Saddam: "Caught on tape" (talks WMDs etc)

[bigred]

er Caught on tape (stinkin can't edit subj lines limitation)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/18/hussein.tapes/index.html

"...US officials who have reviewed the tapes said Hussein was "fixated" on acquiring weapons of mass destruction and preventing U.N. inspectors from finding out..."

You mean they could've had WMDs but they just didn't FIND them....after we gave him months and months of warning that we were coming no less-?! WOW THAT WOULD BE A SHOCKING REVELATION

Edited by Upchurch: 

Fixed the title typo

 

[Tricky]

er Caught on tape (stinkin can't edit subj lines limitation)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/18/hussein.tapes/index.html

"...US officials who have reviewed the tapes said Hussein was "fixated" on acquiring weapons of mass destruction and preventing U.N. inspectors from finding out..."

You mean they could've had WMDs but they just didn't FIND them....after we gave him months and months of warning that we were coming no less-?! WOW THAT WOULD BE A SHOCKING REVELATION

You can read a lot of things into that article. For example:

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and I told the British as well, I think," Hussein tells then-Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. "I told them that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."
He added, however, that Iraq would have no part in it. August 2 is believed to be a reference to the date of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which sparked the Gulf War the following year.
"This is coming. This story is coming, but not from Iraq," Hussein said.

So who is the more likely source of WMDs in the Middle East? Why it is Iran. Looks like Saddam was telling the truth.

 

[Just thinking]

You can read a lot of things into that article. For example:

So who is the more likely source of WMDs in the Middle East? Why it is Iran. Looks like Saddam was telling the truth.

Well, let's look at the timeline of what was said and when ...

He added, however, that Iraq would have no part in it.

"This is coming. This story is coming, but not from Iraq," Hussein said.

August 2 is believed to be a reference to the date of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which sparked the Gulf War the following year.

This was said before the US led the coalition for Saddam's removal from Kuwait ... might it not be reasonable that Saddam had a change of heart after his forced removal? Was there not an attempt on President Bush's (Bush 41) life from powers in Iraq?

Plus the article makes the point ...

A spokeswoman for Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said the tapes were "fascinating," but they "do not reveal anything that changes their postwar analysis of Iraq's weapons programs, nor do they change the findings contained in the comprehensive Iraq Survey Group report."

The Survey Group report, written by Charles Duelfer and published in October 2004, concluded that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded in March of 2003, but the regime intended to resume its WMD programs once U.N. sanctions were lifted.

Also, there are references of Saddam's continued attempts at concealment and obfuscation with the UN and the inspectors.

The problem here is that any attempt to use directly what Saddam says (on either side of the WMD argument) to the US, GB, the UN or even the world has to be taken with great regard under the situations or contexts of where or when it was said.

 

[Cain]

You mean they could've had WMDs but they just didn't FIND them....after we gave him months and months of warning that we were coming no less-?! WOW THAT WOULD BE A SHOCKING REVELATION

Doesn't matter since we went in to liberate the Iraqi people. But all kidding aside, the argument on the invasion was wrong: it should not have revolved around whether or not Saddam had WMDs, but whether or not Saddam posed a threat. He had WMD, used them, and oppressed "his" people for sometime with U.S. blessing.

Here's an an excerpt of an interview with Kenneth Waltz (a serious neo-realist theorist in IR):

What is your analysis of that apparent configuration of power, as a Realist? Does a Realist say this is baloney, or what?

Well, I can tell you exactly what this Realist says.

Okay.

In the first case, in the first instance, one wants to point out that the word "preemption" here is entirely misleading. "Preemption" by its dictionary usage, by its common usage among people who think about military strategy, is what occurs when you have good and very strong reasons for believing that the adversary is just about to strike. And you strike. This would make sense if you knew that, and knew it pretty much for sure, to strike first.

Now, we have no reason to think that Saddam Hussein is about to strike anybody -- not anybody in the region, let alone Europe or the United States. I mean, that's entirely fanciful. So it's not a case for preemption. The question is, is it a case for prevention? The rationale of prevention is that over time, the adversary will become so strong that you'd better fight him earlier while he's relatively weak and you can win easily, instead of waiting until he becomes strong, and then you would have a more difficult war. Well, Iraq is so weak! Its gross domestic [product] is $15 billion. We're spending almost $400 billion on our military alone. I mean, it's a pitifully weak country. Much weaker than it was in 1991, when we fought the Gulf War. And we know that. American military estimates bear that out.

So the question becomes the one that you posed: Might a country, such as Iraq, develop nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and then share them with terrorists? The first point to make about that is they can't use them, themselves. They are contained and deterred.

That is, the regime, they could not use it?

Right. No matter how often the Bush administration people say "containment and deterrence do not work," it works as well as it ever did for the purposes that we always thought it was designed to accomplish. That is, it deters other countries from using their weapons in ways that would endanger the manifestly vital interests of the United States or those it supports. So the question reduces to: Might they give these things away? Well, I don't think we have to worry about Saddam Hussein doing that, because if any terrorist ever got weaponry that they could not well get from sources other than Iraq, we would say, "Saddam Hussein did it," and we'd slam him. He knows that.

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con6.html

 

[Just thinking]

... Well, I don't think we have to worry about Saddam Hussein doing that, because if any terrorist ever got weaponry that they could not well get from sources other than Iraq, we would say, "Saddam Hussein did it," and we'd slam him. He knows that.

A very well reasoned and logical argument. The problem is, we're dealing with Saddam Hussein and his regime -- not always about to do the totally expected and rational. Here's a guy that invaded his neighbor with the whole world watching and expected no major problems. Then, when even the entire world's (essentially) military came to face him head on and offered him an option to leave without a battle, he refused. Can one always apply sound logical arguments in attempting to guarantee Saddam's behavior?

Essentially the scenario posed in the quote just above already happened -- and we saw the result. Saddam knew he would get slammed and went ahead in defiance anyway.

 

[peptoabysmal]

You can read a lot of things into that article. For example:

So who is the more likely source of WMDs in the Middle East? Why it is Iran. Looks like Saddam was telling the truth.

Also in the article:

Other documents Tierney plans to release include a 1993 assessment by Iraqi intelligence of foreign terrorist groups who could attack America on Iraq's behalf, without the United States ever realizing who was sponsoring them.

Maybe Saddam was saying that Iraq wouldn't get caught having a part in it.

But on Thursday evening, the translator of those tapes, former U.N. weapons inspector Bill Tierney, told Hannity & Colmes he disagrees with ABC's interpretation of what Saddam was saying.

"I disagree completely, because Saddam also says in other tapes that the war is ongoing," Tierney said, according to a transcript of the program.

"And when I was there [in Iraq] as an inspector, what struck me is that these people were still in the fight. There was no change of heart like you had in Germany after World War II. They were still in the fight. It makes perfect sense."

Interpreter of 'Saddam Tapes' Disagrees With ABC's 'Take' on the Story

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A very well reasoned and logical argument. The problem is, we're dealing with Saddam Hussein and his regime -- not always about to do the totally expected and rational.

No, actually. Hussein has always been predictably ruthless and self-interested.

He blundered in thinking that he could make a fight of GW1, but nobody at the time knew how decisive the USA's technological advantage was going to be. China, whose armed forces were of a similar sort to Iraq's at the time, did a major defence policy rethink after GW1 if I recall correctly. It was a tactical error more than sheer irrationality.

Here's a guy that invaded his neighbor with the whole world watching and expected no major problems.

You're about a decade behind the times. He cleared the invasion of Iraq in advance with the US ambassador, who said that the USA would not intervene if he bagged Kuwait.

It turned out they were wrong or lying, but that's history now.

Then, when even the entire world's (essentially) military came to face him head on and offered him an option to leave without a battle, he refused.

It was not anything like the entire world's military, and thought he had a fairly strong hand. It turned out he was wrong.

Can one always apply sound logical arguments in attempting to guarantee Saddam's behavior?

Essentially the scenario posed in the quote just above already happened -- and we saw the result. Saddam knew he would get slammed and went ahead in defiance anyway.

That's the revisionist version. You get fed that in the USA, because they want to obscure the fact that the war was entirely avoidable.

Hussein would never have invaded Kuwait without a green light from the USA, and he almost certainly would have agreed to a withdrawal under reasonable conditions (such as Kuwait stopping its practise of drilling diagonally under the border to tap Iraqi oil reserves). The USA bears a significant amount of the responsibility for the war, since they encouraged Hussein to strike, and then refused to negotiate a withdrawal.

The revisionist version of GW1's history that makes it a random, unprovoked act of aggression by a lunatic is not only false, it's silly.

Hussein was certainly not a nice man, and his regime was certainly not a nice regime. Whether Hussein can reasonably be made to bear all the blame for the seven-figure death toll of the two Gulf Wars and the intervening sanctions is a different question.

 

[Just thinking]

No, actually. Hussein has always been predictably ruthless and self-interested.

Now that is starting to sound as if someone is trying to have things both ways. On the one hand, Bigred is trying to bring up the issue that Saddam would never do anything that would risk a direct attack upon him that would flatten him, yet the argument is also now made that he is ruthless and self-interested to the point of total defiance with tens of countries about to pounce on him.

He blundered in thinking that he could make a fight of GW1, but nobody at the time knew how decisive the USA's technological advantage was going to be.

How decisive is not as important as the final outcome -- Saddam loses big. Blundering is the action of flawed reasoning, not flawed information. Saddam might get away with thinking that the world was not going to react the way it did -- but when the showdown materialized he behaved quite irrationally. And his behavior afterwords was quite unexcusable.

China, whose armed forces were of a similar sort to Iraq's at the time, did a major defence policy rethink after GW1 if I recall correctly.

Just how many nukes did Saddam have in comparrison to China?

You're about a decade behind the times. He cleared the invasion of Iraq in advance with the US ambassador, who said that the USA would not intervene if he bagged Kuwait.

This cannot go unchalleneged. The exact interpretation(s) with April Glaspie to Saddam kept referencing that the US had no opinion on the Iraq and Kuwait disputes -- not go ahead and do as you wish with regards to an invasion. This meant that we took no sides or did not have enough information to formulate a resolving opinion. Please go here to read ...

"Many have argued that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving tacit acquiescence to his annexation of Kuwait, while others say that nothing Glaspie says in the published versions of the transcript can be fairly interpreted as implying U.S. approval of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait."

It turned out they were wrong or lying, but that's history now.

Not a lie -- and history that shouldn't be easily dismissed.

It was not anything like the entire world's military, and thought he had a fairly strong hand. It turned out he was wrong.

Another blunder? ... or just poor information?

That's the revisionist version. You get fed that in the USA, because they want to obscure the fact that the war was entirely avoidable.

Yes ... Saddam could have backed down. His defiance was absurd, and his torching of the Kuwait oil fields showed his hand quite clearly.

Hussein would never have invaded Kuwait without a green light from the USA, and he almost certainly would have agreed to a withdrawal under reasonable conditions (such as Kuwait stopping its practise of drilling diagonally under the border to tap Iraqi oil reserves). The USA bears a significant amount of the responsibility for the war, since they encouraged Hussein to strike, and then refused to negotiate a withdrawal.

Now who's being fed revisionist information? The US never gave a green light for invasion -- please show a document clearly indicating this. No interpretations, please -- direct approval is requested. And just what is reasonable for Saddam?

The revisionist version of GW1's history that makes it a random, unprovoked act of aggression by a lunatic is not only false, it's silly.

Funny, just how amny countries were on our side? How many sent in troops to side with Saddam?

Hussein was certainly not a nice man, and his regime was certainly not a nice regime. Whether Hussein can reasonably be made to bear all the blame for the seven-figure death toll of the two Gulf Wars and the intervening sanctions is a different question.

I would give Saddam the overwhelming majority of the blame.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Now that is starting to sound as if someone is trying to have things both ways. On the one hand, Bigred is trying to bring up the issue that Saddam would never do anything that would risk a direct attack upon him that would flatten him, yet the argument is also now made that he is ruthless and self-interested to the point of total defiance with tens of countries about to pounce on him.

Bear in mind that the had one of the largest conventional forces in the world at the time, nice short supply lines and a fortified position.

Whereas rather than "tens of countries about to pounce on him", he was facing a part of the US armed forces and token assistance from 33 other nations. 74% of the 660 000 odd coalition troops were US troops, and I believe most of the non-US troops served behind the front line.

The total number of Iraqi troops was in the same ballpark.

As I said earlier, before the war, it wasn't completely ridiculous to think that the Iraqi army could have made a go of GW1. It turned out that US air power, especially stealth, was totally decisive but nobody knew for sure in advance that it would work out that way.

Hussein was very badly wrong, but he wasn't a lunatic.

How decisive is not as important as the final outcome -- Saddam loses big. Blundering is the action of flawed reasoning, not flawed information. Saddam might get away with thinking that the world was not going to react the way it did -- but when the showdown materialized he behaved quite irrationally. And his behavior afterwords was quite unexcusable.

They commit inexcusable atrocities, we understandably and with deep regret bulldoze hospitals in trenches and bomb civilian infrastructure (both war crimes)?

Just how many nukes did Saddam have in comparrison to China?

I don't understand your point.

This cannot go unchalleneged. The exact interpretation(s) with April Glaspie to Saddam kept referencing that the US had no opinion on the Iraq and Kuwait disputes -- not go ahead and do as you wish with regards to an invasion. This meant that we took no sides or did not have enough information to formulate a resolving opinion.

Sure it did. Hussein masses his troops on the border, calls an emergency meeting with the US ambassador, and asks "So, what would the USA think if I invaded?".

The ambassador replies not "That would give you way too much oil, and put you way too close to important bits of Saudi Arabia, so if you tried it we'd organise and international coalition and bomb Iraq's civilian infrastructure into the dark ages", but rather "Eh, that's an internal Arab matter, we have no opinion".

Saying the USA had no opinion, when it very clearly had a very strong opinion indeed, cannot possibly be characterised as an accurate and honest response. Either the ambassador was catastrophically wrong (an error leading directly to a terrible war) or they were lying.

Yes ... Saddam could have backed down. His defiance was absurd, and his torching of the Kuwait oil fields showed his hand quite clearly.

As I said, this is the US post-war revisionist version. Hussein had a decent hand and he played it out, which judging by his history is exactly what you would expect him to do.

I would give Saddam the overwhelming majority of the blame.

Well of course you would. That way the USA doesn't have any blame for the seven figure death toll. It was all that nasty Hussein, deliberately misinterpreting the US ambassador, not backing down unconditionally when told to, making the USA bomb civilian water and electricity supplies inside Iraq, making the USA specifically embargo life-saving drugs after the war... What a terrible man!

 

[Just thinking]

... Sure it did. Hussein masses his troops on the border, calls an emergency meeting with the US ambassador, and asks "So, what would the USA think if I invaded?" ...

This is where the crux of our difference lies, so I will focus mainly on this issue. You have not responded to my request to show a clear admission by the US that it was OK for Saddam to invade Kuwait -- in just so many words. Can you now instead, given your statement, prove that Saddam said what you have in quotes? ... emphasizing the action verb invade? If the US had told Saddam that any military action was going to be responded to with a strong military reply, he easily could have interpreded that as a threat of violence, or as an "I dare you to invade". Hell, this guy was going to interpret things any which way that would give him the indication that it was OK to invade -- that decision was already made up (by him). The US wanted to be in a neutral position with non-intervention, but Saddam prevented that. If the US had interveined we would have been blamed for interferring with Arab affairs -- if the US tries to remain neutral, Saddam takes it as a sign of it being OK to invade. No matter how you slice it, the US gets the blame (from you) for starting (or inciting) the war; at least you're making it seem that way.

And another issue is that Saddam saw the coalition form right under his nose, from which he repeatedly thumbed back. Yes, Saddam had a strong military -- but he must have known that we had superior forces, this is too much to overlook. I'll admit we didn't think it would resolve as quickly as it did, but I don't believe we had much, if any doubt, as to who would win. Saddam was merely trying to (in his eyes) save face by going against the US and our coalition allies.

So I will ask one last time (respectfully, of course) that you be able to show that the US directly told Saddam that it was OK to invade his neighbor, and/or that Saddam asked permission from the US to invade Kuwait and we replied with an "OK -- that's fine with us".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is where the crux of our difference lies, so I will focus mainly on this issue. You have not responded to my request to show a clear admission by the US that it was OK for Saddam to invade Kuwait -- in just so many words. Can you now instead, given your statement, prove that Saddam said what you have in quotes?

Are you actually questioning the claim that Hussein and Glaspie met to discuss a potential invasion of Kuwait? That would be bizarre because you posted the relevant wikipedia link yourself, but I honestly cannot see what else you might think you are driving at.

... emphasizing the action verb invade? If the US had told Saddam that any military action was going to be responded to with a strong military reply, he easily could have interpreded that as a threat of violence, or as an "I dare you to invade". Hell, this guy was going to interpret things any which way that would give him the indication that it was OK to invade -- that decision was already made up (by him).

Evidence? Any evidence at all? It seems to me this is an exercise in making up facts after the event to justify a pre-selected position.

The US wanted to be in a neutral position with non-intervention, but Saddam prevented that. If the US had interveined we would have been blamed for interferring with Arab affairs -- if the US tries to remain neutral, Saddam takes it as a sign of it being OK to invade. No matter how you slice it, the US gets the blame (from you) for starting (or inciting) the war; at least you're making it seem that way.

Why are you making up claims about what I would have said, if things had been different? You have no way of knowing what I would have said. If you think you have mind reading powers go get the million.

If you prefer to make up my position for me go argue with yourself, you don't need me at all.

And another issue is that Saddam saw the coalition form right under his nose, from which he repeatedly thumbed back. Yes, Saddam had a strong military -- but he must have known that we had superior forces, this is too much to overlook. I'll admit we didn't think it would resolve as quickly as it did, but I don't believe we had much, if any doubt, as to who would win. Saddam was merely trying to (in his eyes) save face by going against the US and our coalition allies.

That and/or he may have thought that he could put up enough of a fight that a ceasefire agreement making some concessions to him would be possible.

Neither the USA nor Iraq wanted a reputation for backing down without a fight, or for making threats they could not follow through on. Both would go to war rather than lose face in such a way.

 

[Ed]

I think that the "evidence" of the US encouragement of Iraq's invasion is unclear. I think any strong interpretation says much about the motives of the interpreter.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think that the "evidence" of the US encouragement of Iraq's invasion is unclear. I think any strong interpretation says much about the motives of the interpreter.

As I believe I said earlier, I can't credit any available explanations other than "catastrophic, but possibly understandable error" and "deliberate attempt to start a war".

I've got no particular favourite out of those two options. Both seem plausible.

If that allows Ed to discern my secret hidden motives, bully for him.

 

[Just thinking]

Are you actually questioning the claim that Hussein and Glaspie met to discuss a potential invasion of Kuwait? That would be bizarre because you posted the relevant wikipedia link yourself, but I honestly cannot see what else you might think you are driving at.

No -- I want evidence that clearly shows in no unclear terms that the US gave the OK to invade. Staying neutral or yielding no opinion is not the same as giving approval of any and all actions -- especially military.

Evidence? Any evidence at all? It seems to me this is an exercise in making up facts after the event to justify a pre-selected position.

No -- now who is trying to read minds? I said clear edivence of approval of an invasion, nothing less. It's becoming clear you can't supply that.

Why are you making up claims about what I would have said, if things had been different? You have no way of knowing what I would have said. If you think you have mind reading powers go get the million.

I have the power to read your claims and lack of proof -- please stick to your issues.

If you prefer to make up my position for me go argue with yourself, you don't need me at all.

Actually I don't -- except to see if you can substantiate your positions. I am willing to rest my positions on facts, but so far you haven't yielded the clincher.

That and/or he may have thought that he could put up enough of a fight that a ceasefire agreement making some concessions to him would be possible.

I find that actually highly questionable -- many have said that he did what he did to either save face or try and do what he wanted after the battles were over. And seeing what happened with UN resolutions, the latter seems to have been the case.

Neither the USA nor Iraq wanted a reputation for backing down without a fight, or for making threats they could not follow through on. Both would go to war rather than lose face in such a way.

Saddam put his forces up first -- then the coalition, that order of events is clear and important. The coalition then offered a timetable for Saddam's removal of forces from Kuwait without a fight. That too is clear and important. Your claims do not seem to fit the facts -- unless you can please show otherwise.

 

[Just thinking]

I think that the "evidence" of the US encouragement of Iraq's invasion is unclear. I think any strong interpretation says much about the motives of the interpreter.

Thank you. It just seems to me that if the US wanted so much an excuse to invade that we would not have given Saddam so many chances to end hostilities without a fight.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No -- I want evidence that clearly shows in no unclear terms that the US gave the OK to invade.

Okay, then I want evidence that Saddam Hussein, in his own words, stated "I am insane and I am just acting randomly. Woohoo! Explosions!". Fair's fair.

I have the power to read your claims and lack of proof -- please stick to your issues.

I'm trying to, but you seem to think you can decide on my behalf what my issues are.

I find that actually highly questionable -- many have said that he did what he did to either save face or try and do what he wanted after the battles were over. And seeing what happened with UN resolutions, the latter seems to have been the case.

That's novel. It was all part of his cunning plan all along?

Saddam put his forces up first -- then the coalition, that order of events is clear and important. The coalition then offered a timetable for Saddam's removal of forces from Kuwait without a fight. That too is clear and important. Your claims do not seem to fit the facts -- unless you can please show otherwise.

Could you try explaining a bit more clearly which claims of mine you think are refuted by these facts?

It seems to me you are just throwing random statements around and then claiming you have won.

 

[Cylinder]

You're about a decade behind the times. He cleared the invasion of Iraq in advance with the US ambassador, who said that the USA would not intervene if he bagged Kuwait.

Not true. Amb. Galaspie stated on the eve of the Arab League negotiations on the border dispute that the US took "no position" on the peaceful resolution of that dispute under the auspices of the upcoming Arab League negotiations. She was very clear on this point and Tariq Aziz has agreed with the context of her remarks.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not true. Amb. Galaspie stated on the eve of the Arab League negotiations on the border dispute that the US took "no position" on the peaceful resolution of that dispute under the auspices of the upcoming Arab League negotiations. She was very clear on this point and Tariq Aziz has agreed with the context of her remarks.

That sounds to me like what I said.

How do you spin "no position" so that it is consistent with "you invade, we invade"? That certainly looks like a position to me. What do you think I am missing?

You can't tell me that the US ambassador was unaware of Iraq's mobilisation and deployment on the Kuwaiti border. Any discussion was clearly in the context of an international crisis with war as a possibility.

Diplomatic language for "you invade, we invade" would obviously be a great deal more flowery and indirect, and it would probably go on a lot about the USA's commitment to peace, the status quo, established international boundaries, the economic importance of stability in the region and so on, but such warnings can be and are expressed when necessary.

 

[Cylinder]

That sounds to me like what I said.

How do you spin "no position" so that it is consistent with "you invade, we invade"? That certainly looks like a position to me. What do you think I am missing?

You are missing the context of the Arab League negotiations. If you come to me to buy my wife's car and I tell you to work out the price with her, that does not mean you can steal it. "No position" clearly meant in this case that whatever agreement the Arab League worked out would be acceptable to the US.

You can't tell me that the US ambassador was unaware of Iraq's mobilisation and deployment on the Kuwaiti border. Any discussion was clearly in the context of an international crisis with war as a possibility.

And in the context of a conversation on the eve of a negotiation for peace. That's what the whole cosultation was apparently about and the context in which the statement occured.

 

[shecky]

er Caught on tape (stinkin can't edit subj lines limitation)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/18/hussein.tapes/index.html

"...US officials who have reviewed the tapes said Hussein was "fixated" on acquiring weapons of mass destruction and preventing U.N. inspectors from finding out..."

From article:

Former U.N. weapons inspector Bill Tierney, who translated the tapes for the FBI, provided the recordings to a nongovernmental meeting in Arlington, Virginia, called Intelligence Summit 2006.

This character Bill Tierney, the arabic translator finding all this stuff, turns up in the strangest places.

This whacko also seems to enjoy torturing prisoners, even if they don't break:

Suddenly Tierney's temper rose. ''They did not break!'' he shouted. ''I'm here to win. I'm here so our civilization beats theirs! Now what are you willing to do to win?'' he asked, pointing to a woman in the front row. ''You are the interrogators, you are the ones who have to get the information from the Iraqis. What do you do? That word 'torture'. You immediately think, 'That's not me.' But are we litigating this war or fighting it?''
---

Asked about Abu Ghraib, Tierney said that for an interrogator, ''sadism is always right over the hill. You have to admit it. Don't fool yourself - there is a part of you that will say, 'This is fun.'''

It seems he told the flaming liberal mag, The National Review that he was on a mission from God to expose weapon sites in Iraq:

that God directed him to weapons sites in Iraq and that his belief in the importance of one particular site was strengthened when a friend told him that she had a vision of the site in a dream. In his presentation at the so-called "Intelligence Summit," Tierney, an Arabic speaker, described how he received the "Saddam Tapes" from federal authorities last year as part of his job as a contract translator. It was supposed to be a routine assignment, but Tierney said he soon realized the tapes had special significance and decided to make them public. Tierney said he believes other tapes, which have not yet been heard, will eventually reveal that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Tierney also said that he believes Iraq orchestrated the 2001 anthrax attacks, with Saddam Hussein using American scientist Steven Hatfill as a "proxy" to carry out the mission.

There you have it; America's best and brightest.