I can’t take credit for that headline, that one came from John Hinderaker at Powerline on the news, old news at that, that Saddam lied to the world about his WMD’s. This from George Piro who interrogated him for months after his capture:
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.
The fact that he kept the UN and the world at bay for 13 years was also part of his plan. Letting us in for a bit, then kicking us out, all in an attempt to portray a man hiding something. But the most damning part?
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.
Nothing earth shattering there. In fact WMD was found after our invasion, something the MSM conveniently ignores, and to think that the man found god and was going to forgo anymore WMD in his future, if allowed to remain in power, isn’t only foolhardy….its dangerous. Thankfully we had a President who called his bluff and freed a nation.
See author page
Yep and the Kurds died of starvation. Only a democrat would believe that.
Saddam thought the US was just gonna do a 4 day air strike bit on him again? Now why would he think that? [/bait off]
Cop,
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.
Yup. Saddam Hussein was evil and a liar.
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.
Nice (typical) distraction Steve. Totally ignores the important question of WHY Saddam believed the US would only bomb for a few days rather than truly believe that there was a credible threat of regime change. THAT is what the video is about.
Everyone knows someone like Steve. You could be a mile deep in a cave and break your only light and say it’s pitch black. Steve would say he could see good, but he couldn’t get you out of there, but would have some other excuse. Lots of people like that and they all need help bad.
Saddam had just witnessed 8 years of threats by a coward so he thought all ‘Americans’ were cowards. He found out only 47% of the voting public were cowards, and 53% overrode the 47%.
scrapiron, I agree. I’ll go further and suggest that the millions of people who marched in the streets around the world in protest against invasion didn’t help, but rather encouraged him to believe that there wasn’t popular support for enforcing the cease-fire terms of 1991.
Re: “Saddam had just witnessed 8 years of threats by a coward so he thought all ‘Americans’ were cowards.”
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.
non denial denial+distraction=Steve post
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.
Curt,
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.
Word,
you MUST MUST MUST do a book review on it
So what, Steve? I guess you have the luxury of saying “so what” because you’re not an Iraqi.
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.