Posted on 03/11/2006 4:17:27 PM PST by RtWngr
Excerpt from article: "Ever vigilant about coups and fearful of revolt, Mr. Hussein was deeply distrustful of his own commanders and soldiers, the documents show. He made crucial decisions himself, relied on his sons for military counsel and imposed security measures that had the effect of hobbling his forces. He did this in several ways:
* The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
How reliable is this?
It's the New York Times (The ones that brought us Jason Blair) not very, in my humble opinion.
This will make for some interesting reading 10-15 years down the line when all of the information about the Iraqi campaign is released by the DoD.
I found it : )
"Overseen by the Joint Forces Command, an unclassified version of the study is to be made public soon. A classified version was prepared in April 2005. Titled "Iraqi Perspectives on Operation Iraqi Freedom, Major Combat Operations," the study shows that Mr. Hussein discounted the possibility of a full..."
Am I reading this correctly, that these authors had access to a classified report??!
They have access to an unclassified version. I guess we have to wait for it to be released.
The NY Times is always very biased- but they do have very talented reporters and great access- it's a shame that they can't be given much trust- very interesting article- I believe most of it.
On the whole, it looks like Colin Powell's presentation was a misinterpretation of events, and a rather understandable one at that. Saddam was trying to play both sides - convincing the U.N. he was clean while making his neighbors believe he was still packing. No wonder Kerry liked him so much. The next Republican presidential candidate should feel free to point out that the route suggested by the U.N. lovers was playing right into Saddam's hand. The sanctions would have to be dropped when the inspections came up empty and Saddam would have been free to resume WMD development - including nukes.
It's a report of what the Iraqi general said, and it's in the New York Times. Therefore, it's not reliable at all. It's just interesting. I STILL believe there were WMDs, Saddam wouldn't give them up, it's not in his nature.
Look at the headline again, pretending that you get all your info from the MSM this time. I believe the subtext is clearly, "Hussein is smarter than Bush. Bush, because he [we've told you] 'had no plan', therefore [we have convinced you] 'didn't know' that Iraq would become the mess that [we've convinced you] it is today. But look: Hussein did. Another point for 'leaving Hussein in power would have been better'".
I'm pretty sure that's the angle the headline-writer tried to put on this story, anyway. You guys are screwing up their careful spin by thinking more for yourselves than you were supposed to. Shame.
bttt
That's one way to look at the headline.
I found it rather comical that the headline mentions Iraqi unrest as the top threat, and then goes on to say that everything that Saddam did is because of Iraq's fear of Iran. Only a few paragraphs mention the Iraqi unrest.
"I believe most of it."
You can't be a serious capitalist, Serious Capitalist, if you believe most of ANYTHING the New York Times publishes.
(By the way, would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? I have the ownership papers for it, and I can get you a good price on it.)
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.