Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The truth, at last. An Iraqi Colonel: "The West Should Thank God Iraq decided NOT to fight."
Telegraph ^

Posted on 12/06/2003 4:21:49 PM PST by Happy2BMe

The truth, at last
(Filed: 07/12/2003)

"The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," Lt Col Dabbagh tells the Telegraph's intrepid Con Coughlin in today's newspaper. "If the army had used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences." The weapons Col Dabbagh was referring to are Saddam Hussein's stocks of chemical and biological warheads. A senior officer at the heart of Saddam's armed forces, the colonel was the conduit of the now-infamous claim in the intelligence dossier which Tony Blair presented to Parliament and to the country: the claim that Saddam had the capacity to unleash weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons, within 45 minutes of ordering their use.

Col Dabbagh told Mr Coughlin that the 45-minute claim was "100 per cent correct". He added that Saddam had hidden huge stocks of arms, including his chemical and biological munitions, at secret sites across Iraq. The colonel's claims must be taken very seriously. He has no reason at all to make them up, or to lie to Mr Coughlin, by whom he was reluctant to be interviewed. Yet it is important to be clear about what Col Dabbagh's testimony does - and what it does not - establish. There can now be little doubt that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons. Col Dabbagh saw those weapons for himself when they were delivered to his unit, and indeed received instructions on how they were to be used.

The means of delivery for those weapons were, however, extremely primitive: they could only be used on the battlefield, where range was very restricted and their accuracy minimal. That seems to have been one reason why they were not used during the war. The American advance was so rapid that the Iraqis could only deploy chemical weapons around Baghdad: that would have killed the Iraqi civilian population - who did not have masks - but not the US soldiers, who did. Even Iraqi officers loyal to Saddam Hussein balked at that.

It is clear that Saddam Hussein did not have the ability to launch missiles which could carry chemical or biological weapons reliably to most sites in Iraq - never mind to places as far away as Cyprus or London. Yet when the Prime Minister presented the intelligence dossier setting out the case for war to Parliament, he described the threat to Britain from Saddam as "current and serious". He allowed the impression to be given that Saddam's ability to launch chemical and biological weapons "which could be activated in 45 minutes" meant that British troops in Cyprus, or even civilians in Britain itself, could be targeted. This was not true, and many of those in the intelligence services knew it was not true. When, however, the newspapers published stories wrongly claiming that British bases in Cyprus were at risk from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, no one in the Government did anything whatever to correct them.

Mr Blair's determination to confront Saddam Hussein was admirable and right, but New Labour's addiction to spin, and an inability to tell the truth without embellishing it, meant that, in making the case for war, he misrepresented to the public the intelligence that he had been given. Dr David Kelly conveyed, albeit in a somewhat mangled and self-serving form, the concern of some members of the intelligence world about that misrepresentation to the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan. The Prime Minister then insisted to Parliament that the BBC had been completely wrong to suggest that there was any unhappiness within the intelligence community about the Government's interpretation of the information given to them about Iraq's WMD capability: but as was revealed during the Hutton Inquiry, there was in fact considerable unhappiness on precisely that point.

Mr Blair's exaggerations and misrepresentations were unnecessary, because there is no doubt that, in the context of the global war on terror, and of al-Qaeda's determination to obtain weapons of mass destruction with which to terrorise the West, Saddam posed a clear threat. Contrary to the claims of those who said it was "inconceivable" that religious fanatics from al-Qaeda could ever make common cause with Saddam and his supporters, precisely that has happened since the Americans liberated Iraq from his grip. There were good reasons for going to war with Iraq. But protecting British bases or cities from missiles launched by Saddam Hussein was not one of them.

"For the preparation of the dossier we had a real concern not to exaggerate the intelligence that we had received," the Prime Minister told Parliament on September 24. Yet he did exaggerate that intelligence. If Lord Hutton cuts to the heart of the matter, Mr Blair will pay a heavy political price for it.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aldabbagh; biologicalweapons; catholiclist; chemicalweapons; dabbagh; gulfwarii; imminentthreat; iraq; iraqaftermath; iraqiofficers; mi5; saddamswmd; wmd; wmdiniraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 last
To: gg188; BartMan1; Nailbiter
Mohammed Atta and Osama Bin Laden delivered 80,000 pounds of flaming jet fuel into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Quibbling over, or minimizing, the ragheads' capability to use the weapons they possess is rather silly.

Within a day or two of 911 I heard on NPR (NPR!) that calculations were being run at the Penatgon with the intention of being able to claim the jets used in the attacks, with their fuel and velocity, as WMD in a world court, if it ever came to that.

As I recall, they did give a number on the program, expressed in tons of TNT.

81 posted on 12/06/2003 8:55:48 PM PST by IncPen (Mind if I tag along?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Klein-Bottle
"I would like to remind people that we have in this country a bio-weapons lab that made highly refined anthrax two years ago, and the FBI still has no idea where it is either. Just because its location is unknown does not mean it doesn’t exist."

True. It could be in an office building on the 39th floor of the empire state building or a cave in the grand canyon.

Good point, thanks.

82 posted on 12/06/2003 9:49:34 PM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing; FairOpinion; Pro-Bush; Sabertooth
Yet another confirmation!!!
83 posted on 12/06/2003 9:56:42 PM PST by JustPiper (Teach the Children to fight Liberalism ! They will be voting in 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Explosive power is calculated using TNT as a factor of one. This is a world standard when determining the strength of an explosive.
84 posted on 12/07/2003 1:56:15 AM PST by U S Army EOD (When the EOD technician screws up, he is always the first to notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Bump for later.
85 posted on 12/07/2003 8:40:44 AM PST by Valin (We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ..
Write letters to the editor. Cite FACTS. It drives liberals NUTS.
86 posted on 12/07/2003 8:42:47 AM PST by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
thanks. took the words right out of my mouth.
87 posted on 12/07/2003 9:15:13 AM PST by King Prout (...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
It would be, if the good Colonel would be so kind as to show us where the giant stockpiles of WMD are.

He said the weapons were hidden by the Fedayeen. He did not know where they were. His men were to wear masks when deploying the weapons, but he did not know if that was because they had chemical or biological agents.

88 posted on 12/07/2003 12:42:47 PM PST by syriacus (Ask Chuck Schumer if he would prefer to do away with lifetime appointments for Federal judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RonF
No, all we have here is the word of an Iraqi officer who may well be simply trying to curry American favor to improve his situation. Let him lead us to some of these weapons, though, and it'll be a different story.

He said the Fedayeen had hidden them. He was told that his men were to use masks if/when they deployed the weapons, but he was not in charge of hiding the weapons.

89 posted on 12/07/2003 12:46:25 PM PST by syriacus (Ask Chuck Schumer if he would prefer to do away with lifetime appointments for Federal judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gothmog
Except for the chemical suits found with some Iraqi frontline units.

This too...Discovery of Chemical Suits Reinforces Concerns,Wednesday, March 26, 2003

CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar — A U.S. general said Wednesday the discovery of 3,000 chemical suits in a central Iraqi hospital that had been used as an Iraqi base raised concern that Saddam Hussein's regime was prepared to use chemical weapons.

"What we found at the hospital reinforces our concern," said Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks. "We are well-prepared to deal with the potential use of chemical weapons."

In addition to the chemical suits, the Central Command reported earlier that Marines found and confiscated gas masks and nerve gas antidote injectors in the hospital near An Nasiriyah.


90 posted on 12/07/2003 12:54:45 PM PST by syriacus (Ask Chuck Schumer if he would prefer to do away with lifetime appointments for Federal judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: syriacus; Shermy; TaxRelief; aristeides
Wasnt that all old stuff, in broken dust covered boxes that looked as though they had been there before Gulf I ?
91 posted on 12/07/2003 3:39:21 PM PST by Betty Jo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Wow - from March 23, thanks. This makes a lot of sense. If we confiscated a good chunk of their protection against WMD, early on, stands to reason they'd be a lot less willing to deploy it.
92 posted on 12/07/2003 4:08:11 PM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Thanks fore the png, Shermy. I never doubted the existence of WMDs in Iraq, but fear that it will be years before the truth comes out.
93 posted on 12/07/2003 9:28:58 PM PST by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jo
Wasnt that all old stuff, in broken dust covered boxes that looked as though they had been there before Gulf I ?

1. Manufacture date may have nothing to do with the usefulness of an item. Nations hold onto useful defense items. We had the same missles and rockets around for years. Did that necessarily make them any less useful? Should nations waste money by manufacturing identical new items, if the old ones are just fine?

2. If weapons and defenses are already in a useful place, they don't get moved. A hospital sounds like a fairly secure and easily reached location. And Saddam's enemies, if they were decent people like us, would probably try to avoid direct hits on hospitals. Were the items at the hospital for years, or moved there around the time the weapons inspectors were in Iraq, or moved there shortly after hostilities began?

3. The condition of the boxes may, or may not, be pertinent. It depends on how they got that way. Boxes don't break themselves.

I'm not curious enough to spend the time to find out if the boxes got broken and dusty shortly before they were found, or if they had been that way for years. Maybe you can help.

Were the boxes broken by fearful Iraqis who thought Saddam would use chemical or biological weapons this year or some time in the past? Were they broken because someone was moving things around? Was the damage and dust from recent hurried activity? Was the cleaning staff on strike?

Were the containers holding antidote broken, too?

94 posted on 12/08/2003 6:08:20 AM PST by syriacus (Ask Chuck Schumer if he would prefer to do away with lifetime appointments for Federal judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
The pix I remember were from several locations. They were all in old broken boxes,covered in dust and such.

I kinda think this was stuff from the Iraq-Iran War,maybe.

We knew those two were gasing each other.

We supported Iraq then.
95 posted on 12/08/2003 9:16:47 PM PST by Betty Jo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jo
Thanks for the explanation.

I guess only time will tell if Saddam (the invader of Kuwait and murderer of his own people) was holding on to "unconventional" weapons after he lost the first gulf War and was supposed to get rid of them.

96 posted on 12/08/2003 9:48:04 PM PST by syriacus (Ask Chuck Schumer if he would prefer to do away with lifetime appointments for Federal judges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson