the lie that saddam told began back in 1991 in 1992. but i challenge you again. you find anybody responsible who asserted that saddam did not have chemical weapons before the war. they're expected. there were no chemical way to go back is did not find that the rock possess chemical or biological weapons. also they were blocked in their efforts. and then from what i mean also or more just, i'm just telling you what the un said, you can believe it or not, believe i'm quoting evidence of the inspectors who very clearly said that weapons of mass instruct. there was no evidence, excuse me, of chemical or biological weapons and asking for. busy more time also, hans blix form ahead. of you in monitoring verification inspection commission for iraq rotan and bit later in 2013. he said on february 11th, less than 5 weeks before the invasion. i told us national security adviser kinda leads the rice. i wasn't terribly impressed by the intelligence we had received from the u. s. and that there had been no weapons of mass destruction at any of the sites we had been recommended

if bush said ok, saddam you're out, saddam i think would have been back into his old game of sup portion terrorism and dating his neighbors and rerun of the kuwait invasion. this time he would go into saudi arabia. and final finally in terms of weapons of mass destruction he would have gone into the nuclear business and he would have gotten a nuclear weapon first and that's not a recipe for stability in the middle east. you try to run the counter factual if we just stood down that's what might have happened. bush decided that after 12 years of effort with the credibility of the u.n. and the united states on the line and saddam representing a real national security threat, he wasn't prepared to back down, wasn't prepared to let saddam get get a get out of jail free card and went into the country and removed the regime in 2003. >> i think you sort of rightly say that all of these things are much, much more complex than the narrative, whatever -- whatever you give credence to. but talk about who -- who was there? if you asked me based on what i've read alone as opposed to having lived these

sorry, 687. saddam hussein was required to destroy everything that was declared. so un weapons inspectors went to saddam and said ok, we're here to help the story, your chemical weapons. and the iraqi said, well, we've already destroyed our chemical weapons. the un inspectors then said ok, fine. show us the records that reflect that destruction take us to the places where he destroyed the chemical weapons. let us interview the scientists and technicians over saw the destruction of chemical weapons and the iraqis refused. now this, they rock enrolled on this for several years. the iraqi government would never acknowledge that. what exactly is done with a chemical weapons, others and repeated assertions they've been destroyed. and i will tell you contrary to what you said at the beginning, i don't know of any one before the war. who didn't believe that saddam had chemical weapons including his highest military, foreigners. now it turned out after the war that he did, and least we could find in this country. the rob silberman commission concluded in a study after the

the, the law that saddam told began back in 1991 in 1992. but i challenge you again you, i and anybody responsible who asserted that saddam did not have chemical weapons before the war? they're already expecting that there were no chemical white inspectors did not find that iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. also they were blocked in their efforts and they also asked for more to have it in the social. and for more just, i'm just telling you what you and said, you can believe that you and or not believe you. i'm quoting evidence of the inspectors who very clearly said that weapons of mass destruct. there was no evidence, excuse me, of chemical or biological weapons. and asking for. busy more time also. ah, hans blix former ahead of you in monitoring verification inspection commission for iraq wrote in an op ed later in 2013. he said on february 11th. less than 5 weeks before the invasion. i told us national security advisor condo liza rice. i wasn't terribly impressed by the intelligence we had received from the u. s. and that the

this is why saddam had to go. there was no other way to get rid of it because he was inextricably intertwined with it. but what about the question that arose in bush's speeches and in bush's foreign policy world view which was of democracy, of the dangerous nation of these tyrannies, not just in the middle east, but in the middle east, certainly, how they were wrapped up with this ideology, how they gave the oxygen to these extremist groups that then sought to attack us? when you talked about this, when you contemplated the decisions that were ahead of you after the invasion of afghanistan, was that a factor as well? stephen: so the reason we went into afghanistan was for the national security threats that i described. people forget how brutal saddam hussein was. in terms of his own people. in terms of a 10-year war against iran, invasion of kuwait. using chemical weapons against his own kurdish population. brutally putting down a shi'a uprising after the first gulf war. this was a brutal, brutal dictator that had

but we got 1000 other saddam saddam o elephant done. we're to our viewers watching on p b. s in the united states, into all of you around the world. welcome. we begin the day with what china wants and what russia needs. the leaders of china and russia say that they are good friends, they're 2 countries, they say are in a friendship with no limits. that is the glossy version, if you will, the way vladimir putin and she's in pain, want the world to see them. the reality is still being polished, hooton's power has been significantly diminished since his evasion of ukraine began last year with no european market for energy. rushes economy is now much more dependent on china much more on china, like never before, beijing's ability to project power. it can now easily overshadow moscow's and she's in pink. he's trying to look like the global power broker. now that button report simply cannot be just consider saudi arabia and iran. we have more now on to presidents who are balancing their out of balance relationship standing shoulder to shoulder, to authoritarian leaders, defiantly

but we got 1000 other saddam saddam oh, elephant dumb. but not everyone feels despair. and i'm wondering, i know chavo whom really there go do i have faith that the use of the ones who come up with the idea is the use of the ones who lead the revolution that a tamela the use of a foundation and the best proof of that is, the protests that happened in 2019, we saw the youth laid the protests on it. that gave me a bit of hype. already had the animal with natalie on back that still suffers from whites brit poverty, despite iraq's great oil wealth before it was stolen by saddam hussein. now the oil money still does make it into regular people's pockets. a lot of iraq is still the same and nothing has changed so that citizens hoped for something better, but there is no change that i know the real mother. there's no more shock in on just a white bread feeling that things could have and should have gone much better yet decades ago by quickly we want to take a look back now at the us led invasion of iraq and its effects with middle east analyst in yogurt, like daniel, it's good

wasn't prepared to let saddam have a get out of jail free card . and he went in and removed the regime. >> talk about that decision-making, the i think you rightly say that all of these things are much more complex than the narrative would ever give credence to. but talk about who was there, if you ask me based on what i've read alone these years, i would say that there was a small cup all and i use that word intentionally of people, the vice president who was on our board. and paul wolfowitz who used to be one of our colleagues and series of small group of others who were agitating. who made the case aggressively and brought the president around. what actually happened? >> they were certainly agitatingfor it . i'm not sure if they brought the president around or the president came around. to the thinking i just described. there had been an effort by that come all if you will to say right after 9/11 that it was a global war on terror we should just go after the taliban in afghanistan so if we get outside in which they were protecting we shouldalso

should saddam hussein choose confrontation? the american people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war. and every measure will be taken to when it responds george bush has promised to take every measure to avoid war, his ultimate decision to invade iraq through the country on the why to region into chaos. displacing millions and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. the u. s . invaded iraq under the pretext of stopping the danger from a legit weapons of mass destruction in the peaceful attempts to disarm the country . had failed us despite un inspectors reporting no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in iraq. jose bushes. ultimatum came hours after the u. s. u. k, in spain funded joints draft resolution seeking military action. but 2 days later, the u. s. and his allies attacked iraq without un approval of the world is better off without saddam in power. those of george bush's words, and they were backed by the former british prime minister, tony blair, driven by a desire for regime change. the u. k.

should saddam hussein choose confrontation? the american people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. despite george bush's promise to take every measure, to avoid war, his ultimate decision to invade iraq through the country and the wider region into chaos. displacing millions and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. the u. s . invaded iraq, under the pretext of stopping the danger from its alleged weapons of mass destruction saying peaceful attempts to disarm bagdad had failed despite un inspectors reporting no evidence of weapons in iraq. george bush's ultimatum came out after the u. s. u. k and spain signed a joint draft resolution seeking military action. but 2 days later, the us and its allies attacked iraq without un approval. the world is better off without saddam in power. george bush's words were banks by former british prime minister, tony blair, driven by desire for regime change. the u. k. decided to join us forces in toppling the iraqi government

and what was the plan for the country after saddam hussein? well, they didn't care, as was revealed in a secret memo, ands of war that they care about iraq's oil reserves. and they were discussing it before the war even began declassified documents states that the british governments was encouraged to start preliminary work to ensure you k companies are well placed to pick up contracts in the aftermath of the war. by way of specific follow up, we should convene meeting with b, p shell and other appropriate u. k. companies, whether together or separately to explore ideas and tap into the expertise, we would need to handle this carefully and assure it was confidential to avoid charges of oil motivations. so preliminary work to ensure you k companies well place to pick up contracts. in the aftermath. this is all in the public domain, it's been swenson years and still no one has been held accountable. a country was destroyed, a president's was basically assassinated and those who did it aren't behind bars. no, but lecturing all those on war and pe

getting rid of saddam is the right thing to do. he's a potential threat he could be contained in another secret memo were told that the pair were concocting a p r campaign on how to sell the iraq war. an entire year before the us invaded to pay him said we needed an accompanying payoff strategy that highlighted the risks of saddam's w m. d program. and his appalling human rights record, bush strongly agreed to pay him said this approach would be important in managing european public opinion. and in helping the president constructs an international coalition, the p. m said no one could doubt the world would be a better place if there were regime change in iraq. what's more, they had a strategy in case that saddam hussein actually gave you an weapons inspectors free reign to check on everything. the p. m late a commented to me privately that had spoken again to bush about the issue of un inspectors. bush and acknowledged that there was just a possibility that saddam would allow them in and go about their own business. if that happene

should saddam hussein choose confrontation? the american people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war. and every measure will be taken to when in the us, invaded iraq under the pretext of stopping the danger from it's a legit weapons of mass destruction. st. peaceful attempts to disarm baghdad. had failed that despite un inspectors reporting no evidence of weapons in iraq, george bush's ultimatum came hours after the u. s. u. k, and spain signed a joint draft resolution seeking military action. but 2 days later, the u. s. on its allies attacked iraq without un approval. i will be with you whatever. that's what the former british prime minister wrote in a letter to america's president months before un weapons inspectors completed their work. deciding to join us forces and toppling the rocky government and unleashing chaos in the country are to marina close. that river picks up the story. 20 years after the us led invasion of iraq and one question remains could have been prevented. while the answer seems to be n

at least saddam hussein protected christians.hey were getting rid of chstians and we don't about that. if isis is knocked out, e a government that is to be in or ey get a nuclear weapon andibya could be a breeding ground for more terrorist organizations like al qaeda and the like. afghanistan, we ignored the northern alliance. we also impose our own cultural values on other countries that don't care for them. in afghanistan we could've had the northern alliance as the government. they were fighting on their own. the taliban without help for us, yet we are putting a professor from maryland as head of government in afghanistan. host: we will have to on to another caller on the independent line. robert is calling from deerfield beach. what are your thoughts? caller: i am actually surprised that america is still talking about why we went to war in iraq. the only reason we went to war was for protection of israel. unfortunately, the leaders and the administration were convinced. you saw netanyahu try to convince americans that iraq wa

>> saddam came to power in the 1960's.tive of the language was of this national liberation and linkage of socialism. it meant nothing. supporting anticolonialism and that language and he and his ministers were always dressed in military uniforms, the sunglasses, cigar. after 1990 in the invasion of kuwait, saddam had to change the narrative. the security forces were weakened because of the sanctions, because of the bombing. he needed a new way to control society. so religion served multi-purposes. it created this -- in a society suffering -- the religion was a solace, a way to find answers against americans imposing the sanctions. so that served a purpose. the spread of religious movements in the middle east, saddam by talking a religious narrative himself, he managed to pull the carpet from the movements that were spreading around the region. that religion became a way to control society. the mosques, the network of preachers. it also the tribes became another method to control society. where he cannot -- he can depend on

the world is better off without saddam in power. george bush's words were banked by former british prime minister, tony blair, driven by desire for regime change. the u. k. decided to join us forces in toppling the iraqi government and unleashing chaos in the country. our teeth, marina calls river, picks up the story. once a years after the us led invasion of iraq and one question remains, could it have been prevented? well, the answer seems to be no, because it was the plan all along. after $911.00, it was payback time for america. and the hans for state sponsors of terrorism was on after afghanistan, iraq became the next target. and the british prime minister, tony blair, became george bush's accomplice. all that was missing was an excuse to invade. well here in the declassified letter, we can see how blair tells bush that he's with him no matter what. as in, he'll support him in removing saddam hussein from power. i will be with you will it's heather, getting rid of saddam is the right thing to do. he's a potential threat he coul

should saddam hussein choose confrontation? the american people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war. and every measure will be taken to when it, despite george bush's promise to take every measure to avoid war, his ultimate decision to invade iraq through the country on the why the region into chaos. displacing millions and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. the u. s . invaded iraq, under the pretext of stopping the danger from his alleged weapons of mass destruction. st. peaceful attempts to disarm baghdad had failed. thus, despite un inspectors reporting no evidence of weapons in iraq, george bush's ultimatum came not hours after the us, the u. k. and spain signed a joint draft resolution seeking military action. but 2 days later, the u. s. and its allies attacked iraq without un approval. the world is better off without saddam in power. george bush's words were backed by former british prime minister, tony blair, driven by desire to regime change. the u. k. decided to join us, forced in toppling

the issue is not protecting saddam or the, or the military.s that we never had an adequate plan of, what do we replace th with, i think is a larger legacy for the united states now, because we're still dealing with the consequences of this part of it, iranian power in the arab world, and still a weak iraq that can be home to isis, can potentially be a source of danger again. amna: ambassador wolfowitz, in terms of where we are today, where this war resides in american history, americans recognize one of the primary justifications to even launch that war was weapons of mass destruction that were never found. and it's been well-reported since he passed that colin powell said the act he most regretted was the 2003 u.n. security council presentation where he laid out evidence, u.s. evidence, for thosiraqi weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. what is your response to that? >> i think it was a mistake to talk about stockpiles. and i attribute that to the way the intelligence was coming through. everyone believed that intellige

it was never like done on under saddam, and not making excuses for saddam. he was a brutal dictator. i. i agree to that, but going in and breaking the country, destroying the country, was not a way to save it and it hasn't saved it. let me come back. if i made to belittle and say, is there really no way around belie if one is honest to say that invading a country right without un backing is a very, to put it blood mildly, is a very crude way of managing a transition to democracy, right? of course, communities are going to be on by all kinds of actors, vacuums are created and people go with each others next. that is not the ideal sort of transition to democracy in which you can say, well, you know, we gave them the chance, but they didn't really sees it. was that much of a chance in those kinds of circumstances look better there, but i go back to my to my point, i think your keys have agency. we can look at the country, of course, the 1000000 and have like 4000000 battles. $5000000.00 barrels of oil a day with a history and culture to basically say everything

at least saddam hussein protected christians.hey were getting rid of out that.s and we don't talk if isis is knocked out, we hav a government that is to be in lineey get a nuclear weapon andibya could be a breeding ground for more terrorist organizations like al qaeda and the like. afghanistan, we ignored the northern alliance. we also impose our own cultural values on other countries that don't care for them. in afghanistan we could've had the northern alliance as the government. they were fighting on their own. the taliban without help for us, yet we are putting a professor from maryland as head of government in afghanistan. host: we will have to on to another caller on the independent line. robert is calling from deerfield beach. what are your thoughts? caller: i am actually surprised that america is still talking about why we went to war in iraq. the only reason we went to war was for protection of israel. unfortunately, the leaders and the administration were convinced. you saw netanyahu try to convince americans that iraq w

saddam hussein was believed to be supporting al-qaeda.had an exceptionally antagonistic relationship with al-qaeda, and when the americans launched their attack on the officer corps, which consisted of souvenirs on the administrative apparatus and so on. eh, then eh, here. this balance was disturbed and the country plunged into complete chaos for many years, and in the army of the sunnets there were most and all officers of all generals, as a rule, there were sunnis and in the party and thus . uh, all leadership cadres. they were subject to expulsion from the state apparatus. this was already an example. autizations in the middle east this was an example where the actions of the united states caused, uh, thousands of americans to die in the first place. there, most of the american military personnel were then treated, uh, such was a severe syndrome. uh, psychological when the americans dropped a bomb on a bomb shelter on civilians and not all shells hit military facilities , many civilian facilities and houses were destroyed a thousand pe

should saddam hussein choose confrontation? the american people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war. and every measure will be taken to win it. or despite george bush's promise to take every measure, to avoid war, his ultimate decision to invade iraq through the country on the white, a region into chaos, to space, millions and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. us invaded a walk on the pretext of stopping the danger from its alleged weapons of mass destruction thing peaceful attempts to disarm box dance had failed. thus, despite un inspectors reporting no evidence of weapons in iraq, george bush's ultimatum came out of the u. s. u k. and spain signed a joint draft resolution seeking military action. but 2 days later, the us and its allies a talked about without un approval. the while the is better off without saddam in power. george bush's words were boxed by former british prime minister, tony blair, driven by desire for regime change and the u. k. decided to join us for then toppling the iraqi gov

the issue is not protecting saddam or the military.ever had an adequate plan of what to replace them with. there is a larger legacy for the u.s. now because we are still dealing with the consequences of this part of it. iranian power. ho to isis, potentially a source of danger. >> in terms of where we are today, americans recognize one of the primary justifications to launch the warmer weapons of mass destruction that were never found. it has been well reported that colin powell said the acting most regretted was the 2003 presentation when evidence was laid out for the weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. what is your response to that? >> i think it was a mistake to talk about stockpiles. i attribute that to the way the intelligence was coming through. everyone believed the intelligence. french and german intelligence much saying the same thing. we should be more careful. the conclusion that charles arrived at was there was a possibility to regenerate programs, that would've been a much better place to stand on.

in the battle against saddam . united states of america to stand after the first american attack on iraq in 1369, iran understood that if another war is going to happen in the west asian region , it will not be between two neighbors, the days of proxy war are over and this time the superpower will attack the countries itself , the fall of afghanistan is a sign of this. the situation is these days, the american tv channels broadcast these images a lot , showing the power of america in occupying any country it wants, especially from this advertising model, these are the seats of the 1,000 cruise missiles that america has launched into iraq. missile fasting from the systems iraq's radar has escaped and hit the targets . why does iran do the same thing on the ground with the same method? mountains and plains are the best places to use cruise missiles, cruise missiles, special radar systems are necessary at low altitudes and very high altitudes. first of all, the fight against corona should turn the sky into a fire for

than, than the pre saddam. but i, i said it's a, it's a big elephant, maybe for some towns that were away from saddam hussein, his wrath, the instability that ensued after was bad news. but look, i live 5 years of my childhood in the refugee camp. and my only claim was being occurred or living and couldn't then neither, neither of them being my choice. i bring again, it's in the if i may, i had rosie from the bank. that's who the biggest win is of this conflict. many would argue number one, iran number 2 groups like a pie, the ice, which didn't have much of a strong presence before the us invasion. did it in trench. these people, these actors, well, there are so many winners for what's happening to iraq inside and outside of the political blocks. first of all, that it looks like in front of the rockies, the of the biggest winners. because we all know how much corruption made money for them. this is the 1st issue. the 2nd issue is that the, the also there are regional winners who are seeing the iraq, the, the, t

within weeks, they had removed the iraqi dictator saddam hussein.sident george w bush out to an aircraft carrier where he declared victory. the tyrant has fallen and iraq is free. he could not have been more wrong. the americans hadn't worked out how they were going to replace saddam hussein's regime. in the end, they imposed a system that turned sectarian and ethnic groups against each other. in the years of chaos and violence that followed, hundreds of thousands of iraqis were killed. no—one knows how many exactly as armed groups fought each other, fought the americans and killed each other�*s civilians. much of mosul and other cities has been rebuilt. there are bright spots. as for the west, the americans and the british — the invaders, a lot of the world just laughs when they talk about peace or international law because of what happened here. but what matters most is the effect on the lives of millions of people, notjust in iraq but across the wider middle east, who suffered and died because of the invasion and its consequences. i'm joined now

saddam will not accept an end, but nothing from the nomads his supporters have gone to beat them, saddam was the father of serious injuries in the previous war with bush, but he still has his heart on personal defense systems, the systems that in the war between egypt and israel , their electronic summation system was disabled, the american phantoms of iran. they couldn't easily get out of the infra-fund window, the winning card that america has and saddam doesn't know how many days he has been secretly conducting test flights from america's secret bases in saudi arabia, which they want to change the radar evasion record in the world , russian systems and iraq's middleman against the workbook saddam will be finished, this pseudo-black man will give his first serious test here, the land of mesopotamia, iraq, finally, on the night of the moon at 22:00, the f117s will take off from saudi arabia. saddam is here giving a speech to the high-ranking members of the iraqi baath party , trying to stir the thoughts of the defense commanders. iraq, american warships are firing missiles from the pers

the decision here is saddam hussein and he made a decision . he took this conversation as a green light for an attack on kuwait, but it was a trap into which saddam hussein, gullible, fell into like that. now what motivated the americans, well, first of all, the big middle east. it was the official idea, and secondly, uh, it's oil, of course. old slogan from american foreign policy it smells like hell, no one canceled it, and there was another reason for america's desire to overthrow the regime of saddam hussein in may 1990 in baghdad, a summit meeting of leaders and states was held and saddam hussein said at this meeting that you know the soviet union in a terrible economic state to him it is urgently necessary to provide assistance with loans on favorable terms to lend to the soviet union is our duty, and the soviet union helped us for 10 years dollar to switch e to settlements through the golden dinar, and now, this, too, was not forgotten in washington and in london, the security council adopted a resolution allowing the use of all availabl

of the american continent in the fight against saddam. iran should have learned from this battle to be able to stand up against the power of the united states of america after the first attack of the united states of america on iraq in 1369, iran realized that if another war were to happen in the west asian region, it would not be between two neighbors. will attack, the fall of afghanistan is a sign of the same situation, these days, american tv channels are broadcasting these images a lot, showing the power of america in occupying any country it wants, especially from this propaganda model, these are the seats of the 1000 cruise missiles that america sent to iraq we have hit the vast land of iraq no, if a thousand rouza missiles have escaped from iraq's radar systems and hit their targets, why does iran use the same method that can be employed by the police on the ground ? the air defense has the same responsibility in the sky. iran is a vast land full of mountainous terrain, which is the best place to use cruise missiles . special radar