Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / British History / January 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

FBI Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
D. Spencer Hines - 25 Jan 2008 16:49 GMT
Hmmmmmmm...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------

CBS 60 Minutes

(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....

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's why Saddam and his sons needed to be taken out.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Vires et Honor
Charlie Wilkes - 25 Jan 2008 23:01 GMT
> And that's why Saddam and his sons needed to be taken out.

Bah.  Look around you, genius.  The world is full of megalomaniac tin-
horns just as bad as Saddam.

Charlie
The Highlander - 26 Jan 2008 00:30 GMT
On Jan 25, 3:01 pm, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
wrote:

> > And that's why Saddam and his sons needed to be taken out.
>
> Bah.  Look around you, genius.  The world is full of megalomaniac tin-
> horns just as bad as Saddam.
>
> Charlie

Agreed. And high on the list of those who need to be taken out are
people like David Spencer Hines.
To paraphrase Henry II " "Who will rid us of that meddlesome pervert?"
Tiglath - 26 Jan 2008 06:50 GMT
> Hmmmmmmm...
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> And that's why Saddam and his sons needed to be taken out.

A man's bluff to a neighbor, and his wishful thinking.   Some
reasons.

Oh boy.

If we go to war because we thought that Saddam was an clear and
present danger, and finding that he had none of the weapons that would
make him such danger confirms our actions, what could possibly
disconfirm them?
Tiglath - 26 Jan 2008 06:55 GMT
---------------------------------------------------------------

> And that's why Saddam and his sons needed to be taken out.

Your penance for wanting, having, and incredibly still supporting the
Iraq war is going to be a two-term Hillary presidency.

Serves you right.

Unfortunately, I opposed the war and I'll be a penitent too.
Les Cargill - 27 Jan 2008 17:24 GMT
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> And that's why Saddam and his sons needed to be taken out.
>
> Your penance for wanting, having, and incredibly still supporting the
> Iraq war is going to be a two-term Hillary presidency.

While I think I understand the idea behind such a statement, what
it means is still quite lost to me.

The Bushies successfully exploited jingoism as an electoral tactic,
at least the second time. So that means Mommy/Nurse Ratched is now
required... to discipline the naughty children?

What? The mental age of American politics is now about five years
old?

> Serves you right.
>
> Unfortunately, I opposed the war and I'll be a penitent too.

Oh, *that* will add a lot of value. "Opposing the war" required facts
not in evidence, prior to the making public of the fact that there were
no WMD. As with all fait accompli, it was then too late.
Information-reducing this to one bits' worth of "Bush lied; people
died" seems facile.

General Wesley Clark made a statement after Gulf War I that Saddaam
was at least an equilibrium in Iraq, and that any "replacement"* would
create chaos. Well, I suspect he's been borne out. Maybe not - it's
not been utter chaos.

*this supports the observation of both Hitchens and Scott Ritter
that regime change was US policy during the Clinton Administration,
or at least that he felt it important to oppose the idea publicly.

My point would be that trying to use a partisan distinction seems
futile. Both parties ended up using Iraq for electoral
purposes. This seems to echo the old Empire strategies of people
like Gladstone - glibly. I am sure there's a mountain of differences,
but I can only find or digest so much material on this.

--
Les Cargill
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.