John Loftus of The Intelligence Summit claims that audio tapes of Saddam Hussein speaking to top aides prove conclusively that the Iraqi regime had WMD. The group says it will release the tapes to the public on February 17th.
Stop the presses!! This is BIG news. Long time Jawa Report readers know that I have been skeptical of the claim that Saddam Hussein moved whatever WMD capability Iraq had sometime in the weeks leading to the invasion.
If these tapes are authentic, and they actually are of Saddam Hussein talking about WMD which he had, then we should hear some major apologies from the Left real soon.
which says that The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has the tapes and is currently reviewing them:
One word of caution: I have speculated in the past, though, that Saddam may have believed he had WMD capability. Iraq was a state modeled after Stalinist Russia, so, it is not a stretch to believe that people lied to Saddam in order to save their own skins. Certainly, a lot of Iraqi generals believed that there were WMD. But more often than not these Generals say they didn't have the WMD, but they knew of some other General with them. So, it is possible that the tapes are less revelatory than the claim.
However, occam's razor dictates that the simplist explanation is probably the correct one. If Saddam believed he had WMD then there is a high probability that he actually did.
A lot of commenters point out that John Loftus is not the most reliable source. I have no idea if they are correct or not. But, as I said, I remain a bit skeptical, especially given that most intelligence about WMD in Iraq turned out to be based on rumors. The kind of rumors I cited above where every general assumes other generals have the WMD.
However, the NY Sun article makes the claim The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has verified that the voice on the tapes is Saddam Hussein. So, it sounds like the tapes are genuine. What is on the tapes remains the key question. We'll see I guess.
1
If these tapes are authentic, and they actually are of Saddam Hussein talking about WMD which he had, then we should hear some major apologies from the Left real soon.
Dude, what planet are you living on?
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at February 07, 2006 09:52 AM (A2WBg)
2
The Surrender Monkeys will claim that is is all some Bushian/Rovian conspiracy, and that it is all made up. At which time it will be pointed out how many around the world, including those on the left, said Saddam had them, and they will reply "but they aren't President."
And the reply will be "Thank God for small favors"
Posted by: William Teach at February 07, 2006 09:56 AM (TFSHk)
3
William Teach, I'm thanking God for huge favors!
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 07, 2006 10:01 AM (rUyw4)
4
Dr. S. - I will be charitable and assume your tongue was lodged deeply in your cheek on that apologies comment, otherwise I'm with Stotch.
Posted by: bRight & Early at February 07, 2006 10:16 AM (Ffvoi)
5
I thought dubya said we weren't supposed to talk about the wisdom of the war anymore.
Posted by: actus at February 07, 2006 10:18 AM (CqheE)
6
When have you ever paid any attention to what Dubya said, Actus?
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 07, 2006 10:33 AM (rUyw4)
7
"When have you ever paid any attention to what Dubya said, Actus?"
Oh I pay attention. Which is different than following his lead. I'm more than happy to talk about the wisdom of the war in iraq.
Posted by: actus at February 07, 2006 10:45 AM (CqheE)
8
Of course, as actus so clearly demonstrates, they are far more interested in proving what a dope Bush is rather than whether Saddam actually had WMDs, and where they went. That's a minor tangent of little consequence in their quest to prove Bush "lied".
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 07, 2006 11:08 AM (8e/V4)
9
Rusty I have some ummmm doubts that all things Saddam believes(d) in are true.
Posted by: john ryan at February 07, 2006 11:18 AM (TcoRJ)
10
When was the last time Loftus has been right about anything? Never, from what I can recall.
Posted by: Ariya at February 07, 2006 11:19 AM (uxW3N)
11
I was going to say that the left will just ignore this and change the subject, but Actus beat me to it by ignoring it and changing the subject.
Posted by: a4g at February 07, 2006 11:35 AM (nMd9J)
12
Once upon a time, Saddam had DubyaMD - aided and abetted by Reagan, Rumsfeld, Cheney.
The 'dead enders' obviously lust after a modicum of vindication for what has become a disastrous fiasco, and will jump on any gossamer hint as if it were a wanton hussy in heat. Did he actually have naughty bits when Junior interrupted intensified UN insections to launch his ill-fated unprovoked invasion and occupation? 1) What did Saddam know? 2) What did Saddam say? 3) When did he say it?
No mobile biolabs, no al Qaeda collaboration, no 'nook-yaller' (with no dedicated aluminium tubes, 'yellow cake' from Niger) programme. Iraq fragmenting in bloody chaos. Jihadists enabled and emboldened. Justified desperation counsels caution.
Tipsy
Posted by: tipsy at February 07, 2006 11:55 AM (z4OM2)
13
>>>Once upon a time, Saddam had DubyaMD - aided and abetted by Reagan, Rumsfeld, Cheney.
Notice how the moonbats like to claim how the evil rethuglicans "made" Saddam and gave him his WMDs, but will instantly turn around and say he never had WMDs and Bush "lied" and that efforts to find those WMDs is just "desperation."
More of the same-- Lefties trying to play both sides against the middle.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 07, 2006 12:13 PM (8e/V4)
14
and p.s., why do so many moonbats write/talk as if they're mentally retarded.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 07, 2006 12:14 PM (8e/V4)
15
Guys, the New York Sun is NOT a credible newspaper. I can't believe how many people are linking this.
This is the first blog I've hit on this so far which references anything BUT the New York Sun. I WANT to believe this but come on, you might as well be citing WorldNet Daily or The Nation.
What the heck is "Intelligence Summit" and is there any link available to it??
Posted by: Dean Esmay at February 07, 2006 12:35 PM (S1ka/)
16
The issue is not whether the Sun, or Worldnetdaily, or the Nation are credible papers, but whether the sources they cite are credible-- in this case John Loftus. I've never heard of the guy and know nothing about him. I'm not inclined to take this all that seriously until/unless the tapes are proven authentic.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 07, 2006 12:57 PM (8e/V4)
17
One should be careful not to cherry pick John Loftus, he not as 'clubbable' as you guys might like.
Watch
http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/mastermind_mi6_asset.htm
where he claims (on Fox) that MI6 have been harbouring, aiding and abetting known terrorists.
Doesn't quite fit your simplistic picture, does it?
I am not a monkey, a surrenderer nor an eater of cheese.
Posted by: Not Nervous at February 07, 2006 02:13 PM (cFLCt)
18
From the Wikipedia entry for John Loftus:
Loftus also serves as a media commentator, appearing regularly on ABC National Radio and Fox News. On August 7, 2005, Loftus provided the La Habra, California address of a suspected terrorist named Iyad K. Hilal on Fox News. However, Hilal left the address three years previously and the home was currently owned by the family of Randy Vorick, who were subjected to threats and vandalism and required police protection. [1] Loftus said "I thought it might help police in that area now that we have positively identified a terrorist" but did not say why he did not contact police in a more direct manner. Loftus later apologized for the mistake.
Now THAT's funny.
Posted by: shingles at February 07, 2006 02:20 PM (wbeML)
19
The NY Sun isn't credible? Compared to whom, the NY Times?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 07, 2006 02:39 PM (0yYS2)
20
Even if we assume that these tapes are genuine and that Saddam himself believed he still had WMDs at such a late date, that doesn't actually prove that there were any.
One of the hazards of being a murderous dictator is that you end up surrounded by sycophants who tell you what you want to hear, because saying anything else is a good way to end up dead. Saddam probably ordered his people to produce/preserve WMDs, and even if they failed they would have told him that they succeeded and that the WMDs were ready to go at a moment's notice.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at February 07, 2006 03:27 PM (pqiW9)
21
This will be another "wait and see" for me.
Posted by: Oyster at February 07, 2006 03:31 PM (sMLtC)
22
Steven Den Beste's theory has been my own since the beginning of the war. Thus, my word of caution. But, I don't "know" I'm right, so if evidence comes about to the contrary I'm willing to modify my beliefs on WMD.
Posted by: Rusty at February 07, 2006 04:30 PM (JQjhA)
23
The dead-ender Bushi'ites actually appear to desire that a rogue nation, Syria, is in possession of contrivances capable of inflicting widespread horror and misery - just so Boy George & Culture Club can be, albeit to a negligible extent, exonerated.
Since both patriotic and humanitarian inclinations would dictate otherwise, I shall assume that impression is a misleading one.
tipsy
Posted by: tipsy at February 07, 2006 05:59 PM (D5QR+)
24
Tipsy: I tried to lookup your paragraph in the moonbat dictionary, and it still didn't make sense.
Are you one of those guys who doesn't use the Internet until you've downed two six-packs?
Posted by: dave at February 07, 2006 06:20 PM (CcXvt)
25
dave,
I looked Tipsy up in the moonbat directory and found him listed under clueless clown.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 07, 2006 08:21 PM (rUyw4)
26
Just curious. People keep claiming that Iraq is an unmitigated, unparalleled disaster. Given the scope of what has been accomplished, the fact that attacks are falling, more and more non-Kurdish Sunnis are joining the Kurds and the Shiites, and all of the other successes (and there are many) can anybody name another campaign or war (this is really a campaign, not a war) that was faced with so much resistance both in the arena and here at home that was accomplished so successfully?
By what standard has any of the other wars we or anyone else has fought can anybody like Tipsy honestly say the Campaign in Iraq is the worst ever? Details? Evidence?
Because from my understanding in costs and casualties throughout history vs the goals set forth and the success in acheiving those goals, the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have gone off smashingly well.
Again: details, evidence. Precise, factual comparisons of the cumulative events on the ground would be useful.
Posted by: Grayson at February 07, 2006 09:29 PM (3Vh45)
27
Grayson:
The war in Iraq is a disaster to Tipsy, because Micheal Moore, and DailyKos told him so.
JJ:
lol!
Posted by: dave at February 07, 2006 10:30 PM (CcXvt)
28
Search my blog in 2003 for posts about Syria, the Baathist country, being the OBVIOUS answer.
If Americans would shut off their ESPN for a moment, they might learn that the orcs are at the door.
Posted by: Aaron's cc: at February 08, 2006 12:25 AM (ov6Vw)
29
"The dead-ender Bushi'ites actually appear to desire that a rogue nation, Syria, is in possession of contrivances capable of inflicting widespread horror and misery - just so Boy George & Culture Club can be, albeit to a negligible extent, exonerated."
That is the most obtuse and patently ridiculous statement I've read all week.
Let's boil it down by eliminating every word that smacks of venomous spittle: "The administration and its supporters hope to prove conclusively that the "LIAR!" label bandied about is unfair and untrue." (The nerve of them!!)
Or, let's turn it around: "The whacky conspiracy theorists actually appear to desire that a rogue nation, Syria, is not in possession of contrivances capable of inflicting widespread horror and misery - just so Dingy Harry & The Mooonbat Band can be, albeit to a negligible extent, sanctimonious.
Posted by: Oyster at February 08, 2006 06:19 AM (YudAC)
30
>>>That is the most obtuse and patently ridiculous statement I've read all week.
Word. Their values have no core, so it's not difficult standing their "witty" insight on its head.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 08, 2006 10:12 AM (WCwrR)
31
As I noted, I assume that any impression that there would be lowlifes actually desiring Syria's possession of proscribed weaponry capable of wreaking misery and havoc is unfounded. Clearly, decent folks everywhere hope that the official findings of Blix, Kay, and Rove that such stockpiles had been destroyed in the early 1990s pertains, rather than such a sinister prospect be valid.
Grayson commented, "People keep claiming that Iraq is an unmitigated, unparalleled disaster" evokes, of course, the words of Army Lt. Gen. William Odom on 29 September 2005:
“The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.” Yes, such a conclusion is widespread.
I hasten to note that, fraudulent pretexts aside, I wish the terrorism introduced to Iraq by the invasion was not rampant, that it were not the case that oil production has now reached the lowest point since the invasion, that allies are abandoning the ill-fated fiasco, and that Iran appears to be, especially in the wake of the Iraqi Islamic party's victory over secularists, the undisputed winner in the whole sordid enterprise (as well, of course, as Osama "Dead or Alive" bin Laden for whom the woeful detour provided a recruiting bonanza.)
I am reluctant to diminish the glee of those who detect success in all this, but the facts compel me to concur with most Americans that attacking Iraq was a mistake, going badly, not worth fighting - an American populace who overwhelmingly disapprove of Bush's handling of the matter.
I'm afraid that is how I also see the sad state of affairs, but respect the viewpoint of those who still see it otherwise.
tipsy
Posted by: tipsy at February 08, 2006 12:29 PM (pui+8)
32
tipsy,
well you are entitled to your opinion, and parts of it are even understandable given the current circumstances. But despite our current difficulties, I believe we'll succeed if we perservere and not cut and run like you folks want us to.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 08, 2006 07:48 PM (8e/V4)
33
After tipsy sobered up, he actually made a little sense. I don't agree with all of it, but it was coherent. Never blog when drunk, tipsy, that's my motto.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 08, 2006 10:16 PM (rUyw4)
34
You know why I believe there are WMDs? Because OIL FOR FOOD (MONEY)!!!! People made Money!!! (Officials at the United Nations, the Russians, the French the Germans...Incidently Haliburton and Ambramhoff didn't make the list). Who's to say the United Nations' led weapons inspectors didn't turn their heads away? YEAH! YEAH! Conspiracy theory!! What about...
"Bush Lied!!"
"Bush went to Iraq for Haliburton!!"
"Bush went to Iraq for his Oil buddies!!"
"There is no stained blue dress at the White House."
Posted by: N!XAU at February 09, 2006 04:49 PM (6seh+)
35
Oh by the way...... Did I forget to mention that John Loftus us a Democrat? Thought I'll let you guys know. :-D
Posted by: NIXAU at February 09, 2006 05:14 PM (6seh+)
36
Oh by the way...... Did I forget to mention that John Loftus is a Democrat? Thought I'll let you guys know. :-D
Posted by: NIXAU at February 09, 2006 05:14 PM (6seh+)
37
Tipsy, the umm, 9/11 commission report has dated documents, pictures and testimony delivered by people working under Clinton confirming saddam's connection to Osama and al queda. It also concluded that Bill based his decision to not go after Usama(as the report spells it) harder due to intense partisan politics and negative media spin. Now, 3/4's of the country believe Bush lied about wmd's and the aforementioned connection, and insurgency estimates and length of "campaign". Ted Kennedy states as fact that it was all made up in texas for a project administration had since day1. Most of the TV and metropolitan print media drum into us how much the admin has lied, and how bad things are going, and how unjustified the war is.
The connection has been proven. So was intel on the wmd's shown to exist and not fabricated by the white house.If the wmd's are also proven to exist, even if only saddams' mind, then the negative spin the media constantly puts out will be responsible for further dividing a country and it's officials to the point where health bills, entitlement crisis' and other needed work will never get accomplished.
If Saddam thought he had wmd's, then he could threaten to use them. Nobody would wait to see if the missiles launched actually had chem weapons. Nobody would wait for the missiles to launch. If he thought he had them, that alone is reason enough to act pre-emptively.
If the media, and the dems were responsible, they would report that estimates of insurgency, war costs and length of times are always guesses at best. Hazzards of war. Name one war where these estimates have been correct.
America, france, South africa and most other countries took decades to get truly stable govt's when independence was acquired. Should we expect Iraq to be stable in 2?
the fact is, the democrats are telling lies now, and the media is generally supporting those lies, and it's the most dangerous thing in the country right now. The repubs did it also. This type of politics and media spin are putting the country in jeopardy. It's probably just as responsible for 9/11 as any other factor, except the true main factor. Islamic extremism. That must be eliminated before we have a world war over something stupid, like a cartoon.
We need our politicians to work together, not at each others throats. As citizens, we should demand it, and not play into the media's power game of how much control they can have in politics, or fear they can instill in politicians through the use of negative spin.
Posted by: morph at February 10, 2006 02:11 AM (Cyhkm)
38
These recordings are very old and pre gulf war 1.
Loftus is a scammer
Posted by: bcory at February 14, 2006 07:00 PM (FRQsm)
39
read general george sada's book.it is very compelling
Posted by: motorboy at February 14, 2006 07:11 PM (EnywW)
40
I do beleive tipsy is one of those moonbats with a melon full of bile and hatred absorbed and consumed at one of our prestegious leftist institutions of higher learning that LOVES to read what he writes. Just as all lefties do, reply in a condescending tone....look down your nose at us Bush-ites tipsy. After all.....your party did offer us the likes of John F. Kerry!!!
Posted by: slappyxxx at February 15, 2006 08:33 PM (4cCxG)
41
"Secretly recorded tapes" with excellent quality!?! Notice how clear each speaker's voice is! Did the person "secretly" recording these conversations put a microphone in front of everyone?
Posted by: ecco at February 16, 2006 07:30 AM (EDerD)
42
The credentials of Loftus aside, some of the speakers at the Intelligence Summit will be Yossef Bodansky, the former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism, former CIA Director John Deutch, former CIA Director James Woolsey and Maj. General Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (ret.). So there is some real weight there, and the tapes could turn out to be very important in a historical sense.
However, anything less than actually finding WMDs will not change the image of the US abroad, nor the tone of the liberal media. No matter how efficiently the war was conducted, and no matter how free and prosperous Iraq becomes, they will never let us forget that the stated reason for invading was never proven. It will not be enough to say that Saddam was so crazy and delusional that he tricked us into attacking him.
I am anxious to see the reaction of the MSM tomorrow. I suspect the revelations on the tapes will be overshadowed by relentless images of Abu Graibe (sp?), which the MSM never seems to get tired of.
Posted by: Drew at February 16, 2006 01:03 PM (Q4Evk)
43
Tipsy, if someone states on tape that they totally support terrorism, and will help sponsor it without being linked, does that mean anything to you? Jeez, he only killed hundreds of thousands of people, (no big deal right, proof he is a dictating Psycho) is a maniac just like Stalin was, hmmm.. do you think he has the mindset for that sort of thing? Seems like he would, don't you think? You don't wait for someone to hit you hard, you hit back first, or else you'll lose, simple as that. Its being realistic.
Posted by: Gladiator at February 17, 2006 10:32 AM (SnzyS)
44
These tapes not only doesn't prove Bush regime's WMD accusation, it is obvious they were withheld from the American public because it shows Saddam warning us about terrorist attack years before 9/11:
http://www.ms[remove]nbc.msn.com/id/11299205/site/newsweek/
Saddam Tapes: What They Don't Prove
At one point Saddam muses how vulnerable D.C. would be to a "biological" attack, but adds that Iraq wouldn't do it.
...
Two government officials, requesting anonymity because of the sensitive subject, say the tapes in no way prove that WMD stockpiles or programs existed at the time of the U.S. invasion or were moved to another country before U.S. troops arrived.
Posted by: bobby fletcher at February 17, 2006 04:13 PM (vm83q)
45
CNN and the democrats owe Bush and the Whitehouse a huge apology.michael moore does not matter.They should be ashamed to be aginst their government at time of war.
Posted by: Tom at February 21, 2006 01:33 PM (lvvY2)
46
With the Iraq now devolving into the bloody chaos that was predicted, the apologists have an increasingly difficult time defending the fiasco. Even clinging to the discredited pretexts is inadequate at this point.
You know it's time to give up the bushwa when one of the seminal thinkers in the neocon school, Francis Fukuyama, abandons the disaster:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=266122006
...and, not surprisingly, nary a peep from a Bush regime desperate for a modicum of vindication concerning Sada's uncorroborated hearsay. It is revealing that those who hasten to besmirch the reputations of individuals who have served Republican administrations with dedication and integrity such as Richard Clark and Paul Pillar, readily embrace the self-aggrandizing ravings of a bloak who had done whatever was necessary to rise to the second highest post in Saddam's air force.
Quite sad, actually. Still, truth eventually penetrates.
tipsy
Posted by: tipsy at February 24, 2006 11:49 AM (SJ/QR)
47
Looks as if vestiages of waning support for Junior's Iraq fiasco are drying up, mere dust particles now scattering on the seridipitous winds of war. Following Francis Fukuyama, William F Buckley, Jr. acknowledges and abandons the disaster:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp
Posted by: tipsy at February 25, 2006 10:30 AM (dZV6/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
