The NY Times is running a two day story on the Iraq War, given from the perspective of senior Iraqi officals. They were interviewed after the war in Iraq, by military intelligence posing as historians. (registration required, but you should do it to read this article!)
There are two things that stand out in this article. The first is the paranoia of Saddam Hussein, even while everyone in the world was sure that the US was going to invade, he was worrying about Shiite uprisings as his biggest problem.
He felt the US would stop south of Baghdad like they did in 1991, but was afraid after that the Shiite's would rise up and try and overthrow him.
But the second, and the one that deserves attention, is that his military was convinced, until just a few months before the war that they did have a stockpile of WMD!
In December 2002, he told his top commanders that Iraq did not possess unconventional arms, like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, according to the Iraq Survey Group, a task force established by the C.I.A. to investigate what happened to Iraq's weapons programs. Mr. Hussein wanted his officers to know they could not rely on poison gas or germ weapons if war broke out. The disclosure that the cupboard was bare, Mr. Aziz said, sent morale plummeting.
The article goes on to detail how he wanted the country scrubbed of it's WMD, but didn't want it widely known. He was determined they would be a deterrent to both the US, and Iran, who he was still fearful for.
So this brings up a question for the "Bush Lied" crowd, if the top leadership in Iraq had no clue that they had no WMD, how exactly were the CIA and other intelligence agencies supposed to be sure they were gone?
I'm pretty sure they will find a way to dismiss this article, but it's pretty damning to the idea that Bush knowingly went in knowing the WMD were gone.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, WMD and Saddam Hussein Iraq War Bush CIA United Nations