60 Minutes: Saddam's Interrogator Speaks of WMDs, Saddam's Intentions (MERGED) (1 Viewer)

DadsDream

Dreaming of a SAINTS Super Bowl!
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
41,540
Reaction score
6,187
Location
Hancock County
Offline
This should help clear up a few of the questions we've discussed here in the past.

"For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq."

"Saddam still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there. He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program."


Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam
Tells 60 Minutes Former Dictator Bragged About Eluding Capture
Jan. 24, 2008


(CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.

Piro, in his first television interview, relays this and other revelations to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley this Sunday, Jan. 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

READ MORE
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml
 

CitySaint

SR is my life!
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
10,765
Offline
Is this another Administration issued lie?

Saddam and officials said they had no WMDs and that they were destroyed in the 90's. They said this on television and in print I'm sure of it. Why would he keep the fact he had none a secret? Ain't Peeley a Bush lover?
 
Last edited:

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,611
Reaction score
2,406
Offline
City, I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I think the premise of this man's argument is to say that Saddam wanted to do it, he had ambitions of making a new WMD program sometimes in the future. Whether or not character analysis is about this whole argument is up to be debated I don't know. I realize some people will be cynical and decry the report as a Bush favored report, but maybe its good reporting. Who knows?

I just think to prematurely dismiss the man because he may be a conservative is a moot point to me. This is a man who works for CBS News, not Fox News. their is a difference
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,611
Reaction score
2,406
Offline
BTW, just because some one like Saddam says that he did not have any weapons does mean he wont get any in the future or can be trusted at face value like lets say other tyrants like Kim Jong il of North Korea. Quite frankly man that man scares me much more then Saddam ever did.

JMHO
 

CitySaint

SR is my life!
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
10,765
Offline
FoxNews

Saddam said Monday that Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction for defense against Iran and Israel, but it no longer holds them, according to the Iraqi News Agency.

"We are not weapons collectors," Saddam said in remarks during a meeting with a Tunisian envoy..

"But we had these weapons for purposes of self-defense when we were at war with Iran for eight years and when the Zionist entity (Israel) was, and it still is, a threat."

Iraq and Iran fought a ruinous 1980-1988 war in which chemical weapons were used. When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says," Saddam said.
 
OP
DadsDream

DadsDream

Dreaming of a SAINTS Super Bowl!
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
41,540
Reaction score
6,187
Location
Hancock County
Offline
The interrogator also said Saddam intended to reestablish all three components of his WMD program - nuclear, biological and chemical. Note, "reestablish." He had all three components going at one time.

In my opinion, he blew it when he launched the SCUD missiles at Tel Aviv.

We gave the Israelis Patriot missiles and a few million bucks not to hit back at him. We also promised them we'd see to it that that would never happen again.
 

saintfan-n-alex

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
9,845
Reaction score
3,367
Offline
this is precisely why America should try to avoid preemptive strikes based on sketchy information about objects no inspector has ever seen.

who lied, they all lied, some statements maybe out right untruths, some lies are by omission this is politics, Americans are not told everything - we never have, we never will.

the entire Iraqi plan was flawed from jump, it really went south after we claimed mission accomplished

the who said what when to the American public is really the least concerning part of the whole issue at this point
 
OP
DadsDream

DadsDream

Dreaming of a SAINTS Super Bowl!
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
41,540
Reaction score
6,187
Location
Hancock County
Offline
FoxNews

Saddam said Monday that Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction for defense against Iran and Israel, but it no longer holds them, according to the Iraqi News Agency.

"We are not weapons collectors," Saddam said in remarks during a meeting with a Tunisian envoy..

"But we had these weapons for purposes of self-defense when we were at war with Iran for eight years and when the Zionist entity (Israel) was, and it still is, a threat."

Iraq and Iran fought a ruinous 1980-1988 war in which chemical weapons were used. When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says," Saddam said.
CitySaint, he issued that statement on March 17. We invaded on March 18.

At that point, he was staring down the barrel of a loaded gun and his statement completely contradicted everything he'd been saying before.
 

NCSaint

Guest
Offline
Does anybody actually care anymore? I have given up. I don't even read this stuff anymore. Sadly I have resigned to the fact that my tax contributions will go to avance someones agenda far from where I live. In this case a lying crazy man saying he has WMD was just too attactive for Bushy to pass up.
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
30,536
Reaction score
23,446
Offline
CitySaint, he issued that statement on March 17. We invaded on March 18.

At that point, he was staring down the barrel of a loaded gun and his statement completely contradicted everything he'd been saying before.
Saddam also tried to cut deals with us, including stepping down (if he could take some cash with him), but no one would pick up the phone on our end.

He even offered to allow some U.S. troops into Iraq to search for the elusive WMD.

We ignored all these offers because even though it might have avoided war and verified no WMD, it would not have allowed us to move our bases into Iraq from Saudi Arabia, change the government of Iraq, get a new oil law passed and assist Israel.

We were going in no matter what.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1079769,00.html
 
Last edited:

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,408
Reaction score
28,501
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
BTW, just because some one like Saddam says that he did not have any weapons does mean he wont get any in the future or can be trusted at face value like lets say other tyrants like Kim Jong il of North Korea. Quite frankly man that man scares me much more then Saddam ever did.

JMHO
And I always dreamed of being 6'2" I guess dreaming can get you killed if you're a dictator of a sovereign nation that doesn't like the US.
 

'79 Saints

Guest
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
3,119
Reaction score
0
Age
53
Location
The Negative Zone
Offline
Saddam also tried to cut deals with us, including stepping down (if he could take some cash with him), but no one would pick up the phone on our end.

He even offered to allow some U.S. troops into Iraq to search for the elusive WMD.

We ignored all these offers because even though it might have avoided war and verified no WMD, it would not have allowed us to move our bases into Iraq from Saudi Arabia, change the government of Iraq, get a new oil law passed and assist Israel.

We were going in no matter what.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1079769,00.html
Again, you act like this is a bad thing... Saddam's trustworthiness had been proven to be dubious at best... removing Saddam from power and allowing him to live in exile wouldn't have prompted a real regime change.

It would have made Iraq even more unstable, because the Ba'athists would still be in power, but angry at American "imperialism".
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
31,969
Reaction score
18,149
Age
48
Location
Houston
Online
Again, you act like this is a bad thing... Saddam's trustworthiness had been proven to be dubious at best... removing Saddam from power and allowing him to live in exile wouldn't have prompted a real regime change.

It would have made Iraq even more unstable, because the Ba'athists would still be in power, but angry at American "imperialism".
It would have also kept his former opposition in perpetual fear of his return and unwilling to take "steps forward" out of fear of reprisal.

Saddam was famous for the brutality of his reprisals.
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
30,536
Reaction score
23,446
Offline
Again, you act like this is a bad thing... Saddam's trustworthiness had been proven to be dubious at best... removing Saddam from power and allowing him to live in exile wouldn't have prompted a real regime change.

It would have made Iraq even more unstable, because the Ba'athists would still be in power, but angry at American "imperialism".

Iraq was quite stable with the Baathists in power. It was based on brute force, but it was stable.

In the end the costs over the decades of installing and maintaining a government in Iraq that America approves of will be very high. It's going to require constant meddling and string pulling, which will create unpredictable events decades down the road, when the U.S. taxpayer will again be asked to clean up some mess.

I think we should just go back to the V8 engine and just burn as much oil as we can. The quicker we burn through the oil, the sooner we will get serious about alternative energy sources and make the technological innovations necessary.

At that point, with their oil worthless, we can stop messing around in places like Iraq, because we are not there out of altruism.

Look at the mess in Kenya right now. There's as much brutality and abject suffering there as you will find in Iraq but no one gives a damn.

Why?

They ain't got no oil.
 

'79 Saints

Guest
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
3,119
Reaction score
0
Age
53
Location
The Negative Zone
Offline
Iraq was quite stable with the Baathists in power. It was based on brute force, but it was stable.

In the end the costs over the decades of installing and maintaining a government in Iraq that America approves of will be very high. It's going to require constant meddling and string pulling, which will create unpredictable events decades down the road, when the U.S. taxpayer will again be asked to clean up some mess.

I think we should just go back to the V8 engine and just burn as much oil as we can. The quicker we burn through the oil, the sooner we will get serious about alternative energy sources and make the technological innovations necessary.

At that point, with their oil worthless, we can stop messing around in places like Iraq, because we are not there out of altruism.

Look at the mess in Kenya right now. There's as much brutality and abject suffering there as you will find in Iraq but no one gives a damn.

Why?

They ain't got no oil.
And Hitler at least got the trains to run on time.

Until cold fusion is developed, there will be no real source of alternative energy, because it isn't as cheap, plentiful and easily convertible into energy as oil.

Oil ranks right up there with food, water and air insofar as how important it is to every day life.
 

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
46,056
Reaction score
20,765
Online
Look at the mess in Kenya right now. There's as much brutality and abject suffering there as you will find in Iraq but no one gives a damn.

Why?

They ain't got no oil.

Not to dismiss that point, because I agree there's certainly a self-serving aspect as it relates to our demand for oil, but Kenya also doesn't pose a militaristic threat to the world -- real or perceived.

And FWIW, tangential, I wish developed nations would take a more active role in intervening in cases of genocide as is happening in Darfur.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

Headlines

Top Bottom