• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why Saddam Lied About WMD's

Mike

Well-known member
(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.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Yeah, look how he outsmarted us!!!

About $2B spent out of our pockets per week, a debt great grandchildren won't be able to pay off, over 3K funerals, over 20K with life altering ( brain) injuries.

Yeah, Ol' Saddam...he showed us!! :roll: :roll:


Saddam has gotten the ' last laugh' as Iraq has become our TarBaby , forever to live in our lives and take the lives of so many of young people.
 

Mike

Well-known member
If you think "outsmarted" is being hung by the neck, you're a sick puppy. :roll:

Personally, I'm glad someone had the balls to bust chops and call his bluff.

He certainly bluffed Clinton when he kicked the UN inspectors out. :lol:

Maybe the world will be a better place now.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Yea but Clinton had an excuse not to be worried about WMD, he was too concerned about BSD
V
V
V
V
V blue stained dress :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Saddam didn't lie about WMDs. He said that he had no WMDs. And he was telling the truth. Another one of Bush's lies that the "liberal" media didn't refute. And you continue to pretend it's the truth.

"
Summary: On CNN's Late Edition, Wolf Blitzer failed to challenge Mike Huckabee's claim that Saddam Hussein "said that he had" weapons of mass destruction. In fact, in December 2002, Iraq issued a declaration to United Nations weapons inspectors on its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs and its long-range missile programs, and CNN.com reported that "Iraqi officials say the report proves Baghdad has no weapons of mass destruction."

Whether you choose to believe this report or not, the truth is there were no WMDs and Saddam said so in 2002.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Saddam led those that were not in his immediate inner circle to believe that WMD's still existed for fear of attacks from neighboring countries.

A lie is a lie whomever it is told................................

When a liar tells enough lies, the truth is impossible to sort out.

The world is better off without Saddam. Libya and their removal of WMD's is one prime example.

"When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.

Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" for his use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1987, was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD but claims that many within Iraq's ruling circle never stopped believing that the weapons still existed. Even at the highest echelons of the regime, when it came to WMD there was always some element of doubt about the truth. According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about the weapons during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack. [See Footnote #1 below]

By late 2002, Saddam finally tilted toward trying to persuade the international community that Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors and that it no longer had WMD programs. As 2002 drew to a close, his regime worked hard to counter anything that might be seen as supporting the coalition's assertion that WMD still remained in Iraq. Saddam was insistent that Iraq would give full access to UN inspectors "in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war." But after years of purposeful obfuscation, it was difficult to convince anyone that Iraq was not once again being economical with the truth."


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301-p10/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Mike said:
........The world is better off without Saddam.
Not at the expense of our own economic security.

That might be true if this war is as detriminal to our economics as some might say.

I have read estimates that as much as 80-90% of the money spent in this war is moving through our economy here at home.

Was the war and escalation of Vietnam an expense to our economic security?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Saddam said he had WMDs so he could look strong and remain in power. He was facing the biggest country in the world that has the most WMDs in the world. He thought it might make him safe if others thought he still had a punch left.

We still don't know what the Israelis bombed in Syria.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Mike said:
That might be true if this war is as detriminal to our economics as some might say.
How does borrowing $2,000,000,000 a day to spend in another country not adversely affect our economy? The effect is to lower the value of our dollar....which it is doing.

Mike said:
I have read estimates that as much as 80-90% of the money spent in this war is moving through our economy here at home.
Including the berets and uniform components that were made in China? If the money was being spent here on infrastructure, alternate energy, or other sound investments, it would be great. We could actually have something to show for it. But by buying bullets, Humvee's, and hospitals in Baghdad, we have nothing to show for it...not even more oil.

Mike said:
Was the war and escalation of Vietnam an expense to our economic security?
Absolutely. Why do you think we had record inflation combined with record unemployment?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
WARNING FROM PAKISTAN

This morning, from a cave somewhere in Pakistan, Taliban Minister of
Migration, Mohammed Omar, warned the United States and Canada that if
military action against Iraq continues, Taliban authorities will cut
off America's and Canada's supply of convenience store managers. And
if this action does not yield sufficient results, cabdrivers will be
next, followed by Dell and Sprint customer service reps.


It's getting ugly.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Mike wrote:
Was the war and escalation of Vietnam an expense to our economic security?

Absolutely. Why do you think we had record inflation combined with record unemployment?

So why did Kennedy and Johnson do it?

Sometimes world security trumps economic stability in the immediate future.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex said:
Saddam said he had WMDs so he could look strong and remain in power. He was facing the biggest country in the world that has the most WMDs in the world. He thought it might make him safe if others thought he still had a punch left.

We still don't know what the Israelis bombed in Syria.

Show me after Desert Sorm where Saddam EVER said he had WMDs. Other people said it and he didn't deny it until after 9/11. But there are plenty of reports from UN agencies showing that he never reconstituted his nuclear/biological program after Desert Storm. The Germans and the French knew he didn't; that's why they refused to join in the war against him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Saddam led those that were not in his immediate inner circle to believe that WMD's still existed for fear of attacks from neighboring countries.

A lie is a lie whomever it is told................................

When a liar tells enough lies, the truth is impossible to sort out.

The world is better off without Saddam. Libya and their removal of WMD's is one prime example.

"When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.

Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" for his use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1987, was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD but claims that many within Iraq's ruling circle never stopped believing that the weapons still existed. Even at the highest echelons of the regime, when it came to WMD there was always some element of doubt about the truth. According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about the weapons during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack. [See Footnote #1 below]

By late 2002, Saddam finally tilted toward trying to persuade the international community that Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors and that it no longer had WMD programs. As 2002 drew to a close, his regime worked hard to counter anything that might be seen as supporting the coalition's assertion that WMD still remained in Iraq. Saddam was insistent that Iraq would give full access to UN inspectors "in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war." But after years of purposeful obfuscation, it was difficult to convince anyone that Iraq was not once again being economical with the truth."


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301-p10/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html

It wasn't difficult to convince me that he had no WMDs. There was not a scrap of evidence to show that he did. Your baldfaced assertion that he said he did is not true and you know it.
 

Mike

Well-known member
ff said:
Mike said:
Saddam led those that were not in his immediate inner circle to believe that WMD's still existed for fear of attacks from neighboring countries.

A lie is a lie whomever it is told................................

When a liar tells enough lies, the truth is impossible to sort out.

The world is better off without Saddam. Libya and their removal of WMD's is one prime example.

"When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.

Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" for his use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1987, was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD but claims that many within Iraq's ruling circle never stopped believing that the weapons still existed. Even at the highest echelons of the regime, when it came to WMD there was always some element of doubt about the truth. According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about the weapons during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack. [See Footnote #1 below]

By late 2002, Saddam finally tilted toward trying to persuade the international community that Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors and that it no longer had WMD programs. As 2002 drew to a close, his regime worked hard to counter anything that might be seen as supporting the coalition's assertion that WMD still remained in Iraq. Saddam was insistent that Iraq would give full access to UN inspectors "in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war." But after years of purposeful obfuscation, it was difficult to convince anyone that Iraq was not once again being economical with the truth."


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301-p10/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html

It wasn't difficult to convince me that he had no WMDs. There was not a scrap of evidence to show that he did. Your baldfaced assertion that he said he did is not true and you know it.

If he had none and wanted the world to know it, why did he kick the UN inspectors out of Iraq? And even when they were in, he made inspections difficult for them. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It wasn't difficult to convince me that he had no WMDs.

Was it difficult to convince you that he had 1000's (some say 100's of thousands) of his Iraq residents killed by WMD's and torture? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
It wasn't difficult to convince me that he had no WMDs. There was not a scrap of evidence to show that he did. Your baldfaced assertion that he said he did is not true and you know it.

If he had none and wanted the world to know it, why did he kick the UN inspectors out of Iraq? And even when they were in, he made inspections difficult for them. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It wasn't difficult to convince me that he had no WMDs.

Was it difficult to convince you that he had 1000's (some say 100's of thousands) of his Iraq residents killed by WMD's and torture? :lol: :lol: :lol:[/quote]

Second guess all you want. But you're being "dishonest" by claiming he said he had WMDs. He didn't say that. Why didn't he say that he didn't have them? I don't know. Why did Bush tell us that he did when the rest of the world knew better? His own intelligence agencies told him that. Why did Bush suggest to American citizens that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attack when he knew within hours it wasn't true? Why did he go ahead and invade Iraq when Saddam had allowed UN inspectors back in the country?

I'm quite convinced that he killed thousands of Kurds and he did it with technology given to him by the US to fight the Iranians.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm quite convinced that he killed thousands of Kurds and he did it with technology given to him by the US to fight the Iranians.

AMEN- Our (US, UK, France, Germany) actions for the past 80-90 years in the mideast have brewed up what the mideast is today...
And every time we take an action over there--we make it worse....
 

Mike

Well-known member
What a Difference Four Years Makes
Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now




"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."

-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98


"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."

--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02




"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"

--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98


"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago."

--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02




"The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes."

--AP, 12/16/98


"Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998."

--AP, 9/7/02




"Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq."

--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98


"It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons."

--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02




"The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes."

--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98


"If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them."

--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02




"This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain."

--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98


"What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out."

--John King, CNN, 8/18/02




"Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council."

--USA Today, 12/17/98


"Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies."

--USA Today, 9/4/02




"But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler's quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh."

--New York Times, 12/18/98


"America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago."

--New York Times editorial, 8/3/02




"Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report."

--Washington Post, 12/18/98


"Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons."

--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02




"Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction."

-- Newsday, 12/17/98


"The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous."

--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I'm quite convinced that he killed thousands of Kurds and he did it with technology given to him by the US to fight the Iranians.

AMEN- Our (US, UK, France, Germany) actions for the past 80-90 years in the mideast have brewed up what the mideast is today...
And every time we take an action over there--we make it worse....

Here was Reagans Iraq philosophy:
Sept. 22, 1980
Iraq attacks Iran


In one of the largest ground assaults since World War II, Saddam sends 200,000 troops across the Iranian border, initiating what would become a bloody eight-year conflict.

When Ronald Reagan becomes president in 1981, he endorses a policy aiming for a stalemate in the war so that neither side emerges from the war with any additional power. But in 1982, fearing Iraq might lose the war, the U.S. begins to help. Over the next six years, a string of CIA agents go to Baghdad. Hand-carrying the latest satellite intelligence about the Iranian front line, they pass the information to their Iraqi counterparts. The U.S. gives Iraq enough help to avoid defeat, but not enough to secure victory.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I'm quite convinced that he killed thousands of Kurds and he did it with technology given to him by the US to fight the Iranians.

AMEN- Our (US, UK, France, Germany) actions for the past 80-90 years in the mideast have brewed up what the mideast is today...
And every time we take an action over there--we make it worse....

I would agree with both of these statements.

I didn't need the WMD excuse to stop Saddam-- or take military action against him-- after all-- he wasn't following the terms of the first Gulf War.

I am upset that the US propaganda machine built up WMD as an excuse. I don't think it is good when you lie to get your way with public policy.

I think the action we took under GW was one of the most inept and costly actions taken and that the action was an excuse to take rights away from Americans, including having the govt. spy with no oversight. I don't think all that spying was done for terrorism excuses and I am appalled so many politicians are allowing him to get away with it. Can't any of them stand on principle? I know a few are but because most aren't, it shows the quality or lack thereof of our political leaders -- on both sides of the aisle. A lot of them are lawyers too--- which makes it even worse--- but what do you expect when we let people like Clinton lie as he did trying to redefine the word "is".

We don't have the rule of law anymore in our country, it is apparent.
 
Top