Hussein’s Intentional Deceit Led to U.S. Invasion of Iraq

August 12th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Al Gore, 2002

In July, the FBI released summaries of more than 20 interviews and casual conversations the agency carried out with former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.  Aside from creating a more robust picture of the conditions that led up to the Iraq War, the discussions flagrantly expose Hussein’s motives in resisting U.S. pressure to cooperate with U.N. inspectors.  Furthermore, they provide an informative lens into his psyche during the months leading up to the invasion.

According to The Washington Times, “The new documents paint a picture of the Iraqi dictator in the final years of his life as arrogant, defiant and often delusional.” At points throughout the interviews, Hussein would often insist that he was still the president of Iraq. He denied ties to the al Qaeda and insisted that “…Iraq does not have orphans walking the streets.”

While the aforementioned elements are offsetting, the most startling revelation was Hussein’s own admission that he purposely misled the world to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  Even more alarming is the motivation he attributes to this self-proclaimed action.  In the interviews, Hussein told officials that, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, he feared a nuclear-equipped Iran more than he did any reaction from the United States.

George Piro, Saddam’s FBI interviewer, wrote, “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.”  Thus, the reason for Hussein’s intended deceit - a trickery that led to intense regional and global instability - was rooted more in political posturing and survival than it was in his narcissistic desire to exponentially increase Iraq’s power in the Middle East.

Importantly, this admission raises a number of red flags.  Since 2003, American liberals have railed against the U.S. government, stating that former President George W. Bush purposefully misled the American people in his affirmations that Iraq possessed WMD.  According to those on the left, Republicans used weapons-based rhetoric as an excuse to initiate military operations in the region.  However, the release of these transcripts devalues this notion.

Teamed with the countless pieces of evidence contradicting Bush’s alleged purposeful deceit, Hussein’s own admission provides a basis for amplified understanding that sheds light on the bluffs and malfeasances that led the U.S. to invade.  It is with this information that a more rational understanding of U.S. operations can be processed.

Considering Hussein’s weapons bluff, it is not surprising that the United States was led astray.  When placing Iraq’s violently aggressive history and non-compliance into context, there was surely reason to believe that the nation was, indeed, illegally cultivating and harboring WMD.  In fact, politicians were candid about their belief that Hussein did possess weapons in the decade preceding the Iraq War.

Prior to the commencement of military operations in 2003, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and others, from both sides of the political aisle, publicly stated Iraq’s threat to the international community.  Following Iraq’s use of chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s and Hussein’s vocal hatred for the West, this caution on behalf of American political minds was fully justified.

However, when the war broke out, liberal politicians were suddenly less vocal about these dangers and, collectively, their tone changed dramatically in the years following its inception.  Nonetheless, their prior warnings about weapons are well documented and corroborate the fears and insinuations that reinforced U.S. rationale in striking Iraq.  On an episode of Larry King in 2003, President Bill Clinton said, “When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.”

In a 2002 speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Al Gore reiterated Hussein’s insatiable lust for weapons when he said, “Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction.”

Hussein’s possession of WMD was universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike, as those individuals with access to privileged information - whether they were former presidents or members of Congress - all reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein either possessed or sought to possess dangerous materials.  This, teamed with Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with the international community when questioning about said materials began, inevitably led to U.S. military action.

The historical record now shows that it was Hussein, not George W. Bush, who manufactured and allowed the fester the idea that Iraq possessed powerful weapons of mass destruction.

Rating: 2.6/5 (19 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!
  • chuck12
    This describes nothing more than a failure to understand the politics, motivations and power posturing in the region. Blaming Saddam is similar to blaming a foreign language for your inability to read it. It is still true that there were no WMD, no connections to Al Quada and no threat to the USA. We got it wrong. The sooner we ask the hard questions about why we got it wrong.
  • TLaCour
    Good analysis. Of course, the other possibility is that they were really there, we only gave Hussein a year's notice we were coming, and an awful lot of convoys went to Syria.
  • Timesobserver
    The blame also lies with the U.N. I've written about this on my blog. After Operation Desert Fox, when then President Clinton ordered an attack on Saddam's WMD plants, the U.N. wanted to go back into Iraq and see if the mission was successful.

    However, Saddam said no and instead of enforcing the laws against Saddam, the U.N. walked away with its tail between its legs.
  • ucworksforneolibs
    stop blocking conservative comments, erase the neolibteam$ blogger$
    do you want me to "camapign until uc is not assymetric$ for neolib terror helpers?
    bho, is not "I have to thank you for I still alive, and walking, it's you to pay the price of helping terror this deep in the war...
    of course you can't understand, well, stay with your $hip till the deepblue end, wtching your rat$ floating... we nowknow you can't stop because of the IMBECILE mindprogramming
  • dowels
    Spc. Michael Kern, an active duty veteran of the occupation of Iraq (where he served from March 2007 to March 2008), is also based at Fort Hood. He is currently getting treatment for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

    Kern turned against both occupations, as he told Truthout, "Once I realized it wasn't a war and was an occupation, and once I realized I was a terrorist to people in Iraq. It wasn't a hard decision. My whole unit feels as I do, but are afraid to speak out because they don't know there is support for those of us who speak out against the war."

    Kern, like Bishop, says that troop morale is very low.

    "I'd say it's at an all-time low - mostly because of Afghanistan now. Nobody knows why we are at either place, and I believe the troops need to know why they are there, or we should pull out, and this is a unanimous feeling, even for folks who are pro-war."


    Billy, why don't you join the army so you can explain to all of our troops why we are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq?
  • aliy
    My three friends that are over there right now and 1 who's set to go back in Jan. are all telling me how wonderful it is. How the REAL Iraqi people are happy to see them.

    Yeah, the countries is a hole, yeah there's trash lining the streets, it's hot, it smells and the food sucks, They go for weeks without brushing their teeth. But when an Iraqi comes up and shakes your hand and says "Thank you" it makes it all worth while. The only people over there that are looking at us as terrorists are the terrorists.

    This is the same thing that's happening HERE. The voice of the PEOPLE is not being listened too. You're not seeing the great things they are doing. The schools they are opening. The advancement in women's rights over there. The great things democracy brought to the region.

    Did you know that before the war was even declared people were trying to surrender. My friend had to give Iraqi's back their guns and tell them "you can't surrender until the war starts".

    So, I understand you have an issue with the war. I understand you think we're all tools but please, please don't call my friends who are putting their lives on the line tools. Don't tell me they are injured and possibly could DIE for nothing. You're the one ruining their morale! It completely diminished the job they do. Which, by the way, is protect your right to say ignorant things and spit on them.

    You have a beef with the way the wars being run, fine, you have a beef with the commander in cheif, fine, but please, please don't insult the warrior when you hate the war. It's a real insult to our troops
  • aliy
    All I'm going to say here is too many people forget how they felt when they woke up on 9/12/2001.
  • geniusconservative
    yes i too woke up afraid for my life and my way of life because the terrorists were so well organized america really doesn't stand a chance.

    you are a huge pussy, aliy. just because you are a coward doesn't mean the rest of america is.
  • aliy
    Wow, THAT was an offense name to call me. Of all the things I've been called on this site, that is by far and away the most offensive thing ever said to me. You are a deplorable person genius and hope you rot in hell. I'm done
  • dowels
    I remember exactly how I felt. I remember thinking, "people are going to react very quickly and irrationally in this vulnerable state, and the aftermath of those reactions could make a bad situation much, much worse." Many people felt as I did and eight years later we see that those premonitions were right on the money. We were used by the Bush administration, and the USA and people worldwide are still feeling the consequences. Revisionists and apologists like Billy will never give up. They will never come to terms with the fact that they were used. And under Obama, we will continue to be used, and the administration of 2012 will continue the cycle. It will go on until we make it stop, which means coming to the realization that neither republicans nor democrats are acting on the majority's behalf.

    I fail to see the connection between 9/11/01 and Iraq. Please enlighten me.
  • joe
    You have got to be kidding me. Actually, the most laughable part of this story is the reference to "liberal politicians". Can you please name some of these "liberal politicians"? You don't see that democrats and republicans work together? You haven't figured out that all of these old rich families work together for the benefit of themselves, large corporations, other rich families, etc? You believe that we invaded Iraq to rid the world of saddam and the nuclear weapons that weapons inspectors confirmed, multiple times, did not exist? I refuse to believe that you are that stupid. You clearly have an agenda, and that agenda is not the least bit concerned with truth.
  • Liem
    If Hussein was smart enough to fool the United States, President Bush, the Republican idiots, and the cowardly Democrats were stupid enough to fall for it. It doesn't matter who was to blame for misleading us, but the original UN weapon inspectors were 100% right that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

    But even now, Republicans still sit on their high horse and think they can offer legitimate solutions to today's problems.
blog comments powered by Disqus