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

[DadsDream]

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]

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?

 

[Saintman2884]

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]

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]

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.

 

[DadsDream]

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]

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

 

[DadsDream]

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]

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]

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

 

[dtc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.