Posted on 02/18/2006 8:55:06 PM PST by cyberdasher
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein told his Cabinet in the mid-1990s that the U.S. would fall victim to terrorists possessing weapons of mass destruction but that Iraq would not be involved, tapes released Saturday at an intelligence summit reveal.
Hussein also can be heard speaking with high-ranking Iraqi officials about deceiving United Nations inspectors looking into Iraq's weapons program, which his son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, oversaw.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I LOVE how the same media which has accused our Vice President of being drunk with NO evidence makes sure to emphasize that Hussein said he wouldn't be involved. LOL!
OK, let's bring W up on charges for having his sons killed!
The bad thing about these tapes is that syntax will be lost in the translation. Clearly when taken in context he was saying that Iraq cannot be seen to be involved. Also said a State cannot do this. The MSM will have a field day cherry picking (to use one of their favorite expressions) these quotes.
...cannot be seen to be involved...
I can see the MSM using this as a definitive policy statement. I can't see it a definitive policy statement though. It's not.
exactly...i've heard that the full translation in context shows that Saddam is implying or saying that he might work through third-party agents, thus-formally-Iraq would not be responsible.
so typical of the MSM that when they're finally forced to give ground to the truth, they find a way to misrepresent it and continue to promote their false myth.
isn't there some quote to the effect of 'the truth is a shape with a hundred facets...each facet is a lie when focused on individually, while the truth is taking in the entire shape.'
I thought they are still analyzing Cheney's drunken, womanizing shooting spree in Texas! Gee! Is CNN sober now?
I'd not heard that analogy before, but it is a nice one. Thanks.
The syntax is lost in the translation but not the meaning. The point gets across between any two people speaking different languages. And everybody knows Iraq was a Motel 6 for terrorists over many years.
On all of these points you and I can agree. I still believe the MSM will use bits and pieces taken out of context to try to portray a completely different meaning than that which existed.
It doesn't matter what the MSM does anymore. Facts are facts. And normal people do not trust the MSM anymore. Only dummies do and they are either dying off or don't care.
"Plausible deniablity"
That's not quite what was said, at least according to the translation I heard. That said the terrorism would not come from Iraq, not that Iraq would not he involved. I took that to mean that the blame would not be put onto Iraq.
I was under the impression that the MSM "edited" the interview and that Saddam Hussein spoke of WMDs and that Iraq would use them against the U.S.
He also says:
"We could gas the Americans... but it would be wrong..."
Yes, and their catch phrase was, "We'll leave a light on for you......at Salam Pak."
This sentence, by which the MSM seems to set such great store, reveals that, at a minimum, Saddam had tapped into the emerging jihadi grapevine. It also shows, as do other portions of the taped conversations, that Saddam was telling his goons everything he thought they needed to know, but not necessarily everything that he knew. The MSM, desperately clinging to their mantra that there was "no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda", may be comforted by the "fact" that Saddam tried to "warn the West" (I doubt that you'll find anyone in the Clinton or Bush Administrations who will acknowledge such a "warning"), but one wonders what operational details of future terrorist operations Saddam may have received, but not passed along.
It's Salman Pak. That's where they were trained on taking over airplanes.
Amazing that they actually try to tie this story to the publication of the Danish cartoons. These people are a trip.
Usama has always been a delivery boy with structures and explosives his main gig..from the Embassies, to the Cole, the 1993 hit on the Twin Towers, 9-11 and all his crap terrorists operating in Iraq. (And let's not forget Oklahoma City.)That's what Usama does....blows things up.
Anyone who says that Saddam would not provide WMD to Usama is a fool.
Unless someone can prove otherwise, Anthrax was a mere testing ground for how Saddam can participate. All he had to do was to provide Usama with a minimal amount of the cra* and see what it will do. I'd say the monetary damage of Anthrax was sufficient to amuse Saddam. He never expected a high death count....just a view at how we would operate.
My best guess is that the next attack will be totally aimed at DC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.