Anyone see 60 Minutes - Sadam interviews

[island911]

"It was all just a big misunderstanding... don't let them kill me"

Better?

The bottom line is, Saddam KNEW that guy was there to get his story.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by island911

"It was all just a big misunderstanding... don't let them kill me"

Better?

The bottom line is, Saddam KNEW that guy was there to get his story.

Better? No. I take Pirro at his word. He knows more about the interrogation than you or I do.

Solitary confinement, loneliness, and implementation of world-class interrogation techniques to exploit the psyche of a particular subject can be very effective.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Rearden

Better? No. I take Pirro at his word. He knows more about the interrogation than you or I do.

Well then, you should follow Pirro's lead and only take it as 'that's what Saddam said.' Pirro himself had some opinions on where he thought Saddam was being truthful . . but still, all he was getting from Saddam was what Saddam wanted him to have.

It seems to me that if Saddam had been broken, that he would have shown some emotion on the news of his sons deaths. He certainly didn't let anyone -in- there, and even got Pirro to back-off when Pirro pressed him on it. --You can be impressed if you like, but what I saw of the interview ... it was nice-nice. --Saddam broke with cookies from home? . .enjoyed in his garden?

[Rick Lee]

I don't think it matters. People will believe whatever they want and if the facts contradict that, they'll cherry pick or twist it. Either way, the Bush haters will always say he lied. If WMD turned up tomorrow, they'd use Saddam's confession as evidence that the WMD were planted. If they never turn up, they'll say Bush knew it all along and still lied about them. Nothing will ever convince anyone who already believes what they want to believe.

[hardflex]

Saddam also was asked about his son ( was it Udo?), known as a rapist. Saddam replied "you're stuck with the kids you get" or something like that. That made me chuckle.

Island, you should watch the interview. It won't kill you. Saddam was ready to die, and not afraid of it. He had lived longer than most men in his country anyway. You should try to learn what you can about the man we spent a trillion dollars to kill.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

pick a version, I don't care which, but you are destabilizing Republican dogmatism. no good can come of that.

[legion]

You really shouldn't be playing at the top of the stairs, Shaun.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

pick a version, I don't care which, but you are destabilizing Republican dogmatism. no good can come of that.

There is only one version of the interview. Are you posting in the correct thread?

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by hardflex

Saddam said he invaded Kuwait the first time was because the Emir of Kuwait said "he was going to keep stealing Iraqi oil until all the Iraqi women were $10 prostitutes".

It took American know-how to really drive those prices down.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The women are too afraid and ashamed to show their faces or have their real names used. They have been driven to sell their bodies to put food on the table for their children -- for as little as $8 a day.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by hardflex

Saddam also was asked about his son ( was it Udo?), known as a rapist. Saddam replied "you're stuck with the kids you get" or something like that. That made me chuckle.

I thought the quote was "You raise the kids you have, not the kids you want." or something like that.

[hardflex]

something like that. It sure sounded like he wasn't proud of him about that.

here's the exact quotes

"asked how Saddam reacted to the deaths of his two sons, Uday and Qusay, Piro says, "I was surprised. He didn't show any remorse. He told me that he was, of course, proud of his sons. They died believing, or fighting, for what they believed."

Piro asked Saddam about his son Uday, a notorious rapist and murderer. He pressed him until Saddam didn’t want to hear anymore. "He tells me to stop. Basically stop asking these questions. You don't get to pick your kids. You're kind of stuck with what you get," Piro recalls.

Among the most important questions for U.S. intelligence was whether Saddam was supporting al Qaeda, as had been claimed by some in the Bush administration.

What was Saddam's opinion of Osama Bin Laden?

"He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, 'You can't really trust fanatics,'" Piro says.

"Didn't think of Bin Laden as an ally in his effort against the United States in this war against the United States?" Pelley asks.

"No. No. He didn't wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn't want to associate with Bin Laden," Piro explains.

Piro says Saddam thought that Bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by hardflex

something like that. It sure sounded like he wasn't proud of him.

I think he stole it from this guy, or vice versa.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want,"

[hardflex]

yeah maybe so :-)

[WI wide body]

[QUOTE=fintstone;3734513]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

I fail to see the relevance of any of this. Any weapon that kills large numbers of people can be an WMD...QUOTE]

Only according to a moron that makes up his own definition of WMD.

The only "moron" would be someone who is mentally unable to recognize that the second biggest terrorist attack with-in the USA was done by using fertlizer and kerosene.

Now please give us your learned version of what a "WMD" might be?

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I don't think it matters. People will believe whatever they want and if the facts contradict that, they'll cherry pick or twist it. Either way, the Bush haters will always say he lied. If WMD turned up tomorrow, they'd use Saddam's confession as evidence that the WMD were planted. If they never turn up, they'll say Bush knew it all along and still lied about them. Nothing will ever convince anyone who already believes what they want to believe.

You are actually correct. Bush is now in the exact same position as he put Saddam when he was asking Saddam to prove that there were no WMD's in Iraq or else we were going to invade. Now Bush himself is being asked to prove a negative...which is often impossible.

Maybe it's poetic justice.

[island911]

Originally Posted by hardflex

...

Island, you should watch the interview. It won't kill you. Saddam was ready to die, and not afraid of it. ....

I watched the whole piece, as it aired on 60_Minutes.

So you say Saddam was not afraid of death, but came clean with all that was going on ... not whatever version that he felt that he should leave for history, but just purely the facts? He was motivated to this by what? . .. because he saw Pirro between him and the door? . . .because Pirro brought him cookies?

What was Saddams motivation to give Pirro anything?

[stealthn]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

It took American know-how to really drive those prices down.

Now that's funny..

[legion]

Originally Posted by island911

What was Saddams motivation to give Pirro anything?

Ego.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I don't think it matters. People will believe whatever they want and if the facts contradict that, they'll cherry pick or twist it. Either way, the Bush haters will always say he lied. If WMD turned up tomorrow, they'd use Saddam's confession as evidence that the WMD were planted. If they never turn up, they'll say Bush knew it all along and still lied about them. Nothing will ever convince anyone who already believes what they want to believe.

Spot on.

the Bush haters don't realize the circular argument they are making --like their counter parts who argue " God exists - it says so in the bible - and the bible can't be wrong, as it was written by God." ...except for the Bush haters their "God" is Saddam. ...whose word is the ultimate authority.

[island911]

Ego, eh?

So then it would follow that Saddam would continue to contort the truth. ....or do ego-maniacs tend stick to the whole truth, and nothing but the whole truth?