Interrogator: Saddam Lied about WMD's

Discussing all things political in NW Arkansas and beyond.
Post Reply
Hillwilllose

Interrogator: Saddam Lied about WMD's

Post by Hillwilllose »

Hillary and Kerry where right- Pres. Bush WAS justified into attacking Iraq based on the best information at the time. Success has 1,000 fathers, failure has none. Thank goodness our brave armed forces are defeating the enemy in Iraq- Good job soldiers, airman and marines.
He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/ ... 9494.shtml
(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.

Piro spent almost seven months debriefing Saddam in a plan based on winning his confidence by convincing him that Piro was an important envoy who answered to President Bush. This and being Saddam's sole provider of items like writing materials and toiletries made the toppled Iraqi president open up to Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic.

"He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack," says Piro. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." "He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" asks Pelley, "No, not initially," answers Piro.

Once the invasion was certain, says Piro, Saddam asked his generals if they could hold the invaders for two weeks. "And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war," Piro tells Pelley. But Piro isn’t convinced that the insurgency was Saddam's plan. "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," says Piro.

Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, "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," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

Saddam bragged that he changed his routine and security to elude capture. "What he wanted to really illustrate is…how he was able to outsmart us," says Piro. "He told me he changed…the way he traveled. He got rid of his normal vehicles. He got rid of the protective detail that he traveled with, really just to change his signature."

It took nine months to finally capture Saddam, but U.S. calculations on where he might be early on turned out to be accurate. Saddam was at Dora Farms early in the war when the known presidential site was targeted with tons of bombs and many missiles. "He said it in a kind of a bragging fashion that he was there, but that we missed him. He wasn't bothered by the fact that he was there," Piro tells Pelley.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Interrogator: Saddam Lied about WMD's

Post by Dardedar »

Hillwilllose wrote:Hillary and Kerry where right- Pres. Bush WAS justified into attacking Iraq...


DAR
Just like Galt. Hack out an incoherent sentence without even an attempt to back it up, post something and then RUN AWAY. When did Hillary and Kerry say Bush was "justified into[sic] attacking Iraq?"
Success has 1,000 fathers, failure has none.
DAR
Then comes the inane cliche'.
Thank goodness our brave armed forces are defeating the enemy in Iraq- Good job soldiers, airman and marines.
DAR
Followed by the necessary jingoistic and oh so Orwellian flag wave.

Hillwill probably thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11 <snort>.

You warmongers lost this argument a very long time ago. Get over it.

I'll take a couple cherries:
"He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program."
DAR
So you go to war over what someone, supposedly, someday, "wants" to do? That's the republican, chicken-hawk threshold?

What we were actually told:

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction,...
DAR
When did he claim to have WMD's? Do I actually have to go and dig up the musty old quotes showing they said they had no weapons of mass destruction?

Galt says you are quite the debater. You will roast us like marshmellows. When is this going to begin?

D.
-------------------------------
"George W. Bush ...is surprisingly vulnerable to a challenge from his right. Issues: his soaring deficits; his preferential option for the rich; his sellout of conservative principle to embrace big government; his failure to protect America's borders and control immigration; his cave-in on the assault-gun law; his concessions to the gay Log Cabin Republicans; his refusal to put a stop to race preferences and reverse discrimination; his free-trade zealotry, which has helped to kill one of every eight manufacturing jobs in the United States while creating jobs in China; and, potentially the most explosive, his "quagmire" in Iraq. If U.S. soldiers are still dying from sniper fire and ambushes in Iraq in September of 2004, Bush could be vulnerable to the campaign slogan "Support Our Troops—Bring Them Home Now!”
-- Pat Buchanan, Atlantic Monthly, 9/03

Image
LaWood

Post by LaWood »

Tonite CBS broadcast the interview with Sadaam's FBI handler. He specifically said the U.S. had destroyed his WMD in 91-92. He went on to say he was bluffing (he's done it before) by not allowing inspectors to determine that he had no weapons because he did not wish to appear weak to Iran, his long time enemy.
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Post by Doug »

LaWood wrote:Tonite CBS broadcast the interview with Sadaam's FBI handler. He specifically said the U.S. had destroyed his WMD in 91-92. He went on to say he was bluffing (he's done it before) by not allowing inspectors to determine that he had no weapons because he did not wish to appear weak to Iran, his long time enemy.
DOUG
Yes, Bush knew there were no WMD's. Not that he cared. He didn't invade Iraq because of WMD's. Or terrorists. He did it to get out from under his Papa's shadow. And he didn't care if he had to send our young men and women to their deaths to do it.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Posts: 2232
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0

Post by Barbara Fitzpatrick »

And NOBODY voted for "the war" - the MSM has put out that meme, bought by apparently everybody, including the progressives who should know better, to prevent indictments and war-crime trials after Jan. 20, 2009. What Hillary and John (Kerry and Edwards for that matter) voted for was a law to hold W accountable should he attack Iraq. W was authorized to, should Saddam refuse inspectors, send in a military team to knock out WMD facilities, like the Israelis did umpty years back. He isn't indictable right now, because we can't remove him from office (Hey! Progressives! Quit trying to hand W's defense team a Senate acquittal, will ya?) - but as soon as he is out, he is most certainly indictable on that one alone. Of course, he's indictable on lots of other things (4th and 5th amendment violations, anyone?), too. And should he - god of your choice forbid - attack Iran, Kyl-Lieberman made sure he would be indictable for that, too.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Post Reply