to eliminate saddam.the white house, paul wolfowitz's deputy, under secretary of defense, douglas fife, an iraq hawk like his boss, presents a slide show to national security officials that is full of questionable assertions. >> of all the places where intelligence was being manipulated in the bush administration, the fife shop was the key place. >> there was a debate about how one characterizes the relationship between iraq and al qaeda. nobody made the argument there was no relationship between iraq and al qaeda. >> i want to thank the -- >> the administration deploys its biggest guns to push congressional leaders for quick passage of a resolution to authorize the president to take military action. >> it's an important signal for the world to see that this country is united in our resolve to deal with -- threats that we face. >> the president made the point that there was an urgency to taking action. that it couldn't wait. he got very animated. he used uncharacteristically profanity and used the middle

saddam hussein? osama bin laden hates him. >> the word goes out to the cia, the fbi and all the intelligence services, find the connection. first, though, the war on terror goes to afghanistan to capture or kill osama bin laden and destroy the taliban regime that supports al qaeda. by november, the enemy is on the run, forced to flee into mountains. but while osama remains at large, the attention turns to saddam. >> desert storm has always had various planning with respect to iraq. >> operation desert storm. also known as the first gulf war. in 1991, following iraq's invasion of kuwait, a u.s.-led coalition of 34 countries, drives saddam's forces out of kuwait and decimates the iraqi army in six weeks. but despite that overwhelming victory, president george h.w. bush faces criticism at home for not going all the way to baghdad to rid the world of saddam hussein. >> i made very, very clear from day one, that it was not an objective of the coalition to get saddam hussein out of there, by force. >> dick

yeah i don't think saddam hussein was trying to trick the iranians i think the u.s. government then knew just as they know now that saddam hussein did not have chemical weapons there had been no country that had been inspected as much as his iraq had been every war needs a pretext they're never going to say yeah we're going to go in and bomb your country and occupy your territory or dominate this region because it has all the oil and we want to exploit it they're going to give it a noble cause it's going to be protecting civilians in libya it's going to be stopping weapons of mass destruction in iraq it's going to be for democracy some noble cause that wars of aggression always need in order to justify to give a public rationale why would assad used chemical weapons knowing that it would be the one thing that would trigger western intervention in a war that he was winning he was winning because he had the advantage in the battlefield and he has popular support and he has international allies the only way he can lose is if the west comes in why would assad used chemic

yeah i don't think saddam hussein was trying to trick the iranians i think the u.s. government then knew just as they know now that saddam hussein did not have chemical weapons there had been no country that had been inspected as much as his iraq had been every war needs a pretext they're never going to say yeah we're going to go in and bomb your country in occupy your territory or dominate this region because it has all the oil and we want to exploit it they're going to give it a noble cause it's going to be protecting civilians in libya it's going to be stopping weapons of mass destruction in iraq it's going to be for democracy some noble cause that wars of aggression always need in order to justify to give a public rationale why would assad used chemical weapons knowing that it would be the one thing that would trigger western intervention in a war that he was winning he was winning because he had the advantage in the battlefield and he has popular support and he has international allies the only way he can lose is if the west comes in why would assad used chemica

there he is, shaking hands with saddam hussein at the very time that saddam hussein was using chemicalpons. and then there is rumsfeld today, on "the today show," complaining about saddam hussein using chemical weapons. that is one of the reasons we had to take him out. rumsfeld, of course, knew at the time that saddam was using chemical weapons and they hung in there with him then. it is just an amazing thing to watch rumsfeld to decide this is the moment to come out here and be one of our guides into the discussion of syria. >> yeah, lawrence, you would think he would have the decency to keep his mouth shut, frankly. here is a guy when he worked for president reagan, when saddam used chemical weapons in the '80s, saddam used chemical weapons against his people in the early '90s, and now he says look, obama should do something, and go big. basically we should have boots on the ground, so more of our sons and daughters will lose their lives over there. lawrence, as you know, i lost 19 of my men in 2003 and 2004. america, at its core, is the reluctant warrior. and in this case, we shoul

-- they wanted to keep saddam hussein in power, like j. rockefeller who said we would be better off keeping saddam hussein in power. how do we know -- we need to check with hillary here to make sure the chemical gas wasn't released by a scary and upset by a youtube video. can you not trust these people on national security. they are democrats. and i would point out that in every military intervention, well, in the past century, republicans -- when republicans are running it, we are winning. when democrats come in, we are losing. you have iran with eisenhower taking out mohammed -- that was fantastic for america, he was a lunatic. the shah is in power. in comes carter -- we have vietnam, we have somalia. >> you're right. >> we have iraq. if obama cares about presending to be a serious commander in chief, he's making -- how much is sending those troops to iraq. that is once again a war that was deposed a monster, 50 times worse than assad. established a democracy that did not allow al qaeda to get control of the country. and victory is defea

-- they wanted to keep saddam hussein in power, like j.ockefeller who said we would be better off keeping saddam hussein in power. how do we know -- we need to check with hillary here to make sure the chemical gas wasn't released by a scary and upset by a youtube video. can you not trust these people on national security. they are democrats. and i would point out that in every military intervention, well, in the past century, republicans -- when republicans are running it, we are winning. when democrats come in, we are losing. you have iran with eisenhower taking out mohammed -- that was fantastic for america, he was a lunatic. the shah is in power. in comes carter -- we have vietnam, we have somalia. >> you're right. >> we have iraq. if obama cares about presending to be a serious commander in chief, he's making -- how much is sending those troops to iraq. that is once again a war that was deposed a monster, 50 times worse than assad. established a democracy that did not allow al qaeda to get control of the country. and victory is defeate

the president of the united states was saddam hussein's drug dealer. a way to boost exports and acquire political leverage over hussein. another brilliant reagan strategy that worked out just beautifully, didn't it? recently de-classified documents also show that during the final days of the reagan administration, the united states learned through satellite imagery that iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in iraqi defenses. u.s. intelligence officials conveyed the location of iranian troops to iraq, fully aware that hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal agent. the real ronald reagan helped saddam hussein use chemical weapons, including sarin. in 1991, after the gulf war, the u.n. inspectors found all kinds of things in iraq made by u.s. manufacturers, chemicals, all sorts of components. and in 1994, the senate banking committee turned up dozens of agents shipped to iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the commerce department. including various strains of anthrax. subs

it is the most significant use of chemical weapons since saddam hussein used them in 1988. >> what do we know from the chemical weapons inspectors reports? first of all, blood and soil samples have confirmed that the chemical weapon used was sarin. sarin was also found on remnants of the missiles. avilians were targeted on large scale. three areas came under fire. the surface to surface missiles arrived from the northwest. the report does not go into who controls these areas. however, the americans argue they are under government control. the weather conditions were also ideal for an attack. experts argue this shows an understanding of chemical warfare, not a casual, improvised use. when the americans at study the report, they were in no doubt that it supported their own intelligence that the syrian government was to blame. >> the quality of the sarin was higher than that of the sarin used in saddam hussein's program . again, higher than the quality of that used in saddam hussein's program. >> we had a chemical weapon specialist to study the findings and the evidence points to the ass

go to the 1980s, saddam was using poison gas on his people in the iran/iraq war. in egypt, they used poison gas. 100,000 people have been killed in syria. a lot of children have been killed in syria. this is pretty horrifying stuff. but, is it stuff that justifies the united states engaging in, frankly, a limited confused strike against the dictatorship, which is not going to be very effective by a limited strike. i vote note, but i would say to you, if assad is still sitting there after the strikes, he's in a position to say the united states didn't do much to affect me, i'm still in charge. >> fareed, what do you say about that? >> i think that is -- i mean, newt highlighted the great danger, which is when you have a limited strike of this nature, you yield the initiative to the other side. if they survive the strike and assad continues to do what he's doing, maybe he doesn't use chemical weapons again, you haven't won. you have inched your way into the civil war. you have taken a side and you are not winning. the united states can't put their credibility on the

the world went down this route with saddam hussain. now you have to get a united nations security council resolution we create this infrastructure to look for the weapons and put them under international custody. you have to get a security council resolution, the united states would only agree to that if russia says if he breaks this deal we will seek authorization of military force. can you work that out. how do you go into syria in the middle of a civil war. do you broker a cease fire? and what worries a lot of people is you are creating a deal that leaves assad in power. >> in that interview with charlie rose he puts this on terrorists inside syria. >> he is a sociopath. >> that's the guy we have a deal with? >> yes. they can make a deal at some point for their own survival and that is the genius. >> this is an out -- >> not an out but an amazing achievement. if we get an international order in which the u.n., with russia leading the charge actually takes the stand on chemical weapons or the world community does this it's a wonderfu

the world went down this route with saddam hussein. now you have to get a united nations security council resolution we create this infrastructure to look for the weapons and put them under international custody. you have to get a security council resolution, the united states would only agree to that if russia says if he breaks this deal we will seek authorization of military force. can you work that out. how do you go into syria in the middle of a civil war. do you broker a cease fire? and what worries a lot of people is you are creating a deal that leaves assad in power. >> in that interview with charlie rose he puts this on terrorists inside syria. >> he is a sociopath. >> that's the guy we have a deal with? >> yes. they can make a deal at some point for their own survival and that is the genius. >> this is an out -- >> not an out but an amazing achievement. if we get an international order in which the u.n., with russia leading the charge actually takes the stand on chemical weapons or the world community does this it's a wonderfu

>> not going after saddam. i advocated supporting the shia rebel ons. they could have succeeded and saddam would have been taken care of by his own people. >> is chemical weapons a red line that the world cannot tolerate a regime crossing? >> i think 100,000 people being slaughtered and doing nothing is a red line. >> let me be clear -- >> it is important, anderson. the critical difference is not about intelligence. it's about the fact we are not talking about actions that involve major risk to american lives. the people risking their lives are syrians and a lot of them have interests and values i believe. i don't know them. i'm taking this on the word of people who have been there. interesting and values common with ours. in that case -- it was once called the reagan doctrine to arm people fight your side so your people don't have to end up fighting. i think it is a sound, strategic and moral principal. >> fareed was saying his red line would have been the use of syria's air force against its own people. would that, for you, have been something that sh

i understand the response, world is a better place because saddam hussein is gone. i suppose that is true. >> were these men evil that got us involved in there? i pulled that out of the air. how would you describe -- >> they were arrogant and they were naive. it's hard to understand in a way because remember when -- remember when the republicans won the 2000 election. part of the republican critique of the democrats during the clinton era was when the democratic national security team was nike amateur hour and what the republicans -- republicans portrayed themselves as the people who understand how the world works. we're going to bring in these seasoned operators like rumsfeld on second tour secretary of defense, colin powell becoming secretary of state. condoleezza rice national security adviser. heck, dk cheney vice president. these are the people who supposedly understood how the world really worked and, therefore, could be trusted to make prudent and wide decisions. and that's why it's so hard to understand -- to understand their arrogance and their naivety. but

they don't want a saddam hussein topple.an not saddam hussein, to have bashar al-assad toppled. because if he is toppled right now and you have radical islamist groups taking over and they get control of the chemical weapons, that is not in the interest of either side. so i assume the russian's will keep playing this game, keep wanting to be more of a player in the region. they will call for a national conference and keep trying to take the lead in trying to deal with the chemical weapon problem as they minimize america's influence in the region. >> let's turn to apple. they have a big announcement tomorrow, a big unveiling of products. we expect maybe a new iphone and products. we have the vested interest in the announcements. and where is apple as a company now? there is a sense among many which may be inevitable. that after steve jobs died, that the soul of the business died with him. do you think it is a fair criticism? >> i think it is a concern we might have. steve was a spark, a creator spark, an innovative genius, an

however, there's still the question of down the road what happens if saddam -- saddam. happens if assad doesn't do what this agreement calls for him to do, and then they may be right back in the very same position at some later date, don. >> yeah. yeah. both dictators, joe, we know what you're talking about. thank you, sir. >> you bet. >> we'll get back to joe johns. great reporting there. >>> we want to talk about the weapons deal, rick francona is a cnn military analyst and with me here in new york is fouad ajami, what a difference a week makes, seven days ago washington was in a fierce debate, over potential military action should we take it and now we're talking about an agreement for syria to hand over all their chemical weapons. first of all, fouad ajami, i said i've been saying your name for five weeks, for seven years i've been saying your name on cnn. so, pardon me again. >> thank you. >> are you confident about this agreement? >> no, i had a long piece in "the wall street journal" several days ago and i hoped scorn on this agreement. >> why? >> i think you can

saddam hue taken used them between 1983 and 1988 and again against his own population in northern iraq in 1991. unfortunately, the pil stock pig the use of mustard and sarin gas is all too common today and leading back to decades. international support with the u.s.-led military attack in syria, limited in scope, consisted of two countries, turkey and france out of 194 countries. the rest of the international community but for china and russia say we support you so long as we don't have to do anything. the arab leagues response to this is pathetically weak. given their strategic interest, a joke. so here we are, left to topple the las regime in the middle ea, and between a national civil war in that part of the world, essentially alone again. secretary chair, you spoke to the hint of world's response to the use of chemical weapons. given that history one would think that more countries would join the u.s. in participating, not supporting, but participating in military strike against syria. >> okay, we are continuing to follow the house foreign affairs committee hearing in washington on

this has nothing to do with saddam hussein.e. >> yes, bill. >> bill: you basically have two speculative arguments. one, if you hit them, it might not do any good for anybody. that's speculative because it might inhibit. and the other that i make is if you don't hit them then other people might do this with an easier campaign. that's speculative, too. based on history. based on history. whenever you appease and turn the other way, it comes back to haunt new a larger arena, kate. you say? >> bill, i'm 100% agreeing with you that we should not be appeasing and turning a blind eye. what i believe is that you didn't point out the third option. and that is that a strike right now, without having laid the groundwork, without knowing what's going to happen, and you have got an empowerment of forces that hate the united states of america, and i'm talking about the al qaeda and muslim brotherhood forces, which have been proven to be in existence and a part. i don't know how much of a part but they are a large part of the fighting force o

richard butler on his struggles with saddam hussein. coming up next. lecoca-cola is partneringg. with nashville parent and charlotte parent magazines, along with the mayors of those cities, in the fit family challenge. a community wide program that offers free classes that inspire families to get out, enjoy moving together, and even track their activity online. it's part of our goal to inspire more than three million people to rediscover the joy of being active this summer. see the difference all of us can make... together. so, i'm working on a cistern intake valve, and the guy hands me a locknut wrench. no way! i'm like, what is this, a drainpipe slipknot? wherever your business takes you, you can save money with progressive commercial auto. [ sighs ] [ flo speaking japanese ] [ shouting in japanese ] we work wherever you work. now, that's progressive. call or click today. >>> an arab dictator agreed to get rid of his chemical weapons. now how does one actually make that happen? that was richard butler's job the last time around. in the late 1990s, bu

in fact, if you look at saddam hussein, he was a secular despot. he was a tyrant.lly, but as a threat. >> did you feel pressure to come up with intelligence that fit this narrative that iraq was somehow working with al qaeda? >> no. i do recall -- this was in the spring of 2001, a query that came from the white house, about the alliance between saddam hussein and al qaeda. and i remember at the time that that sounded so absurd. and i remembered speaking with an analyst about it, and dismissing it out of hand. >> when this memo came down, saying give us some intelligence or what do you know about this alliance between saddam and al qaeda, your response was basically, what alliance? >> exactly. >> nbc terrorism analyst mike sheehan has served as the state department's director of counterterrorism. >> i can think of a good dozen reasons why saddam hussein should have been kicked out of iraq. dating back to all of the atrocities he's conducted in the region against his own population. nevertheless, in my view, as a terrorism expert, i did not feel there was a justifica

if you go back to the 1980s, saddam was regularly using poison gas against his own people and in the iran, iraq war. you go back a few years earlier, poison gas in yemen. nobody said was that a moral case for us. start with the fact 100,000 people have been killed in syria. a lot of children have been killed in syria. this is pretty horrifying stuff, but is it stuff which justifies the united states engaging in, frankly, a limited confused strike against a dictatorship which is not going to be very effective by a limited strike -- >> so you would vote no. >> i would vote no but say if assad is still sitting there after the strikes, he'll be in position to say the united states didn't do much to effect me. i'm in charge and then what do we do? >> what about that? you see the president struggling and two different paths here. >> he highlighted the great danger which is when you have a limited strike of this nature you almost yield the initiative to the other side because if they survive that strike, and if assad is able to continue to do what he's doing, maybe he doesn't use chemical w

on making this particular video viral here's what obama goes on to say about former iraqi dictator saddam hussein except i've replaced two words

with saddam we said we're going to sanction you unless you give up unless you allow inspections and this or that and if you do allow those things we're still not going to lift the sanctions because we only will allow for regime change to to invite sanctions it just sounds like they're doing the same the cruel punishment for the people who have nothing to do with this policy well mark kirk and others would say look this is a regime that punishes punishes its people and so these are all legitimate ways to put pressure on that regime you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet this whole thing but they really they take out any agency for ordinary people inside of iran and iran does have a vibrant you know civil society a vibrant pro-democracy movement and some of these leaders in washington think that they know better than the people of iran as far as what he wants future should look like and what about the iranian nuclear officials kind of hinting at the fact that

saddam concealed his records and his weapons.the search for wmds in this particular conflict becomes the real focus of u.s. policy, it may divert us from the more important vocation of tried and to the war. chemicals are terrible, strangely enough syria did sign into the geneva protocol 1968, perhaps not anticipating the situation. there is a basis in logical after them. i worry that you can kill as many people with conventional munitions as you can with chemical weapons. it becomes an excuse for doing nothing else in the situation. host: in dependent caller from florida. caller: i think we are missing the central point, which is that the weapons of mass destruction, actually a has, is form of -- we are asked to believe that israel has 200 nuclear weapons. where's the balance of power going to be? i'll take my answer off air. guest: israel is said to have a nuclear bomb or three for deterrence purposes. it it hasn't used them. the said that the nature of chemical weapons. wmds are more discreet in their geography of usage. there

if i hadn't choice between the last decade when our invasion of iraq and saddam. and the alternative i think it's probably a close run thing but i could live with thank you. i don't know what you want to quote but i'll give you my view i think it was a terrible mistake now i think this is an exterior a bold statement for any american diplomat and i guess only a man of his stature critic can afford to say something like that so let me ask you what might be a very politically incorrect question do you think america could leave the sob i think that it would be very hard just the same way it was hard to live with saddam is there's a difference here that you have now a very widespread movement that has taken place in syria and that believes that our side should go that speaks for a large number of people and represents powerful forces in iraq you had no such thing and so my statement on iraq which you quoted which is entirely correct was based on the notion that saddam was not of threat to u.s. vital interests and as a result rather than attacking him and invading him

hitler, and saddam hussein. if we give license to somebody to continue that, shame on us. >> we go to mr. davis of rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking our three witnesses not only by being here today, but for extraordinary service to our country. i went to a knowledge the president for his consultation. i've had the opportunity to participate. i was on the telephone monday with secretary kerry, hegel, and ambassador rice. i think the president for his ongoing consultation and sharing of information. this is a difficult question. secretary hegel said there is no good answers with the use of chemical weapons. it is our ethic. i think the assad regime is responsible and should be held accountable. my question really is, as i talk to constituents in my district who reacted the same way with war weariness and a recognition of all of the enormous risks associated with the military intervention, both in propping up the wrong opposition and being deeply engaged in a civil war, they all

its own history with the united states the united states in the one nine hundred eighty supported saddam hussein helped to me to use chemical weapons against the iranians and the iraqis and then according to wiki leaks documents the united states was telling its diplomats to blame iran for the chemical attacks in other words to blame the victim so the iranians are highly suspicious about the united states with regards to what's going on now in syria because the united states was involved in mass murder in iran and they were supporting saddam and trying to blame the victim for him if i go to you in washington you've been living in the united states for a long time how do you perceive when you hear this and iranian rhetoric in the media and it's nonstop it's twenty four seven it's an echo chamber how do you respond to that. this is the again you know we americans we love to simplify complicated issues and one liners this is yet another example of a simplification as all muslims after nine eleven all of us were declared suspects it's it's the same old mentality that all black men are suspic

hussein except i've replaced two words for saddam and syria for iraq quote he has repeatedly defied un resolutions warded un inspection teams develop chemical and biological weapons but i also know that assad poses no imminent and direct threat to the us i know that an invasion of syria without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east and encourage the worst rather than the best impulses of the arab world. i could not have said it better myself state senator obama you know you should really sit down and talk to the president. the. it was. very hard. to. get back with that right there. since nine eleven the surveillance and police state and us have exploded all justified by the ubiquitous threat of terrorism yes folks this massive industry is banking on your fear and a logical fear considering how americans are more likely to die from falling furniture or suffocating in their sleep than from a terrorist attack yet despite the statistical improbability this enormous growth has continued unabated accompanied by a corporate t

hussein except i've replaced two words for saddam and syria for iraq quote he has repeatedly defied un resolutions warded un inspection teams develop chemical and biological weapons but i also know that assad poses no imminent and direct threat to the us i know that an invasion of syria without a clear rationale and without strong international support only fanned the flames of the middle east and encourage the worst rather than the best impulses of the arab world. i could not have said it better myself state senator obama you know you should really sit down and talk to the president. of the please please a. very large atlantic. lightly yet or how exactly would that hurt their. little. little. little. since nine eleven the surveillance and police state and us have exploded all justified by the ubiquitous threat of terrorism yes folks this massive industry is banking on your fear and a logical fear considering how americans are more likely to die from falling furniture or suffocating in their sleep than from a terrorist attack yet despite the statistical improbability this enormous g

look what happened with saddam hussein, 1991 to 1997 and 2000 to 2003.y still couldn't get it all done. when you add in the fact that people are going to be shooting at you and they likely will because the rebels are none too happy about the deal, it does speak to the idea this is going to be difficult and will require boots on the ground to keep the u.n. inspectors safe. >> 16 resolutions that saddam violated and gadhafi, they thought he gave up everything. john, good to see you. >> for more of the interviews on syria with mike mccaul and chris van hollen, tune in to fox news sunday. congressman van hollen will also debate the status of the u.s. economy with george price. you have syria, war, and the economy all in one hour on fox this sunday, later today at 2:00, and 6:00 p.m., right here on the fox news channel or check your local listings for the fox station near you. >> and john roberts, check him out, too. >>> top republican lawmakers now stepping up their push for answers as new hearings get under way into the benghazi terror attack this week. mor

richard butler on his struggles with saddam hussein. umpkin pie and apple crisp back for a limited time. see? you really do call the shots. ♪ yoplait. it is so good. constipated? yeah. mm. some laxatives like dulcolax can cause cramps. but phillips' caplets don't. they have magnesium. for effective relief of occasional constipation. thanks. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'. >>> an arab dictator agreed to get rid of his chemical weapons. now how does one actually make that happen? that was richard butler's job the last time around. in the late 1990s, butler was the head of the u.n. special commission charged with disarming saddam hussein of his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. how did it work? did it work? we'll ask him. so drawing on that experience, what would you say is going to be the single most important thing to look at when we address this issue, assume that there's some kind of deal and you actually have an inspections process? >> fareed, the first thing required is an honest and accurate declaration by

you can look at sad da -- saddam hussein as one example. it's not just that they kill people and hurt something, especially something like sarin, it's odorless and colorless. you can't breathe and you're con vulsing. it has a horrible effect. when saddam hussein used them against the kurds in 1988 he killed maybe 5,000 people. three years later in 1991 he didn't have to use them to terrorize hundreds of thousands of people and drive them to the mountainsides of kurdistan. if assad is able to continue to use chemical weapons freely in syria, he will win this war. he will cleanse whole parts of country of his enemies and terrorize anyone that stands against him. that is what the administration cannot allow as far as the president's judgment is concerned. >> what the president really obscures for the american people is that the united states somehow has a clean record. that we didn't actually help saddam hussein acquire the chemical weapons he used against his own people but to kill tens of thousands of iranians during that war. he leaves out