Posted on 01/24/2008 12:42:30 PM PST by james500
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Let’s see Saddam’s military and cabinet thought they had the weapons, the inspectors were kept our of some areas, Saddam kept the lack of stash a secret in his government and all we hear in the US is how Bush lied.
For our Left that would be insufficient.
Thanks for the ping, Mark.
I agree with you. If he told CBS this, he was still lying about WMD. They got what they had out of the country, with a Russian convoy.
Saddam regime opted to produce all the Precursors (or base Materials) required to build Chemical Weapons rather than building the final chemical weapon products. Once the Precursors are available it would be very easy and quick to build the final chemical weapons, in most cases it only take weeks if not days to build it. There are two main reasons why Saddam regime chose to build the Precursors for the chemical weapons rather than the final product. The first one is that those Precursors are classified under what is called "dual use materials" where it can be used both in civilian and WMD industries, and Saddam regime can always claim that these precursors were produced for civilian industry. The second reason is that the Precursors have longer shelf life than the final chemical weapons program which means it can be stored for a much longer of time than the final product. I will take only few weeks and in some cases few days to build the final Chemical Weapon products once the Precursors are ready.
Your analysis is correct - this is what actually happened. Expressed in weapons-engineering terms, Saddam and his scientists decided after Gulf War I to change from a stockpile/inventory supply system to what is termed a "just in time" supply system, and for the exact reasons you outlined.
What a load of bull. Our buildup was obvious to anyone with access to news, and it was obviously for more than a four day aerial attack.
I suspect Saddam lied even in this. He smuggled the stash to Syria, expecting simply to have to hide them from new rounds of forced inspections. Not expecting to be completely deposed and arrested, he expected another round of sword-rattling followed by new UN begging. When he realized his mistake, the stuff was already beyond his reach.
Reference bump! ;-)
Thanks for the ping, ikez78.
Did you all catch this?: “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,”
Retaliate for what? 9-11?
(remember the “1.5 million Iraqi children dying each year because of the sanctions”?).
The 9-11 hijackers didn’t forget.
Wow, good catch. I’ve talked to the NEWSMAX guy who broke this story over a month ago and wrote about Piro and his book and didn’t ask him this though I should have.
I also asked what Saddam told Piro about al Qaeda and he said that they held meetings but weren’t in league.
Yea...like, there were “no WMD’s”...
BTTT...
So If Saddam had nothing, why didn’t he give the weapons inspectors free reign? Why would you risk being the dictator of a country, having billions in oil revenue at your disposal, simply because you really didn’t have any WMD’s. Sounds ridiculous to me. After all, the man gassed his own people, attacked Iran, Kuwait, and even sent scus into Israel. He lived for military conflict and cementing his legacy within the Arab world.
Amen.
"Hey, Abdullah--hold my hummus!"
Ted Kennedy, among others, has managed to turn this phrase on its head. In this interview, he famously claimed that "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."
So, the hero of Chappaquiddick used the following logical syllogism:
1. Bush said that we shouldn't wait until there is an imminent threat.
2. There was no imminent threat.
3. Therefore, Bush lied.
His last words should have been “Oops”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.