# I was no al-Qaeda ally



## QC (Jul 2, 2009)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/i-was-no-alqaeda-ally-saddam-told-fbi-20090702-d6jc.html

*I was no al-Qaeda ally, Saddam told FBI*
Glenn Kessler
July 3, 2009

Interrogations . . . the deposed Iraqi dictator in 2004. Photo: AP
SADDAM HUSSEIN told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews just released. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.

Saddam, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the "fanatic" leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the United States to protect it [Iraq] from threats in the region".

The then US president George Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq six years ago on the grounds that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to international security. At the time Bush administration officials strongly suggested Iraq had significant links to al-Qaeda, which was responsible for the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001.

Saddam, who during the interviews was often defiant and boastful, at one point wistfully acknowledged he should have permitted the United Nations to witness the destruction of Iraq's weapons stockpile after the 1990-91 Gulf War.

The FBI summaries of the interviews - 20 formal interrogations and five "casual conversations" in 2004 - were obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, a non-government research institute, and posted on its website this week. The detailed accounts of the interviews were released with few deletions, though one, a last formal interview on May 1, 2004, was blacked out.

The director of the archive, Thomas Blanton, said he could conceive of no possible national security reason to keep Saddam's conversations with the FBI secret. An FBI spokesman, Paul Bresson, said he could not immediately explain the reason for the redactions.

The 20 formal interviews took place in 2004, between February 7 and May 1, followed by the casual conversations between May 10 and June 28.

Saddam was later transferred to Iraqi custody, and hanged in December 2006.

The Washington Post


----------



## Hush (Jul 2, 2009)

Oh well


----------



## QC (Jul 2, 2009)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm

The link to the archive...a bit more in depth than the above.


----------



## AWP (Jul 2, 2009)

Hussein was genuinely worried about Iran, maybe more so than he was about the US.


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 2, 2009)

Somehow I always figured his last words would be like this...

[YOUTUBE]zNiiHVYnQ6A[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 2, 2009)

Saddam was a knucklehead, to be certain. However, in my observation, no direct threat to us at the time. He could have waited, if he even needed to be dealt with at all...

Meanwhile, our undeniable, sworn and very active enemy is still at large in an ungoverned region of Northern Pakistan. We're so worried about Pakistan's sovereignty that we won't go in after him. 

The whole world's watching us play patty-cake and wondering WTF.

It's disheartening.

When a hardened enemy jumps you, it can take extreme measures to bring them to their knees and put an end to it. Take Japan as an example. They were hard to break. We had to pull out the big guns on them, even flattening entire cities of civilians to press the issue. 

We're not willing to do that any more. In fact, we're now paying peasants for their huts when they're accidentally damaged during a fight, engaging insurgents who are fighting from those huts. I understand we need to be careful, but that's not total war. That's patty-cake. 

How fortunate for Al Qaeda...


----------



## 08steeda (Jul 2, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> Saddam was a knucklehead, to be certain. However, in my observation, no direct threat to us at the time. He could have waited, if he even needed to be dealt with at all...
> 
> Meanwhile, our undeniable, sworn and very active enemy is still at large in an ungoverned region of Northern Pakistan. We're so worried about Pakistan's sovereignty that we won't go in after him.
> 
> ...




   Sawman - Coming from you and knowing your back-ground your observations hold so much more weight! (By the way, Thanks for your dedication and service! It is appreciated!)

We (as a country) lack the stomach to do the hard (correct) thing and instead waste time, money and more importantly our precious service men and woman's lives playing "patty-cake"!

Most everyone on this site has served this country and we are all Patriots here. What seems to be lost on those that have not served is that we do not mind or fear doing our duty. But when it is done half-arsed because of politically correct ROE's and operating with one hand tied behind our backs, we all begin to wonder what the hell our leaders are thinking!!!

If we know where the head of the snake is, then we need to send in the Mongoose to get it - regardless of where they are hiding (In almost plain site - WTF!!)

As Seals and Rangers can attest, we need quick, overwhelming, devastation and complete "Shock and Awe" delivered upon our enemies heads!!! I am talking complete and decisive retribution! And we do not stop shooting until we are out of targets or out of bullets!!!

Live by the sword, die by the sword! 

I feel we should play by their rules not ours! But my heart feels we should do this as honorable as possible - which is huge conflict that I have trouble resolving!

I am all for being the better man or nation, but sometimes you have to be willing to get cut before we can get close enough to finish the job!!! This means we may need to stoop to their level and play as dirty and mean as they do!

Just look at WWII and exploits of our troops and the accomplishments of those who served during that period of history like the OSS.

The Pakistan thing just makes my stomach sour!!! As far as Saddam goes, I am not sure the justification used for Gulf War II was real! But he needed to be removed! The world is a better place without him in it! But we should have completed the job the first time we were there!!

Everyone knew we would have to go back and finish what was started there!


That is all!!!


--08Steeda


----------



## Sigaba (Jul 2, 2009)

A guy on his way to the gallows does a revival of James Cagney in _Angels With Dirty Faces_.  What is accurate and what is not, does even Pat O'Brien know?

FWIW, the Iraqi Perspectives Project, the final report of which is available here presents a slightly different view of the issue of Saddam's WMD programs, and his motives for propagating disinformation about the status of those programs.

:2c:


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 3, 2009)

"I was just misunderstood!!!" :uhh:



> The Anfal campaign began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, and was headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid (a cousin of then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussain). The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, firing squads, and *chemical warefare*. which earned al-Majid the nickname of Chemical Ali.
> 
> Thousands of civilians were killed during the anti-insurgent campaigns stretching from the spring of 1987 through the fall of 1988. The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed almost every Kurdish village in areas of northern Iraq where pro-Iranian insurgents were based and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population. Independent sources estimate 100,000 to more than 150,000 deaths and as many as 100,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans. The campaign has been characterized as genocidal in nature. It is also characterized as gendercidal, because "battle-age" men were the primary targets. According to the Iraqi prosecutors, as many as 180,000 people were killed.


For anyone that doubts the existance of WMD's in Iraq.


----------



## shadoload (Jul 3, 2009)

He brought about his own end, most mad men do.....


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 3, 2009)

shadoload said:


> He brought about his own end, most mad men do.....



Yeah, we like to create our own enemies. Usually, it seems to be about a decade between the time we train/recruit them and the time they turn on us as bitter enemies. Maybe we're bored and that's why we keep doing it and expecting a different result.

Guess where the top Mexican thugs who are assassinating the cops and conducting cross-border raids into Phoenix, AZ got their advanced training? 

Al Qaeda too. 

Yep, we trained them all. Nice one. We just can't seem to break the code. As I write this, we're training every Arabic-speaking schmo we can get our hands on all the various techniques we'd never want them to have. 

Ah, let's just keep training everyone to our highest standards. That way, our sons will have much better-prepared enemies to face in the future. After all, everyone loves a fair fight, right?

Yes, I'm frustrated...


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 3, 2009)

shadoload said:


> He brought about his own end



As do all priapists... They do say power is an aphrodisiac.


----------

