Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Well this answers a few questions about Saddam and his WMD programs.

1. Saddam faked having a WMD program to keep Iran from attacking him.
2. Saddam planned to restart his WMD program some place down the line.
3. Saddam did not think we would invade, but expected some type of bombing attack similar to what Clinton did.

I wonder what else will come out when the full interview hits the TV.
link to 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.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
looks like the only bill of goods sold was by saddam himself...although this won't matter to the sycophants on the left. to them it's still "bush's phony war" etc.

cue posts containing dead soldier numbers, thumbs down icons, bush lied, etc
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
"3. Saddam did not think we would invade, but expected some type of bombing attack similar to what Clinton did. "

Seems like Saddam even underestimated Bush's lack of intelligence.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: bamacre
"3. Saddam did not think we would invade, but expected some type of bombing attack similar to what Clinton did. "

Seems like Saddam even underestimated Bush's lack of intelligence.
Being outsmarted by stupid has been a continuing theme during the Bush campaign, which doesn't say much for those that have been outsmarted.

No doubt you're a victim too.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
looks like the only bill of goods sold was by saddam himself...although this won't matter to the sycophants on the left. to them it's still "bush's phony war" etc.

cue posts containing dead soldier numbers, thumbs down icons, bush lied, etc
Right, so now it was Saddam that decided we would invade iraq?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
That has been speculated upon and all but confirmed by other people for several years now.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
"3. Saddam did not think we would invade, but expected some type of bombing attack similar to what Clinton did. "

Seems like Saddam even underestimated Bush's lack of intelligence.
Being outsmarted by stupid has been a continuing theme during the Bush campaign, which doesn't say much for those that have been outsmarted.

No doubt you're a victim too.
Aside from the absurdity of your non sequitur -- "outsmarted" and "duped" are two very different things -- an objective observer has to wonder who the stupid one was in that little encounter. Seems to me that it was Hussein who outfoxed Bush to tune of hundreds of thousands of live, hundreds of billions of dollars, and a surge in anti-American hostility across the globe, including inciting millions of additional Muslims to declare jihad against us. Perhaps you should brush up on concepts like "winning the battle and losing the war."

Toodles.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
I think it's stupid and a waste of air space... This guy could say anything... What are you gonna dig him back up to ask him a few questions. Bunch of BS if you ask me...

Oh well....... Only stupid americans will be tuning into this I suppose. Another he said she said fairy tail ... I say you'd be better off having one of the psycho dudes that claim that they can talk to the dead summon Saddam and ask him some REAL questions... hahaha I think that would be more entertaining... Something I might actually watch!





 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Well, I was one of those that contended a long time ago that Sadaam's WMD talk was more bluster than threat. Much in the M.E. culture revolves around the perception of strength, including security, influence, and stature.

Bush & Co. never seemed to have a clue regarding the culture over there, and still don't. Pointing that out for years seems to have been a small voice in a large crowd.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,950
10,294
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. Saddam faked having a WMD program to keep Iran from attacking him.

Good thing we helped Iran then eh? So they can freely pursue their nuclear program.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I believe I predicted this about three years ago. It makes perfect sense. Saddam was in a catch-22. His only hope was to pretend that he still had the goods to fend off his local enemies while feigning that he didn't to placate us. Bottom line: either we or Iran would be in Iraq right now. If we had waited for Iran to move in, things might be better since the world would be more supportive if we stepped in to help, but things might also be much, much worse and cause a massive escalation in the region. I don't see how we could have allowed Iran to take Iraq unopposed, so those are the two real options.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
I think I posted something about this a couple years ago.

There was a story that circulated where Saddam sat down with his generals to prepare for what was looking like an eventual US invation. Some of his generals were discussing how to best deploy their stash of chem weapons on US troops and were absolutely shocked when Saddam informed them that there were no such weapons available.

He had been dicking with the UN and the US to make it appear that he still had them in the hopes that the US would think twice about invading at the cost of so many soldiers' lives.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
What Saddam said to Piro had already been general knowledge for years. The only thing new is 60 minutes picking it up.

In terms of fooling everyone on WMD, its a I do not think so. Too many people knew things did not add up even though it might be speculation on why the WMD was being hyped.

And when in that situation its an accident waiting to happen when the worse case scenario wins.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: daveymark
looks like the only bill of goods sold was by saddam himself...although this won't matter to the sycophants on the left. to them it's still "bush's phony war" etc.

cue posts containing dead soldier numbers, thumbs down icons, bush lied, etc

So Sadaam did not have WMD's and lied about them. If Bush had waited for the arms inspectors to finished then the US would not have invaded Iraq.

How many people, US and Iraqis, have been maimed and killed because Bush did not allow the arms inspectors to finished before he invaded Iraq?


I will not bother with thumbs down icons.


 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Yup I also remember talking about this a few years ago. Kind of seems obvious - no real love with the Turks, Shaky at best with Jordinians, Hated Kuwaitis, and had Iran next door. With neighbors like there, why would America be his greatest preoccupation?

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Well, I was one of those that contended a long time ago that Sadaam's WMD talk was more bluster than threat. Much in the M.E. culture revolves around the perception of strength, including security, influence, and stature.
I do think that is true...but I'm having trouble understanding why it isn't even true here ;) And lets not start talking about the concept of "face" in east asian cultures....Its a common feature with us all


Anyways I suspect that it seems ProfJ is trying to use this as rationalization of invading Iraq. When the reality is he WAS contained. When the reality is Saddam was concerned about IRAN (ie: our common "Enemy")...Interestingly enough you'd think we might have been able to cooperate to stem off Iranian influence once more. But naaaah - Iran is a player in the region unless we want to try to bomb them again (unjustified imo).
I still - to this point - don't understand this maniacal obsession of people believing he wanted WMD to attack us. Its like saying our government had a maniacal obsession to attack Ira...uh...n/m ><
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I said on the eve of the invasion "Either Saddam has WMD, or he is the worst bluffer in the history of human kind". Apparently he went all in and we called his bluff.

As for the outsmarting thing, no surprise, meglomaniac dictators often make it a game.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,430
14,839
146
Oddly enough, the UN weapons inspectors all said that there was no evidence of Iraq having any WMD's of any kind, yet Bush, who was so bent on being a WAR President, invaded anyway. Between his drive to avenge the suposed Iraqi attempt on his father and his desire to draw America's attention from the faltering economy, he was hell-bent on invading, even if it meant using phonied intelligence to justify it.
How many times did we hear, They have WMD's and we know where they are," or The WMD's are in Mosul, Tikrit, or some other Iraqi city," yet we never found a single one?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Oddly enough, the UN weapons inspectors all said that there was no evidence of Iraq having any WMD's of any kind, yet Bush, who was so bent on being a WAR President, invaded anyway. Between his drive to avenge the suposed Iraqi attempt on his father and his desire to draw America's attention from the faltering economy, he was hell-bent on invading, even if it meant using phonied intelligence to justify it.
How many times did we hear, They have WMD's and we know where they are," or The WMD's are in Mosul, Tikrit, or some other Iraqi city," yet we never found a single one?
Your bolded statement above is only a half-truth and tells only half of the truth. What the UN inspectors, specifically Blix, said was this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ripts/blix_012703.html

These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility.

Including that "but nor" statement clarifies far more thoroughly how the inspcetors really felt and does not distort their intent.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
Faked it? He was telling anyone who would listen he didn't have WMDs.
Are you calling the FBI interrogator a liar?

If so, can you provide anything, at all, to substantiate that accusation?
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: senseamp
Faked it? He was telling anyone who would listen he didn't have WMDs.
Are you calling the FBI interrogator a liar?

If so, can you provide anything, at all, to substantiate that accusation?

He wouldn't be the first member of the executive branch to lie to us about Iraq's WMD.
At this point, the burden is on him to substantiate his claim, because it contradicts recorded history.
Iraq submitted a report to the UN saying they had no WMDs. They invited Hans Blix and weapons inspectors to certify that. They were not faking WMDs.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Even if this is true, since when is it OK to preemptively invade another country because they have a desire to pursue WMD someday?

If that's OK, then we have many, many more countries left to invade.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Even if this is true, since when is it OK to preemptively invade another country because they have a desire to pursue WMD someday?

If that's OK, then we have many, many more countries left to invade.
How many of those other countries were/are under Chparter VII UN sanctions mandating them to completely disarm their WMDs?
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Even if this is true, since when is it OK to preemptively invade another country because they have a desire to pursue WMD someday?

If that's OK, then we have many, many more countries left to invade.
How many of those other countries were/are under Chparter VII UN sanctions mandating them to completely disarm their WMDs?

Then why didn't we go into Iraq with the UN's support if the situation was so dire? Why did we ignore the UN Security Council's refusal to sanction the invasion?

Justifying the war years later the UN comes into play, but prior to invasion they didn't matter?