputable news outlet.

> It was flagged because Saddam promising an interrogator he wouldn't use
> chemical weapons to start WWIII ... is barely relevant to anything.

WMDs were the centerpiece of the case against Saddam. All the other arguments
were just gilding the lily. The war was sold primarily (in fact, almost
exclusively) on the grounds that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the
U.S. because he had WMDs, and the fact of the matter was that he did not. (Not
only did he not have them, but it was clear at the time that he did not have
them: there were U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war, and
they, obviously, had found nothing.) A first hand account from someone who was
there are the time is relevant if nothing else because it provides a fuller
understanding of history that could inform future decisions and allow us to
avoid repeating this catastrophic mistake.

> oil politics ... may have played some role as well

Ya think?

~~~
brownbat
> Not only did he not have them

Declassified intelligence has shown that he did.

> it was clear at the time that he did not have them

That's laughable.

> there were U.N. inspectors on the ground

This cuts the other direction. Hans Blix said Saddam was not complying with
his obligations and introducing unnecessary delays for inspectors.

The only reason WMDs were a core argument is because they were a triggering
mechanism for a UN process that didn't happen anyway. It wasn't a cornerstone
of getting popular support, popular support wasn't a significant obstacle, as
they controlled government and won reelection anyway.

Besides, it's ridiculous to say, "there may have been great reasons for the
war, but you didn't claim them in time loudly enough, so the war was
unjustified."

What would that possibly matter? It's like pointing out that the motivations
for entering WWII weren't to prevent the holocaust, therefore preventing the
holocaust doesn't matter and WWII wasn't a just war. It's a three card monte
with political ethics. Inventing an arbitrary rhetorical standard that decides
actual facts about actions.

Moreover, it detracts focus from mistakes in execution, where focus is
required if you want future wars not to leave a massive anarchic state in
their wake.

But finally, I just keep hearing Clinton's line, "What difference – at this
point, what difference does it make?"

There were several reasons for the war. Some got shouted more than others, so
what? How does that help us now in any way deal with the current situation in
Iraq?

> > oil politics ... may have played some role as well > Ya think?

With the caveat that most of the discussion of that is a conspiracy theory
about the US stealing Iraqi oil, which is naive and at best simplistic. A
dream of adding a stabler countervailing voice to OPEC is more likely, but
even if true, still a long, long way down the list.

This goes back to why this gets flagged, though. No amount of sources, reason,
or evidence appear to have any effect on the other side. Each of us thinks
we're the sane one and the other is just being stubborn and irrational.
There's no possibility for useful discussion here, because everyone's views
appear calcified to the other side.

If nothing can be gained, it's so much unproductive gibberish then.

Politics is the mind killer:

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/)

~~~
lisper
> Declassified intelligence has shown that he did.

You can't be serious. George Bush himself has admitted that there were no
WMDs.

~~~
brownbat
It's in the cites in an earlier comment. This one was from the New York Times.

You would know this if you had actually read the comments you're responding
to.

For example, you completely missed the final point of the comment you just
replied to, and instead provided more evidence to prove it's true.

~~~
lisper
I just did a search of this entire thread, and found only one citation to the
NYT. It's this one:

[http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-
conf...](http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-
conflict.html?pagewanted=all)

That is a story from August of 1999. So it cannot possibly be evidence that
"declassified intelligence" shows Iraq had WMDs.

I feel like I have truly entered bizarro-world here.

~~~
brownbat
Maybe it was a different source. Google Operation Avarice.

Here's another incident where DOD describes recovered WMDs:

[http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918](http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918)

Iraq was storing giant caches of sarin-tipped warheads. They also had
mountains of yellow cake at Tuwaitha that was moved out of the country for
neutralizing and processing.

~~~
brownbat
NYT on Operation Avarice, guess it didn't get cited above. My apologies...

[http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-
ha...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-
and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?referer&_r=1&pagewanted=all)

More WMD discoveries covered in WIRED:

[https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-
contin...](https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-
iraq-with-surprising-results/all/1)

This press release from Stu Cohen, under "Myth #10," Stu points out what we're
talking about in the original argument about WMDs.

[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-
statemen...](https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-
statements/press-release-archive-2003/pr11282003.html)

"We judged that Iraq probably possessed one hundred to five hundred metric
tons of CW munitions fill. One hundred metric tons would fit in a backyard
swimming pool; five hundred could be hidden in a small warehouse.... When the
Iraq Survey Group (ISG), led by David Kay, issued its interim report in
October [2003], acknowledging that it had not found chemical or biological
weapons, the inspectors had then visited only ten of the 130 major ammunition
depots in Iraq; these ammunition dumps are huge, sometimes five miles by five
miles on a side. Two depots alone are roughly the size of Manhattan. It is
worth recalling that after Desert Storm, US forces unknowingly destroyed over
1,000 rounds of chemical-filled munitions at a facility called Al Kamissiyah."

This just illustrates that even if they hadn't found WMDs, it doesn't tell you
they weren't there. Under myth #5 he describes the wide variety of sources
that supported the conclusion that they were there. Under myth #9 he talks
about the equivalent danger of rapid mobilization programs that are completely
deniable and would not necessarily produce any recoverable material.

WMDs were found, but it would hardly matter if they weren't.

------
tptacek
This is such an incredibly weird story. "Who would ever think that we would
use chemical weapons on the world"? You might start by asking the Iranians, or
the Kurds of Halabja.

------
pmyjavec
Sadly I'm sure no one will be help accountable for any of this. All those
innocent lives lost, the murder of Saddam (like him or not).

It's probably all just going to get swept under the carpet as the focus moves
onto Syria. So many secrets and lies.

------
jstewartmobile
Kind of like James Simons: analyst makes sound recommendation, recommendation
is ignored by inbred leaders, calamity ensues, analyst gives up on public
service.

Perhaps there's a place for this Nixon guy in the hedge fund world?

------
Tmp_login
Doesn't matter had <strike>sex</strike> oil.

