Military Review

Ex-CIA official exposed Washington’s myths about Saddam Hussein

40
Former CIA officer John Nixon, in his Daily Mail article, spoke about the interrogations of Saddam Hussein after his arrest. Article leads RIA News.


Ex-CIA official exposed Washington’s myths about Saddam Hussein


Saddam Hussein was detained by 13 Americans on December 2003. It was John Nixon who identified the Iraqi leader as a bearded man because he knew the location of the tattoos and scars on his body.

Many data of American intelligence about Hussein turned out to be false. “During interrogation, Hussein called the Americans“ ignorant hooligans ”who did not understand Iraq and were determined to destroy him. He denied his involvement in Al-Qaeda (banned in the Russian Federation) and the presence in Iraq weapons mass destruction ", - the author writes.

“Iraq is not a country of terrorists. We have no ties with bin Laden, nor weapons of mass destruction. We do not threaten our neighbors, ”he quotes the Iraqi leader.

Saddam Hussein about the September 11 attacks in the USA: “Look who participated in this, from what countries were they (the terrorists)? Saudi Arabia. And their leader, Mohammed Atta, he was an Iraqi? No, Egyptian. So why do you think that I have to do with this? "

The US Senate only in 2006 g recognized that the Iraqi government was not involved in the terrorist attacks in New York.

Moreover, Nixon writes, "Hussein believed that the September 11 tragedy would allow Iraq and the United States to unite to fight the radicals." But "how was he wrong," he notes.

In February, 2003 Mr. Hussein signed a decree banning the importation and production of weapons of mass destruction on its territory. But this step was useless: "In March, Bush put forward an ultimatum to Hussein and suggested that he voluntarily leave Iraq within 48 hours, otherwise the American troops would begin a military operation in the country." Saddam refused.

“We never thought about using weapons of mass destruction. This has not been discussed. Use chemical weapons against the whole world? Is there anyone who could do this? ”, The Iraqi leader said during the interrogation.

Hearing the sounds of explosions behind the wall, Hussein understood that things were not going well for the Americans. “It won't work out for you.” You will understand that it is not easy to govern Iraq, ”he warned, adding that the Americans“ do not understand the language, stories, the thinking and even the climate of his country. "

“History has shown that he was right,” the author stated.

“George Bush, however, heard only what he wanted to hear. The US President placed the blame on the mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the special services, ”he writes.

“Are you sure that Saddam didn’t say where these anthrax ampoules are doing?” Bush asked Nixon at 2007 in the White House. The audience laughed. A CIA official found this laughter inappropriate, because "by that time, the United States had lost more than four thousand servicemen in Iraq."

“Looking back, the thought of aging and disengaged Saddam Hussein in power seems almost encouraging compared to the vain efforts of our military and the rise of the Islamic State (organization banned in Russia), not to mention 2,5 trillion dollars spent on building a new Iraq, ”Nixon summed up.
Photos used:
Fotobank / Getty Images
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Stanislav 1978
    Stanislav 1978 19 December 2016 12: 24
    25
    Saddam Hussein with his mythical weapons of mass destruction was only a pretext for the invasion, and Iraq became a platform for the creation of radical groups and preparations for the "Arab Spring". So there was no mistake on the part of the states, they got what they wanted.
    1. cniza
      cniza 19 December 2016 12: 32
      +5
      The Americans used firewood, and now they will not even apologize, however, as always.
      1. Stanislav 1978
        Stanislav 1978 19 December 2016 12: 34
        +5
        Quote: cniza
        ... and now they won’t even apologize ...

        And for what they will apologize, they are exceptional, which implies that they are always right.
        1. Marksman
          Marksman 19 December 2016 12: 45
          +2
          Remind, please, which companies received the rights to develop oil after the capture of Iraq?
          1. Stanislav 1978
            Stanislav 1978 19 December 2016 13: 02
            +4
            ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Italian concern ENI in consortium with American Occidental Petroleum and South Korean Kogas, China National Petroleum and Gas Corp (CNPC, China National Petroleum Corporation), Turkish Petroleum.
            From Russian LUKOIL, Gazprom Neft, Bashneft
            What I found whipped up. This is all on the Internet.

            More on TASS:
            http://tass.ru/info/1274000
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana 19 December 2016 13: 17
              +6
              After the capture of Hussein, the media also wrote all sorts of dirt about his family and relatives close to him, including the fact that his "white" wife allegedly lived with him forcibly and, in general, about sexual violence among Hussein's relatives against his stepdaughter - stepdaughter - from his beloved European wife (journalist by profession)
              Well what was it like to die on the gallows of Hussein, absolutely loyal to the USA ?!
              In my opinion, he then admitted no guilt for himself to the United States.
              The media also did not write about what happened to his beloved European wife, who allegedly also refused him ..
              1. murriou
                murriou 19 December 2016 13: 27
                13
                Saddam was not loyal to the USA, let alone "absolutely".
                He tried to make his country independent, incl. industrially developed.
                This is a terrible sin number one.

                He did not allow Americans to paw on Iraqi oil and other natural resources.
                Terrible sin number two.

                He tried to make settlements not only in dollars, to establish direct trade relations with those with whom it was profitable for his country, to maintain contacts with China and the USSR.
                Terrible sin number three.

                Everything else that proshtatovskie mass media hung on to him was nothing.
                But any one of these three deadly sins is enough.
                1. Tatyana
                  Tatyana 19 December 2016 13: 40
                  +5
                  murriou
                  Saddam was not loyal to the USA, let alone "absolutely".
                  That's right, you said, dear murriou, but you didn’t take into account only one thing, ORIGINALLY these actions of Hussein were coordinated by him with the USA !!!
                  Hussein fell because of the showdown of internal forces in the United States itself. Hussein, apparently, "put" on the wrong American grouping - and lost. In the United States, there was no and there is no unity "at the top". We can now clearly see this from the elected Trump.
                  1. murriou
                    murriou 19 December 2016 19: 25
                    0
                    When Iraq attacked Kuwait, Saddam also thought that his actions were coordinated with the United States. As a result, he got on the fraud and received 12 years of sanctions, after which his weakened country was crushed by direct armed aggression on an openly false pretext.
                    1. Tatyana
                      Tatyana 20 December 2016 05: 25
                      0
                      murriou
                      When Iraq attacked Kuwait, Saddam also thought that his actions were coordinated with the United States.

                      Dear murriou! You have a typo here, I guess. Not Kuwait, but Iran did you mean?
                      But, firstly, the United States did support Iraq in its war with Iran.
                      In the 1979 year, an Islamic revolution took place in Iran that brought to power Ayatollah Khomeini, a fierce opponent of the United States and the Soviet Union.
                      The United States, extremely dissatisfied with such a development of events that weakened their influence in the Middle East, began to look for a force that could be directed against Iran.
                      Such a force was Iraq led by the energetic leader Saddam Hussein. Iran actively supported Shiite groups operating in Iraq, and Iraq filed territorial claims against Iran. 22 September 1980 year, the Iraqi army began the invasion.
                      The United States supported Iraq by providing intelligence to Saddam Hussein, providing loans, and supplying weapons and even materials for creating chemical weapons.

                      Secondly. Kuwait had close ties with the United States, which the Iraqi leader was well aware of.
                      The main question is why did Saddam Hussein decide to attack Kuwait?
                      Serious analysts believe that the head of Iraq was convinced that no tough response would come from Washington.
                      This could be attributed to the self-confidence of Saddam Hussein, if not for the rather foggy and vague position of Washington during the period of aggravation of the situation between Iraq and Kuwait. Despite the fact that the Iraqi leader spoke quite transparently about his intentions, the United States did not pull him.
                      25 July 1990, Saddam Hussein met with US Ambassador April Glaspi. And it was precisely after this meeting that Saddam Hussein was sure that now no one and nothing would hinder him.
                      Hussein's ambitions were very convenient for Washington. Strengthening the military presence in the oil-rich region, near the borders of Iran, the US military strategists considered necessary. However, the deployment of large military forces without good reason could provoke indignation among the Arab countries, which already did not favor the Americans.
                      Another thing is military intervention in order to restore justice and suppress the aggression of a large Iraq with a powerful army against its small and defenseless neighbor.
                      Total. Washington politicians skillfully used Saddam for their own purposes, from the Iran-Iraq war to his death. We can say that he "bought" on the Americans - on his personal trust in them

                      See in detail. “Trap for the dictator. Why did Saddam Hussein decide to attack Kuwait ”-
                      http://maxpark.com/community/129/content/3615392

                      A similar opinion is shared by Nikolai Starikov.
                      N. Starikov: How Iraq Captured Kuwait!
                      1. murriou
                        murriou 20 December 2016 06: 54
                        +1
                        Quote: Tatiana
                        You have a typo here, I guess. Not Kuwait, but Iran did you mean?

                        Thank you for such a detailed story, of course.
                        But when I wrote about Kuwait, I had in mind Kuwait.
                        K.O. laughing
                      2. Tatyana
                        Tatyana 20 December 2016 08: 37
                        0
                        Then what 12 years of sanctions against Iraq are allegedly written after the Iraq attack on Kuwait?
                        murriou
                        When Iraq attacked Kuwait, Saddam also thought that his actions were coordinated with the United States. As a result, he got on the setup and received 12 years of sanctions, after which his weakened country was crushed by direct armed aggression on an openly false pretext.
                        After all, there was no other case of Iraq’s attack on Kuwait, except for the 2003 of the year! Previously, Hussein was warned by the world community under the leadership of the United States and refused to attack Kuwait! Then what years does this phrase apply to you? Did you mean 1961 year? I understood that there was still no war in 1961.

                        The emirate of Kuwait gained official independence in the 1961 year. And almost immediately I almost lost her. Neighboring Kuwait, Iraq had its own views on history. Iraqi politicians believed that Kuwait was nothing but the 19 province of Iraq, previously illegally torn away from it.
                        Kuwait's accession to Iraq was prevented by Great Britain, which threatened official Baghdad with armed intervention. The then Iraqi authorities chose not to bring the matter to war.
                    2. Ka-52
                      Ka-52 20 December 2016 13: 54
                      0
                      First of all, Hussein was the victim of the intrigues of the Saudis and Arab sheikhs, who lobbied for their interests in Washington.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. bouncyhunter
        bouncyhunter 19 December 2016 12: 36
        10
        Mattresses are rare cattle! Always kosyachat, never apologize ... Creatures meager !!! am am am
      3. Evgenijus
        Evgenijus 19 December 2016 14: 20
        +7
        cniza :
        The Americans used firewood, and now they will not even apologize, however, as always.


        They did not break anything, nor any firewood. So they say about errors in anything. From the US side, this was not a mistake, as they themselves now say and write about it. It was a purposeful operation to destroy the independent state of Iraq. They carried out this operation brilliantly, destroying a sovereign state, sowing devastation, famine, and terror of the militants there. This was the goal of the United States. What do you say? It's very simple - there is oil in Iraq! In a strong state, it is not so easy for it to get to the US oil monopolies, but in a shattered state they buy everything for a penny. So it was in Libya, as it is now happening in Syria. I was recently in Jordan, so the guide told us, answering our question - why is there no war in this small and weak state? His answer was simple - there is no oil in Jordan! This was told to me by a resident of this country.
    2. Lexa-149
      Lexa-149 19 December 2016 17: 33
      0
      And they got to Iraqi oil and historical values ​​...
  2. Pronow
    Pronow 19 December 2016 12: 25
    +1
    in March, Bush issued an ultimatum to Hussein and invited him to voluntarily leave Iraq within 48 hours, otherwise the American troops will begin a military operation in the country. ” Saddam refused.

    If Saddam would have been less greedy, none of this would have happened.
    They don’t like dictators in the world what to do.
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 19 December 2016 12: 28
      15
      What did you mean? Iraq was doomed anyway. The United States S. Hussein as such was not needed, but a territory with energy resources was needed.
      1. vovanpain
        vovanpain 19 December 2016 13: 09
        15
        Quote: rotmistr60
        What did you mean? Iraq was doomed anyway

        Yes, Colleague is an old shot, previously he performed under the nickname Kings and Queens, and before that he was still under some kind of. Well, God bless him, you can declare anyone a dictator, shake a test tube with an unknown powder, hire actors with the girl Bana and other attributes, in the west, both Assad and Putin have been declared tyrants for a long time, only Russia is toothy painful, and they don't want to get on the scoreboard. And the father in Belarus was called "the last dictator of Europe" and now the sanctions have been lifted from him, and in general, the father is a dear man. in a word. hi
    2. Stanislav 1978
      Stanislav 1978 19 December 2016 12: 30
      +1
      If Saddam left himself this would not change anything, the invasion operation was prepared in advance and would have been carried out in any case.
    3. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 19 December 2016 12: 40
      +8
      They do not like dictators in the world

      Reality has shown what has become of Iraq and Libya without the West named "dictators" S. Hussein and Gaddafi. The same should have happened with Syria.
    4. murriou
      murriou 19 December 2016 13: 22
      +5
      Dictator == any ruler popular among his people and objectionable to the USA lol
    5. sdc_alex
      sdc_alex 19 December 2016 14: 18
      +2
      They don’t like dictators in the world what to do.

      Especially the Saudi .... wink
  3. Ustrushan
    Ustrushan 19 December 2016 12: 47
    +2
    The United States has a good geographical position: access to the Ocean - you can trade with all countries (maritime trade is one of the cheapest among other transport opportunities). You can optionally put strict quarantine on the penetration of other people into the United States. Which will help ensure internal stability. So it can be curaled everywhere. With smart politics, everything will be bad, and the United States in the last turn ...
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 19 December 2016 13: 04
      +7
      Quote: Ustrushan
      So it can be curaled everywhere. With smart politics, everything will be bad, and the United States in the last turn ...

      Not for nothing did Sakharov offer to wash them off into the ocean, not in vain. There was no logic in this, even if not total destruction would have shown to everyone on the planet that no one should hide and lurk with impunity.
  4. Deniosf
    Deniosf 19 December 2016 13: 03
    +4
    The biggest threat in the world is the usa!
  5. ochakow703
    ochakow703 19 December 2016 14: 21
    +1
    Well this is necessary, a flock of scoundrels with a skein of green toilet paper and a nuclear baton, nightmares the whole world, and the world still can not understand that they just use it, and do not even snarl it much. She is also a whore-Europe, she herself cannot even make a fart without master's permission, and all the same - to the lights of democracy. Damn them all.
  6. volodya
    volodya 19 December 2016 14: 22
    0
    And so always, the main thing is to shove your shit democracy! As Zadornov said: they’re the main ones everywhere, and their president is the main thing!
  7. Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 19 December 2016 14: 44
    +3
    As they were fugitive pirates and bandits, they remained, only now with arms.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. ratfly
    ratfly 19 December 2016 14: 53
    +1
    They only gain a conscience in retirement, and that’s not all.
    1. Romanenko
      Romanenko 19 December 2016 16: 04
      +2
      Here the topic is such that in order to get into the ruling circles, it is necessary to get rid of conscience, therefore it will be deposited, well, and then, who remembers, takes it on a demobilization, although there are very few, and not only them, unfortunately.
  10. Romanenko
    Romanenko 19 December 2016 16: 00
    +1
    No one even thought of looking for HUSSain’s WMD, oil, oil and only oil, and of course control over oil production, having spent $ 2,5 trillion of dollars drawn on paper, the United States gained control of Iraqi oil plus Qatar gas, profits and prospects from this the rainbow of business was drawn, it was only necessary to remove someone from the road on the way to the European Union, on this subject, after Iraq they dared Libya with its intractable president Gaddafi and suddenly unexpectedly and extremely unpleasantly got around in the open spaces of Syria already laid on the shoulder blades and half dead and Europe Foundation here it is near, such as the elbow, close, but not bite. And away we go ... we can’t win - we’ll shit in everything and everywhere, quickly put up on a hitch-hussed country such as Poland and the Baltic davalki and let's wind up on a fist - Russians and so on, all drug addicts and thieves and worse than Russia, nobody only it seems that the confused ones are somehow not very confident in moving to the beat, somehow more by duty, and not by love, but in the homeland it’s a bummer - the ruling party with acceleration into the puddle ... well, in general, everything went the wrong way . And who is to blame?
    And Krylova read - Than consider the gossips to work, it is not better for yourself, the godfather, to turn around ....
  11. japs
    japs 19 December 2016 17: 26
    +3
    As always, only by moving away from business, from the trough, mattress "doers" reach an understanding of what they have done.
    Only when they retire do they remove the blinders from their eyes. Although, as practice shows, some remain committed to the cause of "crap democratization" of the whole world to the end.
    Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, whom they have prepared for the sacrifice ...
  12. rus-5819
    rus-5819 19 December 2016 17: 39
    0
    What are these slobbery cries now for: Saadam is dead, a country under the US military dictatorship, the economy is ruined, the population is in poverty ... American democracy triumphs, Hooray hooray !!!!

    ... "2,5 trillion dollars spent on building a new Iraq," summed up Nixon.

    This is the main sadness. "Loot has been drank," but the state still does not!

    We are waiting for "revelations" in Libya!
  13. CONTROL
    CONTROL 20 December 2016 08: 58
    0
    "... the Americans are not doing well." You will not succeed. You will understand that it is not easy to govern Iraq, "he warned, adding that Americans" do not understand the language, history, thinking and even the climate of his country. " ...

    "Americans" - that is, the "nation" that calls itself that - destroy everything that they do not understand! which does not fit into the framework of their rather flat and limited perception of the world ... This is their understanding of "tolerance", multiculturalism ... and all other "-isms"!
  14. murriou
    murriou 20 December 2016 12: 37
    +1
    TatyanaYou messed up something, with all due respect to you.
    See, for example, the numerous articles titled Operation Desert Storm.
    In short: August 2, 1990 Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. At the same time, S. Hussein believed that the United States did not object to such a move.
    November 29, 1990 The UN Security Council adopted a resolution recognizing Iraq’s actions as aggression and the admissibility of any countermeasures.
    In January 1991 a military operation was launched, first by aviation, then by electronic warfare (French missiles ceased to fulfill Iraqi command teams), a ground operation took place in February, then Iraq was subject to international sanctions, including a strict arms embargo, spare parts and other weapons support, as well as other high-tech products.

    And after 12 years of these sanctions, the United States has become bold enough to start looking for non-existent WMD in Iraq.
    1. Tatyana
      Tatyana 20 December 2016 18: 56
      0
      Thanks, murriou! Now I understand what exactly I was mistaken.
      This operation "Desert Storm" 1990-1991 years in Iraq in connection with the events of those years inside our country - the USSR - we can say completely passed my attention. I heard about her then, but did not go into details, and then I did not return to information about her at all. Somehow I did not have a need for this in my interests.
      Your comment is really very important. Moreover, on the Internet there is a lot of very interesting information from various analysts - both from the West and from the USSR / Russia - about this operation (the cause and consequences, as well as the course of its implementation). There is something to read and watch on the video. I will try to fill and study this gap. This is really very important historical material in terms of adjustment for a correct understanding of geopolitics.
      I am very grateful to you for your consultation! It is good for me that you talked to me about this topic. Thank you again!
      Regards, Tatiana! hi
      1. murriou
        murriou 20 December 2016 19: 09
        +1
        No thanks, Tatyana. I am glad that my message was interesting and useful for you. love
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 20 December 2016 20: 30
          0
          Worth, thanks! After all, we women know little about military operations. This knowledge is more inherent in men. It is men who are the main warriors in the war. Women are more concerned with social and economic issues. And geopolitics is synthesized knowledge in various scientific disciplines, and not just analytics in any particular branch of knowledge. Therefore, the synthesis of different knowledge in geopolitics is unredeemable. And where to get this knowledge? Only in the community of scientific exchange of specific knowledge on interests between men and women inherent in each sex individually! I have already noticed this more than once!
          So once again, thank you, dear murriou, for your cooperation! hi
          1. murriou
            murriou 20 December 2016 20: 49
            +1
            I will be glad to help you in the future if this is in my capabilities.