The most significant part of the interview was toward the end when the FBI interrogator said that Saddam intended to completely rebuild his WMD arsenal. That was his desire, intent, objective. And his sons would have been the beneficiaries of the WMD program. In fact, Qusay was in charge of Iraq’s WMD program until the end.

So it looks like we were indeed justified in taking out Saddam. We should have done it in 1991.

Also, Saddam planned the insurgency. Libs like to say the insurgency was Bush’s fault because of a failed strategy but the reality is that Saddam planned it and hoped it would drive out the U.S. and make him appear that he was in a position of power, controlling combat operations behind the scene.

If I remember correctly, 60 Minutes Sunday will have George Piro on.

Also, I picked up Kessler’s book, Terrorist Watch, a couple of weeks ago. It’s the first book to come out with details of Piro’s experience in interrogating Saddam.

I’m not looking for some sort of alibi for President Bush. I don’t think he needs one, and you have never backed up your allegations of incompetence with historical precedent (leaving the words to be little more than the heavily biased opinion of someone who accepts sizzle not steak). No, what I find particularly interesting is that you’ve chosen to assign blame to President Bush, and clearly alleged that “conservatives” don’t dare look at the past while you yourself seem to be ignoring it and not to give the President an alibi but for an equally polar purpose: to assign sole blame for something that you can’t even prove was wrong. When asked about the effects of contributing factors that led to the invasion of Iraq, it seems there are none in your mind except President Bush (perhaps his “handlers” and Bilderberger controllers?).

The hypocrisy and difference between what you say in one sentence and what you do in another is just amazing.

Yup. Everyone else is responsible, except of course Geroge W. Bush.

The standard party line among Conservatives/Republicans when confronted with the disasterous incompetence of George W. Bush is, “we don’t want to talk about the past, let’s talk about the future…”

Except, of course, when talking about the past (whether the actions of Saddam Hussein going back to the 1980’s or Bill Clinton in the 1990’s) will provide an alibi for George W. Bush. Then Conservatives/Republican’s can’t talk about the past enough.

So what?

Does that somehow make those, such as myself, wrong for pointing out the consequences of Geroge W. Bush’s subsequent incompetence?

I do not recall every saying that Saddam was some kind of innocent. We knew he was also gassing Kurds back in the 1980’s when the Reagan Administation was sending Donald Rumsfeld as a goodwill envoy and supporting Saddam in his war with Iran.

Conservatives appear to believe that, if they can point to even one person in the history of the world who was worse or less competent, then that gives an automatic Conservative free pass to President Bush.

For the record, Saddam was a liar and evil.

That is irrevelant now that Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule now applies to George W. Bush.

No, it will not put a dent in the “anti-war” crowd’s lies and attacks on the President. They will just reform their position or ignor this evidence as they have before.

It is like dealing with the Troofers… Reason and logic does not apply to them.

Well, this interview might put a dent in the ‘Bush lied, people died’ nonsense. FBI Special Agent George Piro, who was assigned to break and interrogate Saddam Hussein after his capture in Iraq, offers some interesting insight into Hussein’s mindset…