Tom Brokaw: President Clinton Thought Saddam Hussein Had WMD
Appearing as a guest on Wednesday's Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN, former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw recounted some of the rationale behind why the Bush administration believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq, even noting that President Clinton had also believed in the presence of WMD. (Video below)
Brokaw related evidence that the Iraqi dictator had tried to deceive Iran into believing he possessed WMD, and noted that the people of Iraq lived in "sheer terror" and were afraid to talk to the NBC anchor when he visited the country during Saddam Hussein's reign.
After host Piers Morgan asked Brokaw about the difference between America's approach to the war effort in Libya versus its more direct invasion of Iraq, Brokaw noted that a distinction between what the U.S. faced in the two countries was that Saddam Hussein "had the iron fist over that entire country." Brokaw:
Saddam Hussein really had the iron fist over that entire country, had an enormous military that was there. I was in Iraq several times before the war began, and the sheer terror of people in the streets of Iraq afraid to talk to you in any way because they didn't know whether they would be eliminated and the kind of terror techniques that he unleashed on people, the most innocent people in Iraq for the smallest, slight however he perceived it. So those are two different circumstances.
The former NBC anchor went on to recount the reasons people believed Iraq had WMD:
A lot of people believed that he did have weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton did, in fact. I was over there with the U.N. weapons inspector and it was not clear. I would fly over later acres and acres and miles and miles of what they call igloos. These are ammunition storage depots, and General Petraeus said to me one day, "We don't know what's in there." Well, it turns out not much because he was trying to kind of rope a dope Iran, trying to persuade Iran that he had weapons of mass destruction. And my own belief is that some of his colonels generated a lot of paper that indicated they had weapons, they were getting money from him, and some of that money may be stored away somewhere.
Below is a trancript of the relevant exchange from the Wednesday, December 14, Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN:
PIERS MORGAN: I mean, certainly Libya was a very, very interesting exercise in the way that America could do these kind of wars, for want of a better phrase, going forward, in the sense that they had a bad guy who'd run a bad regime as Saddam Hussein had done for decades. But rather than go all guns blazing leading the international coalition forces, the Americans took a backseat, and no American soldiers lost their lives. Gaddafi was taken out. What do you think about the changing manner in which American military is now deploying itself?
TOM BROKAW: That was an easier call for the involvement of the American military as part of a NATO force. Primarily it was air power and some strategic and tactical advice on the ground because there had been an uprising against Gaddafi that was indigenous, that had started in that country.
We didn't have that in Iraq. Saddam Hussein really had the iron fist over that entire country, had an enormous military that was there. I was in Iraq several times before the war began, and the sheer terror of people in the streets of Iraq afraid to talk to you in any way because they didn't know whether they would be eliminated and the kind of terror techniques that he unleashed on people, the most innocent people in Iraq for the smallest, slight however he perceived it. So those are two different circumstances.
A lot of people believed that he did have weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton did, in fact. I was over there with the U.N. weapons inspector and it was not clear. I would fly over later acres and acres and miles and miles of what they call igloos. These are ammunition storage depots, and General Petraeus said to me one day, "We don't know what's in there." Well, it turns out not much because he was trying to kind of rope a dope Iran, trying to persuade Iran that he had weapons of mass destruction. And my own belief is that some of his colonels generated a lot of paper that indicated they had weapons, they were getting money from him, and some of that money may be stored away somewhere.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Brokejaw 'splains things to Piers Plowman
Submitted by CO2Maker on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:10am.
I read an article back in the late 90s or early 00s, I think in the Atlantic, that speculated on the WMDs that were either in or not in Iraq. The writer wondered why Hussein played a cat-and-mouse game with the weapons inspectors if Iraq really did not have WMDs. What's the point of that, he asked. All the evasiveness got Hussein were more sanctions and the suspicion of the rest of the world.
Suppose that the people in charge of the nuclear weapons program had not made any advances in their work? What would the general responsible for nuclear weapons do, go to Hussein and disappoint him? He'd end up in a wood chipper before the sun set. Noooo, not going to do that. The writer thought the generals chose to dodge, prevaricate, and outright lie and tell Hussein things were moving ahead, but slowly because this is nuclear science, after all. And besides, they had to move stuff around because of all those damned UN inspectors.
Upshot: Iraq did NOT have WMDs, but Hussein thought they did—or were very close—so he postured and threatened as if he did.
Then, BAM, he got his country invaded, no weapons were found, and a new bumper sticker was born ("Bush lied, people died").
I was over there in 1998 and in 2000
Submitted by NavyBuckeye on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:30am.
They may have not been Nuclear but I damn well know we were repeatedly bombing weapons caravans heading towards Syria. We would get the sat images, launch planes with live ammo...poof no more weapons.
Were they WMD's, I don't know but they were not small arms that is for sure. And he did have nerve gas and other non nuclear massively destructive weapons.
Bush didn't lie, neither did Clinton.
many people (not you) forget what wmd means
Submitted by dmacleo on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:45am.
and key in on nukes.
those biological and chemical weapons are also part of the NBC (nuke/biological/chemical) WMD triad.
huh...nbc ....fitting.
you may well have seen wmd's right then.
precisely NB and dm
Submitted by mom_rox on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 9:10am.
Hussein not only had WMD, but had used them on his citizens. the power of language: Upon reflection, instead of the Bush Administration saying that we were in search of WMD, they should have said that we were in search of "additional WMD".
agree
Submitted by dmacleo on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:04am.
very good point, I had never thought of that. it may be too late but I will use that from now on.
Absolutely
Submitted by KornKing on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:56am.
The Bush administration was focused on the safety of the US, while the lapdogs were focused on making Bush out to be a liar.
ALL The Democrats Believed It. Here's The Proof
Submitted by Winghunter on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:27am.
Democrats Letters and Statements On WMDs When Clinton Was Still In Office http://bit.ly/gZFlwJ
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
http://bit.ly/gZFlwJ
Not just Clinton...
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:32am.
But Israel, England, France, Germany, Russia AND the United Nations all believed Hussein had these weapons. For the most part, he did. There were things found in Iraq that had been banned by the United Nations resolutions.
And let's not forget Saddam's generals
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 9:43am.
Debriefs of Iraqi generals after the fall of Baghdad indicate that his generals believed that they had WMD and didn't understand why Saddam hadn't employed them yet.
Three key factors played into our assessment of Iraq's WMD capacity
1) Iraq had used chemical weapons before on the Iranian army and the Iraqi people
2) Saddam maintained after Desert Storm that he still had WMD
3) Iraqi authorities actively resisted and interfered with UN inspectors' attempts to accoount for the presence or absence of WMD. In addition to denying access to research and possible production facilities, the Iraqis couldn't account for some of the WMD they themselves had earlier claimed to possess.
Thanks, Brokaw
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:44am.
Tom, is this a farewell tour before putting yourself out to pasture, or do you really believe the MSM will invite you back on after rubbing their noses in the truth?
my thoughts exactly Cool -->
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:39am.
Amazing how the msm can keep myths alive more than truth. We need a version of Mythbusters on all the msm follies.. wait isn't that what we do here? Still a show would be great, need a "jamie' and 'adam' type to 'blow away' the libs fantasies.
btw: a little finger numb from your 'ahem' conversation with liblilies?
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Not to worry
Submitted by KornKing on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:06am.
It's on Piers Morgan's show for crying out loud. Nobody saw it, so "No harm, no foul"
What a shock?
Submitted by FaulknerFan on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:45am.
Opps! This didn't go the way ole PM wanted, did it?
Bush's rehabilitation
Submitted by octavioj on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:53am.
It is happening faster than I thought it would. Did he make kistakes? Yes but the left will be sorry for what they did for political gain as it enboldened other countries to accelerate whatever programs they have. We are all worse of because of that.
And Bush gave a very Clintions-esque 2003 SOTU speech
Submitted by merly1 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 9:26am.
As I remember it, Bush time and again in the 2003 speech cited old data on Saddam's weapons status, then used a tagline similiar to "He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. " It made NO claims of what he currently had.
The media wont acknowledge it, but the 2003 SOTU definitely hedged its bets, and simply pointed out the obvious--->the world couldnt trust the Husseins going forward in the post 911 world.
Apples and Cadillacs
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 9:48am.
Morgan's comparison of the Iraq and Libya wars is absurd on its face, and reveals (once again) how shallow he and his peers are on the news issues they report on with an aire of expertise.
At least Brokaw had enough sense to straighten him out (if he listened).
Ahem.
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:01am.
A friend of mine was in Ramadi during 2003. He told me that he himself loaded 55 gallon drum after 55 gallon drum of "pesticide" from ammo cache after ammo cache.
Clinton was convinced that Saddam had managed to declare and then claim as destroyed - absent proof of destruction- some 500 binary artillery shells capable of chemical weapon delivery.
Clinton was right about that.
Some 500 binary shells were recovered from across Iraq, with at least one incident of the munitions being fabricated into an IED. Luckily, the binary nature of the munition didn't function when used in that way and damage caused was minimal, but I am sure the Danish soldiers (IIRC) involved would question my use of the word minimal there.
Saddam was proven to have the precursors to a covert biological weapons program.
The UN considers a hand grenade to be a WMD and even our statutes see people charged with WMD when they fabricate something as simple as a pipe bomb. Saddam had literally millions of those WMDs.
Tons of yellow cake uranium, when put alongside the centrifuge and bomb plans found buried in a rose garden proves he had every intention of picking up the process the instant pressure was off.
To this day, I am convinced that what Gadaffi turned over to W had Saddam's fingerprints all over it, quite possibly ownership. And then there is all that oil that Saddam was sending to Syria under nefarious circumstances. Put that alongside the truck convoys witnessed by sat photos training to Syria, add to it that Syria refused to allow inspectors to see what went there on those trucks and then the Israelis destroying Syrian infrastructure without so much as a peep at the UN.......recalling the missile engines and bodies recovered in other countries' scrap yards and there is no doubt that Saddam was guilty just like 1441 declared.
Let us not forget his payments to Palestinian terrorists for shootings and bombings. Interesting isn't it that daily bus and business bombings in Israel stopped the instant Saddam was dealt with. And then there is that 300 grand he gave to Ayman Al Zawahiri for his vacation to Afghanistan......
Just recently, Condi Rice made reference to a certain 300 grand that "likely financed" 9-11. Gee, what a "coincidence".
It is my deepest hope that someday, someday, the real truth will be told about all of it. Moreso, that people will actually accept the truth as it is.
Saddam had to go and we have to fight back in this war of cultures. For if we do not, we will perish and so too will Liberty itself along with it.
WMD in Iraq
Submitted by jonota on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:01am.
There absolutely WAS WMD in Iraq. As a counterintelligence unit member of mine says, unless the liberals sent to "find" the WMD came across a standing nuclear device, complete with counting down timer or Iraqi officer holding a detonator, they were bound and determined to "not find" any WMD. As stated above, by Democratic officials, Iraq had and used WMD numerous times in the past, and up until the late 90's continued to report internationally that it held large stores of WMD. Up to the invasion, dialogue had deteriorated such that he was no longer reporting what he did or did not have, instead saying "we destroyed it" without any proof of such.
There was a VERY large report put out (Dolfur report sp?), whose pages were picked apart and shown that we proved, in visual and verbal detail, that they did indeed have WMD and programs for additional WMD development. This was with less than 1% of all identified weapons stashes having been gone through. Then, in the executive summary of that same report, it was whitewashed to say that there was no WMD. I guess they figured no one would actually read the 1800ish pages of the report that said very plainly otherwise.
Lastly, we did NOT go to Iraq for the WMD. The resolution, passed by CONGRESS (Bush did NOT invade all by his lonesome), with bipartisan support (a lot of it), didn't even mention WMD. Another game of "gotcha" invented by the Democrats and their water carriers in the media.
who voted for the war.
Submitted by USA4freedom on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:20am.
Let me post who voted for the war because it seems everyone on the left always forgets...
Max Baucus (D, MT)
Evan Bayh D,IN)
JOE BIDEN (D-, De)
John Breaux (D, La)
Maria Cantwell (D, Wa)
Jean Carnahan (D, MO)
Tom Carper (D, DE)
Max Cleland (D, Ga)
HILLARY CLINTON (D, NY)
Tom Daschle (D, SD)
Christopher Dodd (D, CT)
Byron Dorgan (D, ND)
JOHN EDWARDS (D, NC)
DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D, Ca)
Tom Harkin (D, Ia)
Fritz Hollings (D, SC)
Tim Johnson (D,SD)
JOHN KERRY (D, MA)
Mary Landrieu (D, La)
Joe Lieberman (D, CT)
Blanche Lincoln (D,AR)
Zell Miller (D, GA)
Bill Nelson (D FL)
Ben Nelson (D,NE)
HARRY REID (D, NV)
Jay Rockefeller (D WV)
CHUCK SCHUMER (D, NY)
Robert Torricelli (D- NJ)
Patrick J. Kennedy (D, RI)
So in this group, you have the current sitting VP.
The current Senate Majority Leader.
One former Senate Majority leader
The current Sec of State and former 1st Lady.
Member of the Select Committee on Intelligence..
(you know, the people that see ALL... OF... THE... INTELLIGENCE..)
3 former Presidential candidates
and a Kennedy, and a partridge in a Pear Tree..
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, the Republican party.
Outstanding.............
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:25am.
I am going to "borrow" your broken down list to HAMMER the liberals that blog on various sites that "Bush lied and people died".................
Shoving the Dems own quotes up their a&&es hasn't worked, but your list and added commentary will suffice in smacking them down a bit more.
EXCELLENT job.
My favorite QUOTE from a Democrat who worked for Clinton and I respect and believe him 100 percent:
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in
April of 2003
Yes Clinton thought he had
Submitted by Semus on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:43am.
Yes Clinton thought he had them, many thought he had them, and he did have them.
Saddam did have them and many were found.
Submitted by FAQs on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 12:38pm.
I have a FOIA report that says over 4,000 WMDs were found in Iraq. Nobody that I can find is interested in reporting that, however, including conservative outlets. I suppose it is partially fear of having an article picked apart and misrepresented and then further scrutinized again by others. (Some of those WMDs were empty and others were filled.) There were other reasons for going to war with Iraq and WMD often gets too much attention and is incorrectly labeled as the only reason. And, partially, it is because those journalists might not want to distract from the failure that is Barack Obama. And, also, I'm beginning to suspect that very few people really care anymore.
WMD
Submitted by Jersey Girl on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:36pm.
There were stories at the time that hundreds of trucks were seen leaving Iraq and arriving in Syria.
This may well be why Odummy is so timid when it comes to pressuring Syria.
Hopefully we have covert operators keeping track of these weapons.
Jersey Girl , Like this Photo...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:06pm.
Hundreds of trucks with WMD's viewed from space, escaping into Syria.
Here is a special one.
You Didn't Build That.
Hopefully we have covert operators keeping track of these weapon
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:56pm.
Hopefully we have covert operators keeping track of these weapons.
Israel knows where they are in Syria (and here)...they have been keeping an eye on them. You can bet that any movement towards using/assembly or otherwise threatening actions would have been dealt with in their usual way.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
500 tons of yellow cake uranium
Submitted by VT Con Man on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:10pm.
were shipped out of Iraq. Why is this ignored, in the WMD debate?
But of course NONE of it came from Africa, thanks to the investigative work of a fine statesman(sarc)
just a hunch
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:25pm.
but i believe they had it legally and we knew about it?
Baby Milk Factory
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:37pm.
Anyone remember that one from Gulf War I ? They gave primetime coverage to that handwritten sign.
If the MSM doesn't see a wharehouse sign in English saying "WMD Storage", they will keep repeating the "No WMDs found" talking point.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Factories
Submitted by miss911ninja on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:54pm.
Yes. And wasn't there also an "aspirin factory?"
And all in English. Silly
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:03pm.
And all in English. Silly me thinking that Arabic was the official language in Iraq. ;-)
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Saddam Hussein Certainly Had All of the Parts For WMD.
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:23pm.
Five Busloads of Engineers for three years and Saddam Hussein would have had the bomb, the plague and the chemical cloud weapons.
If someone kept score of MSM lies I think we would find that most "News" organizations are liars on most days.
So . . what was Brokaw reporting in July 2003?
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:36pm.
Now, I'm really curious (maybe NB will check this out).
It's really nice for Tom Brokaw to come out now (rather reminds me of CNN's Eason Jordan) and tell us what they didn't really want to express to us all these years when this media was going 24/7 attempting to discredit everything about Bush and the war.
On July 22, 2003 (News was just out that American forces had killed Saddam Hussein's sons), former President Bill Clinton appeared on Larry King Live (w/ Bob Dole) and offered up the following. It's a little excerpted - but context is intact, and fair):
I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . of biological and chemical weapons. . . And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?
We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way.
Tom Brokaw was still NBC's nightly news anchor (thru 2004). Did Brokaw report this? Each time that NBC had on the typical "Bush lied" Democrats and liberal pundits, did Tom Brokaw caution them - "well, you do understand, you're calling President Clinton a liar, as well."
Did Tom Brokaw lead a conversation with, "You know, President Clinton defended President Bush on the WMD issue, and on those 16 words, and he also spoke out like a statesman with his view that we should all stand together behind President Bush and support the effort to "build Iraq as a Democracy?"
Did Tom Brokaw run out and get President Clinton on for an interview, where the American people were privy to what the leader of the other side deeply felt and wanted to offer up?
Of course not. Same for the rest of our national MSM. They were focused on damaging President Bush and the Republicans, and they put that agenda in front of humanity.
Let's recall that in this moment in time - July 2003 - Saddam had fallen, and Iraq was falling into chaos. The US had become terribly divided and the rhetoric here at home was bitter. Al Qaeda was paying close attention and moved into Iraq with a plan to use this set as the battlefield, as were the radicals in Iraq. Al Qaeda (as do the radicals in Egypt today) wanted to build their Caliphate.
It's my view - that had Brokaw (NBC), and other outlets (including Fox), headlined Clinton's rather bold presentation -- put the views on the national stage for daily debate -- that the radicals in Iraq would not have been so emboldened. Had they seen a united America, as Clinton was offering up, it is my view that perhaps history might have been written differently - that tens of thousands people may not have died. A divided US provided strength for the terror that followed. It was an open invite.
Here's my current search of Google News, for the entire month of July 2003, for Clinton + "Larry King" + Iraq.
Not much there, folks. Highlights follow:
For example - here's the takeaway at CBS (on-line. I'm sure it wasn't on the evening news):
Former President Clinton suggests now that the Bush administration has acknowledged the erroneous reference in the State of the Union speech, it's time to move on. Speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live," Mr. Clinton says the focus should be on ending tensions in Iraq.
Nothing about his view on WMD's, nor his call for supporting the effort - just "ending tensions, and plugging that Bush admitted he was wrong. What? Talk about missing the message.
CNN did a little better, but they still completely missed the thrust - the context - of Clinton's words:
Clinton's advice to Democrats falls flat
What are the chances Democrats will follow the advice of former President Clinton and back off their criticism of the Bush administration's pre-war claim about Iraq's nuclear ambitions?
How about slim to none.
No kidding; however, Clinton's advice wasn't just to Democrats, it was a plea to the country - for civility and for an intellectual dialog on what was best; and, he was speaking to the national and world's media as well.
Just what were the chances that the MSM would follow the advice of former President Clinton and back off their criticism of Bush?
How about slim to none.
What was the chance that on every one of the thousands of occasions where the "Bush lied" claims were made, that they'd properly shut it down - saying, "let's drop it with that baseless and damaging misrepresentation of that meaningless rhetoric."
Our national media was out to censor Clinton's words - the Clinton that they so love and respect - so that the broad public might continue to only hear that Bush lied, and was going it alone. This served the MSM's agenda. Heck, this was their agenda.
II felt at the time - still do - that President Bush (perhaps he didn't read about it either) did not invite Clinton to the White House in that moment, and offer up to the nation and to the world, a joint press conference on such critically important shared views, and that cost him dearly, as well.
The question lies on the table for NBC and Tom Brokaw. Why were your views on the WMD issue and why was President Clinton's plea to America and the world, not a large part of your news and discussions.
You failed in your job - and people died.
Your thoughts?
(;~> gary
Last summer the current
Submitted by shirtsbyeric on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:59am.
Last summer the current administration stated that Libya had WMDs.