Saddam Misled the World on WMD Because of Iran and Bill Clinton
Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 11:11PM In an exclusive 60 Minutes interview, FBI agent George Piro said Saddam mislead the world about his WMD program for two reasons: to keep Iran at bay and because he didn’t believe George W. Bush would invade but rather pull a Bill Clinton and only conduct a handful of air strikes. Saddam was willing to absorb air strikes but not abandon his claim that he currently possessed WMD.
Way to go, Bill.
60 Minutes video (6 min, 15 sec) *longer version..HIGHLY recommended
In December 1998, Bill Clinton said:
"..in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed."
It would appear Saddam thought he had a license and that U.S. credibility was damaged.
Also in the interview were these interesting bullets:
The Insurgency
FICTION: Bush’s incompetent handling of the war is responsible for the insurgency in Iraq.
FACT: Saddam planned for the insurgency, or “secret war”, to begin 2 weeks after the invasion once he realized it was a reality.
WMD
FICTION: Saddam never had any Weapons of Mass Destruction nor did he intend to use them in the future.
FACT: Saddam intended to completely rebuild his arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear WMD, reconstituting the entire program.
It’s odd that Saddam would destroy remaining WMD with the intent of rebuilding the arsenal while maintaining the appearance of WMD. In any event, it was Saddam who misled the world, not President Bush. Can Democrats be fair about this? Not likely.
FBI agent George Piro did a fantastic job in his interrogation. Hats off...
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1515251
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (44)
Amy said: FACT: Saddam planned for the insurgency, or “secret war”, to begin 2 weeks after the invasion once he realized it was a reality.
Agent Piro went on to say "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," The way Agent Piro said this made it clear he did not believe Saddam was responsible for the insurgency.
I agree that Agent Piro did a fantastic job – all without having to resort to coercive interrogation methods.
Silke, Saddam planned for the insurgeny. I think its evident through the remnant of pro-Saddam loyalists that this is the case.
Did you watch 60 Minutes? The entire interview was excellent. I think Piro did a fantastic job of representing and serving his country. And yes, he didn't need to resort to Gitmo type interrogatio methods.
He talked about that in the tape, that they would not have been effective on somone like Saddam because of his ego. I'll try to pull the quotes.
Here we go, from the transcript:
by implication tho he acknowleged that torture may be necessary under certain circumstances only not in this case with Saddam. he did this by declaring the method of the use of time and the length of time he took in his interrogation. the information he was seeking was not information that might save lives threatened any time soon.
The left and its in Saddam we trust faith does not care. The Hussein dynasty sitting on its throne with oil at 95 dollar a barrel would have been a continued political and human disaster. There is no doubt Hussein would have put together a wmd stockpile of nerve and mustard gases as soon as feasible. He also would have begun to put feelers out for a nuclear program. As for Clinton, the Battle of Mogadishu and his behaviour during Rawanda also set the tone, this must be the experience Hillary is always bragging about. Now lets think ahead, what this interview confirms is that the removal of the Hussein dynasty was a good move no matter what the rabid left, the isolationost right, or the so called realists argue. If this holds up, and I think it will, it confirms republicans and the President have followed the correct course.
Thanks for this Amy -- I can't stomach to watch 60 minutes anymore, even for something like this.
The longer edition of the video is being reuploaded, FYI.
Yes Amy, I watched the interview and it was clear to me that Agent Piro did not attribute the insurgency to Saddam Hussein’s plans. Saddam may have wanted to take credit for it but as Piro somewhat laughingly pointed out, that didn’t make it true.
Silke, I was there during the invasion with (obvious) access to classified information. The enemy we fought in chronological order were:
1. Iraqi regulars. 2. Saddam Fedayeen. 3. Former Regime Loyalists (FRLs). 4. Foreign terrorists. 5. Common criminals. 6. Sadrists. 7. Indigenous religious factions, terrorists, and militias.
While Saddam cannot "take credit" for the insurgency, ad hoc organizations loyal to Saddam such as FRLs and Fedayeen formed the basis for the Sunni insurgency that developed from the beginning.
Johnny, I’m not sure why you bring up the fact that you have (or had at the time) access to classified information. If the information you are revealing is now unclassified and available through open sources then it’s irrelevant… not to mention somewhat inappropriate since it indicates that at one point it was classified.
"It's odd...?" Amy, if you don't understand the reason for that, you have completely missed the point of the entire interview, hence the main
reason your conclusions are bogus.
Silke - I generally find people who really do have access to classified material, don't go around proclaiming it on websites, but in this case, notice Johnny didn't reference AQ.
That's the context of the discussion. Saddam asked his military leaders to transition into an insurgency, according to the FBI agent Piro. Of course Saddam would like to take credit for the insurgency! Otherwise he'd appear completely emasculated and impotent. If he could at least authorize an insurgency behind the scenes it might make him look like he was still in charge of his country. You might recall his pronunciation of his authority in Iraq during his court case.
You're basing your dismissal of the insurgency being attributed to Saddam based on an inflection of one word while neglecting the other comments.
mudkitty, why not salvage what he had since he was "pretending" to be uncooperative and maintaining an WMD arsenal? That's like burning your millions while saying publicly that you have.... millions of dollars.
I'm not sure how that doesn't seem odd to you.
Yes, mudkitty, I'm sure you know tons of people who view classified documents, generally speaking.
Silke, I think Johnny's point is that his opinions are based in more than just hearsay, and there's nothing wrong in stating a fact.
Johnny was there during this vulnerable period and it's a shame you choose to overlook his insights and experience to focus on a non-issue.
Are you, Amy, denying that people who actually do have access to classified material are not supposed to talk about it, at the very least?
As for your "why not" scenario, I'm not the one who said it was odd. Your "why not?" undercuts your "it's odd." Logic in not your strong suit. It never has been.
May I say, Saddam was certainly emasculated and impotent. The fact that he was those things, means that he wasn't the ultimate threat to our way of life that the Republicans pretended he was. He was an idiot.
I didn't hear anything in the Piro interview to change my opinion that Saddam either knew that he didn't have the WMD and played chicken, or was duped by his scientists who were on the R&D dole into believing that he had them. Either way, to somehow blame Clinton for Saddam's willingness to get bombed is pretty funny. That he may have misunderestimated GWB isn't hard to believe though.
Two other points to note. First Piro is trying to sell books. Second, I thought that Sixty Minutes wasn't a credible source.
But do you think Piro is a credible source? Merely selling books wouldn't be the end of the world per-se otherwise Ann Coulter would be on you lack of credibility list.
I don't think I have ever watched 60 minutes, so, needless to say, I did not watch this interview.
From what I saw from the clip Piro spoke very well and was well informed. I believe he was credible.
Well, the Clintons both sold books. Does that make them not credible?
I think it's sad to delegitimize an FBI agent who did a phenominal job with Saddam because you don't like what he said. Or is there some other reason you're marginalizing him? He appeared very honest and sincere.
60 Minutes may or may not be credible. The point is that George Piro is.
Mudkitty, a man who murders millions of people is a threat. You've given me so many great quotes. I couldn't make this stuff up!
To Mudkitty,
You do raise a valid point about how truthfull and valid the source. Its a legitimate point. But right before the actual invasion Saddam Imformed his generals he has no wmd, apparently the air left the room as these generals had been factoring that into their final defense of Iraq, also the argument that he was bluffing to scare his neighbors and his own people has been made before. All in all what Pirro is saying fits with much of what we know. Also it makes sense, the monster who killed hindreds of thousands of people with wmds and other means was being hobbled by the USA, he figured paitence and just staying in power was his victory. I was watching frontlines original documentary on Desert Storm. As we rolled into Southern Iraq and the Iraqi defenses fell apart there was actual fear in Saddams mind that they would role up to Baghdad. When we declared a cease fire he turned to his own advisers and generals and declared a great victory. This was not a man living by the playbook we could fathom. At best he was attempting to turn survival in repated clashes with the USA into some type of moral victory that could be translated into political gains across an Arab World he was attempting to get leadership of. Couple that with plans to restart his WMDs and the fact that he still sat on the 3rd largest source of oil and we begin to see a glimmer of method to the madness.
Oh Amy - you are wrong, I have nothing but admiration for Piro, and his work with Saddam. I think Piro nailed it. As I said before, you totally missed the point.
*****
(I'm glad you like my quotes - just make sure they are accurate quotes, and don't attempt to paraphrase, and then call it a quote.)
As for your Clinton example, you made MY very point. Or are you saying that anyone who writes a book is evil, and in it for the money? Then that would include the bible, no? Because the bible is a book too. In fact, that's exactly what the bible is...a book.
Ha! Right, the Bible is a for profit book that thousands of people died to bring to the canon and protect its message. And they died for the money....they...didn't make.... from the Bible.....
Good one, mud!
I am glad to see Piro has withstood your scrutiny. No matter what he reported he seemed to do so honestly and is highly esteemed by collegues.
You don't seriously think people don't make money off the bible, do you? But you're changing the subject. Lots of people write books and don't make a dime of them. That's hardly the point.
Piro is trying to "sell books"? What books? I don't recall that in the 60 Minutes piece; plus, I don't think George Piro is anti-Bush, giving a "tell-all". Ronald Kessler's "Terror Watch", as far as I know, is the first book to reveal what Piro has been cleared to disclose. The 60 Minutes interview, strangely, is scripted almost verbatim, from the chapter in the book dealing with Piro and Saddam. I was really hoping to learn something from the interview that was not talked about in the book.
60 Minutes is very valuable, in the same way that the NYTimes is valuable. And I think it's sad when conservatives refuse to bother reading from liberal sources, merely because they slant with a perspective that leans left. There's still much that can be gleened, even if it's just to know where Democrats are getting their talking points and information from. Such as citing Drumheller. He's 60 Minutes favorite "go-to" guy from the CIA. Bush critics love citing Drumheller on the "Bush lied, people died" meme. But if you look at the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments, with Additional Views, pg 141-144, you'll find that Drumheller is rebuked for lying to the media.
I think 60 Minutes were looking for "gotcha" statements, like the part about al-Qaeda/bin Laden/Saddam connections. I thought I saw Scott Pelley's eyes light up; but that might just be the partisan in me.
I'd be curious to find out if George Piro is Muslim or not. At the end of the chapter in Kessler's book, it describes how pro-American his family is (from Lebanon), and how he sees his FBI service as a way to give back to the U.S. for what it's given his family.
Amy said: Silke, I think Johnny's point is that his opinions are based in more than just hearsay, and there's nothing wrong in stating a fact.
Amy, I respect Johnny’s view and did not mean to imply the information he gave was irrelevant – just the fact that he had a clearance. There was no need to discuss his clearance unless he was revealing classified information – which I’m sure he wasn’t.
"You don't seriously think people don't make money off the bible, do you?" Re read amy's original statement in which she was clearly referring to the writers of the various books that comprise the Bible. Slight difference. Well not so slight as the wuthor of a recently released or soon ensuing release is trying to drum up sales. Nothing wrong with that but statements contained in such interviews need to be taken with a grain of salt regardless of the author.
Second, given that Amy was responding to a comment you made, she was not the one changing the subject. You were.
mudkitty, I have no idea what your point is then. Frankly I think its irrevelant. Why are you so incredibly hostile toward religion? I get the feeling you've either had a bad experience or you're just an ultra liberal.
JRob got my comments. Of course Bibles are for sale but there was nothing in it for those wrote and preserved scripture over the milliniums except for knowing they were passing along savlation to the next generation. Many of these people were martyred.
wordsmith, I'm with you. I haven't heard about a book but figured it is a possibility. Interesting observations about Piro. He is certainly an Arab but would bet he is a Muslim as well. Saddam wouldn't open up to a non-Muslim, in my opinion, but I could be wrong.
Oh, so now Amy, you starting to change your opinion about Piro?
People have always made money off the bible, then and now. Don't kid yourselves. You guys ought to read about the history of bible publishers. You guys ought to know about King James.
My point is, Amy, that you missed Piro's point (either that, or you are deliberately distorting his point, and thus bearing false witness.) Saddam wasn't a credible threat to the United States. Saddam was a threat to some of his own people, but not to the United States. There were no WMD's. We got Saddam: Mission Accomplished.
Where's Bin Laden? We dug Saddam out of a hole, but we can't smoke Bin Laden out of a cave?
OK Amy so which is it - do you believe Saddam had WMDs or not?
Back in August or September you mentioned in a blog that YOU saw classified documents that stated US special forces saw trucks crossing into Syria with unknown contents on the trailers of these trucks. You were eluding to those trucks carrying WMDs in that post.
Now you seem content with what this FBI agent is saying that Saddam was bluffing.
So which one is it?
Amy wrote:
I wrote Mr. Kessler last night, and he responded to me this morning, that Piro is a Christian (of Lebanese descent, coming to the States, I believe when he was 12 or 13), although he's not sure how devout. I was curious to know, because I am looking for moderate Muslims who are pro-actively engaged against Islamic terrorism.
mudkitty wrote:
Yes. Mission was accomplished mudkitty. But life doesn't end there. Except for Saddam. Life goes on, and now we're dealing with postwar operations.
As for "the point", you missed some of it, and spun the rest. "Saddam wasn't a credible threat"? At the time decisions were made, based upon the intell we had at the time, the overwhelming bulk of it pointed to Saddam as being a credible threat. THE POINT in the 60 Minutes interview is, Saddam himself perpetuated this perception. If we were fooled by it, Saddam is to blame for Saddam's fall.
Be honest, 'kitty:
Now, if he wasn't a credible threat to anyone but the Iraqi people, are you willfully ignoring this part of the interview:
Detailed more thoroughly in Terror Watch, pg155:
SF asked:
Lest anyone should misconstrue that this interview discounts the possibility that wmds, if not stockpiles, did still exist before the invasion, this also from Ron Kessler's book:
My emphasis is placed on "if". It leaves the possibility open-ended.
Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMDs
Scott Malensek on examining whether or not any weapons traveled to Syria (parts 1-4 are linked in the post).
Nope. Saddam posed no danger. None, whatsoever. Nor did any NIE report ever suggest that by 2007, Saddam would have nukes
wordsmith, thanks for the link to the 2006 Senate report. I'm going to link to it on my sidebar. I agree, 60 Minutes was looking for a "gotcha" moment.
SF, to be clear, I never said I saw classified documents about Special Forces seeing the flatbed trucks leaving Iraq into Syria... I said I have a Special Forces friend who told us the story of seeing that as he was undercover. It isn't classified. And I would never disclose anything I learned from classified information.
But your question is a good one. Which do I believe, that Saddam sent his WMD to Syria (or wherever) or that he was bluffing. This is only my opinion:
I think Saddam had some measure of WMD that he sent to Syria or somewhere else before the invasion. There are corroborating stories from eyewitnesses as well as military accounts... Israeli PM Ariel Sharon said in 2002 that Saddam shipped WMD into Syria. Israel of course bombed a nuclear site in Damascus, Syria several months ago. What a coincidence.
GEN Sada of the Iraqi Air Force said the same thing.
It's also important to keep in mind that Saddam told Piro he had no WMD because he essentially adhered to the U.N. inspectors directive. While playing shell games, but, okay. This would make Bush appear gullible. Saddam thought Piro reported directly to Bush and told him everything they discussed when in fact Piro never met with or briefed Bush. It's possible he lied to Piro about being an honest dictator and destroying them because he thought Bush would hear about it and possibly face international condemnation.
It doesn't make sense to me that Saddam would act like he had WMD, down to playing shell games with U.N. inspectors, when he infact didn't. To bear the brunt of sanctions et al for no reason makes no sense. If he wanted to intimated Iran into deterrence he could have kept some WMD rather than give them away or destroy them.
Whether he destroyed WMD or sent them away, it's a testament to the Bush plan that it worked: either way, Iraq got rid of WMD. So did Iran. So did Libya.
PS... what wordsmith mentioned is a point I left out. That is, Saddam told Piro he INTENDED and planned to completely reconstitute his WMD arsenal. This confirms pre-war intelligence that George Tenet reported as well. Tenet said by 2007 Iraq wanted to have a functioning WMD program ready to go.
Seriously Amy - what do you not understand about a bluff? What do you not understand about Middle Eastern Male Pride? What do you not understand about male pride? What do you not understand about re-al-politic?
Sure, it's humiliating to pretend that Bush was led by Saddam by the nose, but they knew all along there were no WMDs. It's called a pretext.
And as for you Wordhack, you do realize that a five year old knows the difference between wanting and having. (Name one dictator that doesn't "want" a WMD program?)
Man, you guys really need every little thing spelled out for you.
^
Lol...look folks: It's trying to think.
Amy-
Here is the link: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2007/8/11/captured-iraqi-terrorist-says-bin-laden-had-al-qaeda-camps-i.html
Scroll down to around 13 August. Someone questions the documents and you said that you saw them but were unsure of their status. Here is EXACTLY what you said:
"Silke, yes I have seen the documents but am unsure as to their status. They should be unclassified but I'm not positive they are. This might be a subject we should be e-mailing instead of having here."
So either you're a liar or you have a bad memory...or you're making it all up???
I see so-calledWordsmith can't come up with a justification for equating wanting with having...re: WMDs.
Do I have to do the thinking for you, mudkitty?
Take your hindsight glasses off (still flawed, btw, as postwar documents and findings support the war decision- not the other way around). Timeframe is important.
Here are some questions for you:
What is Saddam's past history? Was he not sponsoring and harboring terrorists? Was he prone to obtaining weapons and using them? Was he in violation of cease-fire agreements? Should we have those agreements enforced, or continue on with more meaningless UN Resolutions? After 12 years of successfully snubbing his nose at the UN and us, including weak responses under the Clinton Administration to continued violations, why do you suppose he grew so brazen and unconcerned, as to assume President Bush would not carry out the threat of invasion, should he not comply this time around? Cherry-pick the sparse nuggets all you want, but the overwhelming bulk of intell from agencies around the world pointed to Saddam being a threat, with wmd possession a likelihood. Saddam did nothing to alleviate that perception. In fact, he encouraged it. So, based upon what we knew or thought we knew, the irresponsible course of action would have been to sit back, and do nothing! Perpetuating the status quo would have seen the sanctions eventually lifted due to payoffs to corrupt officials within the UN, followed by the reconstitution of weapons programs, which Charles Duelfer said could be restarted at a moment's notice:
Also read:
The fact is, unaccounted for weapons and bulk agents were found the day Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 19, 2003. According to UNMOVIC's May 30, 2003 report,
So, Why Iraq?:
WMDs have been found btw, mudkitty. Just not the kinds of stockpiles that would shut you up. Check the link for the links. I'll make it a bit easier for you:
Enjoy the photos, mudkitty. Don't let your brain smack you on the way out.
I don't know, mudd. If I threaten to slice your throat you could call the cops and have me arrested based just on my words. Maybe a 5 year old knows the difference between wanting and having, but law enforcement knows from experience that thugs often make good on their threats because they're, um, thugs, and that's what thugs do.
But then, a 5 year old wouldn't know that, which may be why you're on the wrong side of this argument.
I said:
SF said:
These are two separate incidents. I have never seen classified documents about Special Forces and the flatbed trucks. That was a conversation between another military couple, Sp. Forces, and us over dinner. What I was talking about in the thread you cited is completely different and was specific to al-Qaeda liasons in Iraq. I did't disclose any information, period, nor would I.
I'm not a liar, you're just mistaken. And judgmental.
Now, Amy, surely you know the difference between, wanting, having and threatening? Or do you want to rewrite the dictionary, along with the bible?
Wordy - your sourcing is suspect, and where it's not, your context is suspect.
Nice defense, 'kitty. Sorry I couldn't find the factual information at Daily Kos and Think Progress. I tried, but they seemed to have outsourced the facts to righty blogs.
If you bother to actually examine the substance of the posts, you might find them sourcing to some links you might find credible. Scott Malensek regularly cites directly from Select Senate Committee intell pdf files and other related official documents. You could learn quite a bit if you'd open your mind to possibilities outside of your partisanship bigotry.
Look, Wordy, if you try, you can go back to 1998 and use Bill Clinton's old intel as your excuse for the invasion, occupation of and war on Iraq. Please investigate your sourcing.
I'll do better than that: I'll go all the way back to Saddam's violations of the original cease-fire agreement. OIF really was a continuation of the first Gulf War. Saddam told Piro that he had believed he was still at war with America, all this time.