| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: nterrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam
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.
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.
Produced By Henry Schuster
� MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/printable3749494.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's too bad that Saddam was so short sighted. He might still be in power if he had prompted an Iranian invasion, then appealed to the US to help Iraq, thereby allowing the apparent neocon wet dream, control of the middle east from Iraq to Afghanistan. Though the Sunni/Shia conflict would have been a huge wild card in that hypothetical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the Neo cons want to control the mideast it is primarily to get the Bathists the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists to give up their war.
When Iran and Iraq had their war they had a hard time causing trouble for others. The US was stupid to get involved in efforts to stop it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What are you talking about? The neocon/PNAC agenda has been the same since the late 90's, before 9/11 and even the Cole.
The US mucked about with the Iran/Iraq war because of good ol' Rep ideology. That and the CIA leadership, a leadership installed by Reagan's administration, had a hard time not choosing a Capitalist Dictator as their preferred butt boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
What are you talking about? The neocon/PNAC agenda has been the same since the late 90's, before 9/11 and even the Cole.
The US mucked about with the Iran/Iraq war because of good ol' Rep ideology. That and the CIA leadership, a leadership installed by Reagan's administration, had a hard time not choosing a Capitalist Dictator as their preferred butt boy. |
That agenda was for the US not to rely on the UN and for the US not to unilaterally disarm.
And 9-11 showed that if anything the neo cons were right that the mideast as it was was a threat to the US.
You are saying that the US put Saddam in power? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who knows what would have happened in Iraq in the US hadn't propped up Saddam's regime. We certainly kept him in power.
As far as the PNAC agenda being right about the middle east, it's more of a "what came first the chicken or the egg." Would they hate us if our bases weren't there, something the neocons pushed to keep after the fall of the USSR? Their assumption, that with the elimination of the Soviets the Islamists, that we helped create, would eventually turn on us became a self-fulfilling prophecy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Czarjorge"]
| Quote: |
| Who knows what would have happened in Iraq in the US hadn't propped up Saddam's regime. We certainly kept him in power. |
The US only helped Saddam when he began to lose to Iran
| Quote: |
As far as the PNAC agenda being right about the middle east, it's more of a "what came first the chicken or the egg." Would they hate us if our bases weren't there, something the neocons pushed to keep after the fall of the USSR? Their assumption, that with the elimination of the Soviets the Islamists, that we helped create, would eventually turn on us became a self-fulfilling prophecy. |
Yes the Bathists the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists would still hate the US.
One of their goals is to conquer the gulf in order to use that oil to blackmail the US. Oh and here is your answer. For example Iraq has a right to Iraqi oil but not Kuwaiti oil. Why ought the US let Saddam profit from his illegal action which would hurt the US?
As for Al Qaeda their goal is a mulit national Caliphate that would be by definition be a threat to the US.
It doesn't stop at the mideast either. What was the Bali bombing about ? It was revenge against Australia for helping Timor become free from Indonesia.
What ought the US do when Al Qaeda claims that US relations with India are equal to a war against muslims. In fact they already blame the US for helping India oppress muslims.
That there very little chance of a Caliphate coming into being doesn't stop Al Qaeda from attacking the US any more than it stopped Tim McVeigh who wanted to overthrow the US government from blowing up a building in Oklahoma.
The Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists fight to expel the US from the gulf so they can control it/ possess it but it doesn't stop there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .....but Saddam denied having WMD before the invasion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember when Dan Rather interviewed Saddam in early 2003?
He stated that Iraq had no WMD. Google it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Saddam said different things at different times but anyway he clearly intended to rearm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Saddam said different things at different times but anyway he clearly intended to rearm. |
He said that he had no WMD. Now we know that the US decided to trust a man that had already been discredited by German intelligence on blind faith. See 'Curveball' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He also deceived the world in the late 80's about his nuclear program, he used WMDs against his own people.
The record shows he was not in compliance and he was a greater killer than Idi Amin why would anyone trust him?
At any rate WMDs were not the real reason for the war. They were the stated reason and a rationalization for the war but they were not the true reason for the war.
The US did think Saddam had WMDs but they were not particularly afraid of what he might have had at the time.
The US also considered Saddam a potential threat. If Iraq ever got nuclear weapons it would be far more powerful than North Korea. But the US did not think of Iraq as an imminent threat.
So if your point is did the US think that Iraq was an imminent threat because of WMDs the answer was no.
Also after 9-11 the American public would have probably accepted many excuses to take down Saddam. So the idea of WMDs wasn�t to mislead Americans as much is was to come up with an excuse to the world for the US actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| He said that he had no WMD. |
Why should anyone have taken anything Saddam ever said at face value? More to the point: why are you defending Saddam's statements (other than the obvious that you do not care about him at all but he serves as a useful pretext to attack American policy)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| He said that he had no WMD. |
Why should anyone have taken anything Saddam ever said at face value? More to the point: why are you defending Saddam's statements (other than the obvious that you do not care about him at all but he serves as a useful pretext to attack American policy)? |
Defend? I'm just pointing out the obvious. He said he didn't have any WMD. There was no WMD. The chicken hawks were wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
