Taped conversations reveal Iraq had WDMs

By Tom Quiner

Saddam Hussein's taped conversations reveal he had weapons of mass destruction targeting Israel.

Saddam Hussein’s taped conversations reveal he had weapons of mass destruction targeting Israel.

Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WDM) in his possession.

Quiner’s Diner is rehashing some of the issues of the Iraq War on the tenth anniversary of the war. The issue of WDMs has been hotly disputed.
Remember the mantra of the Left: “Bush lied and people died.”

Democrats jumped on the band wagon and said President George W. Bush concocted the whole story as an excuse to go to war against Iraq.

And yet Saddam Hussein’s taped conversations reveal he had weapons of mass destruction targeting Israel.

Let us turn the clock back to 1991. President George H.W. Bush has declared an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to pull his forces out of Kuwait or face military retaliation.

What follows is amazing. It is a tape recorded conversation between his air force commander and his son-in-law. A group called The Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, a special assistant to the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, discovered the recording and translated it.

The results were added to Mr. Duelfer’s report to the C.I.A. in 2004.

Did you ever hear about any of this from the mainstream media (MSM)?

HUSSEIN:   “I want to make sure — close the door (sound of door slamming) — the germ and chemical warheads, as well as the chemical and germ bombs are available to the ‘concerned people,’ so that in case we ordered an attack, they can do it without missing any of their targets.”

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, both germ and chemical.

HUSSEIN:  “So, we qualify that the missiles, by tomorrow, will be ready on the 15th” — the day Bush’s ultimatum expired. … I need these germs to be fixed on the missiles, and tell them to hit, because starting on the 15th, everyone should be ready for the action to happen at any time, and I consider Riyadh a target.”

SON-IN-LAW: “Sir, we have three types of germ weapons, but we have to decide which ones we should use. Some types stay capable for many years –”

HUSSEIN: “We want the long term, the many years kind.”

SON-IN-LAW: “The bombs or warheads are all available, but the moment for using them at zero hour is something we should indicate, sir. We will say that this will be launched –”

HUSSEIN: “At the moment of use (zero hour), you should launch them all against their targets. I want the weapons to be distributed to the targets. I want Riyadh and Jeddah, which are the biggest Saudi cities with all the decision makers, and the Saudi rulers live there. This is for the germ and chemical weapons.”

SON-IN-LAW: “In terms of chemical weapons, we have an excellent grip on them.”

HUSSEIN: “Only in the case we are obliged and there is a great necessity to put them into action. Also, all the Israeli cities, all of them. Of course you should concentrate on Tel Aviv, since it is their center.”

In light of this conversation, one can understand Israel’s concern about another Mid East country, this time, Iran, getting a weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear bomb.

In light of this conversation, you can understand Bush II’s fear that Iraq still might have some WMD.

The “Bush lied, people died mantra” has been discredited many times over. Have you yet heard anyone apologize to Mr. Bush for their unpatriotic smear?


  1. Kenneth McConnell on March 27, 2013 at 10:51 am

    It is my contention that the WMD from Iraq are those now in Syria that we are afraid will be used. There was proof of convoys moving things into Syria.

    • quinersdiner on March 27, 2013 at 1:19 pm

      I read of some evidence of that, but didn’t know if it was credible. That is a serious concern if it is true.

  2. oarubio on March 27, 2013 at 11:51 am

    Another obvious question which the anti-Bush media ignored is “Why did Hussein block the agreed-upon U.N. inspections for FIVE years?” A lot of incriminating evidence can be moved in that amount of time!

  3. Bob Vance on March 27, 2013 at 11:53 am

    As with the anti-Obama smears today, I did not like the anti-Bush smears then. Perhaps it is the way I was raised, but I still think you should respect the President of the United States.

  4. Lisa Bourne on March 27, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Anyone who claims there were no WMDs in Iraq is at best naive. Anyone who thinks Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have been coming for us after finishing off tons of his own people is at best naive. These assessments are overly charitable. Would the world have been better off with Uday and Qusay, those rascals who abducted women off the street to rape for fun? Gosh, maybe in the alternate universe of the left. For those of us living in reality, the Iraq war was the right thing to do, just; if anything, overdue. No amount of lame smearing of George W. Bush will change that fact.

    • quinersdiner on March 28, 2013 at 6:21 am

      It’s hard to imagine what the world would be like today if the Hussein clan were still in power.

      • Lisa Bourne on March 28, 2013 at 9:36 am

        Cross-referenced in the dictionary with “ridiculous” = In the minds of some it’s considered criminal for us to endeavor to liberate another country from tyranny and oppression (we should keep out of other countries’ business), yet, it’s considered noble, charitable and – drum roll please for the ever ubiquitous – “justice,” for the U.S. to spend taxpayer and other funds to cram contraception and abortion down the throats of third world countries, trampling and supplanting in those cases their respective values systems. But hey, credibility, integrity, responsible use of resources, and effectiveness be damned; it’s okay be selective in one’s application of values and principle.