Comments on: Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions

Tells 60 Minutes Former Iraqi Dictator Didn't Expect U.S. Invasion

[hastynote]

Pelley''s interview confused the issue regarding the historical truth regarding the circumstances that led to the U.S.-led coalition to invade Iraq. The U.N. inspectors, led by Hans Blix, had succeeded in finding and destroying all illegal missiles and other weapons. The U.N. General Secretary and the U.N. Inspector''s leader were both dismayed that President Bush ORDERED the 300 inspectors out of Iraq so the invasion could begin.

Lately, we have heard Pres. Bush say that because Hussein would not let the inspectors in was the reason for the invasion. Anyone who recalls those fateful days in 2003 remembers that President Bush refused to allow the inspectors to finish their work. It was a sad day when the Security Council belatedly forgave President Bush for violating U.N. rules by his warrantless invasion a few months later. Everyone knows that President Bush will do all he can to rewrite history. We don''t need CBS reframing the facts surrounding the sacrifices that good men and women made in violation of international treaties and our own constitution.

I hold out hope that the founders of 60 minutes will take a good look at what damage has been done to our country and its heritage. How could one very small man, aided by the military-industrial complex and the Media, bring so much evil?

[feelfree1]

What have we learned from this article?

Not much.

We already knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam and Iraq never, ever, had any "ties" to "al-Qaeda", and that there were weapons inspectors on the ground ahead of the invasion who were satisfied with their access, and confident that they could perform a comprehensive inspection. As such, this renders all claims, intelligence assessmants, etc., completely irrelevant.

We had inspectors on the ground. The inspectors had requested any relevant information concerning the alleged threats, from the Bush regime, and the Bush regime supplied none, because they had none.

It made no difference whether the claims against Saddam were true or not, since they were simply the marketing mechanism used to promote an invasion that had been in the works since at least day 1 of the Bush Residency.

[donbl1]

Why are some liberals so mad about this article? Nothing new here other than hearing it from the interviewer.

If your reality is being challenged, then take a hard look at your reality and adjust accordingly.

[feelfree1]

One of the arguments that I keep hearing in this limp rag effort to make Saddam look like he was somehow a threat, is that he still retained the "expertise" to develop weapons programs.

Could someone please explain this allegation to me? Was Saddam supposed to execute the scientists and technicians in his country, to prove that he was not a threat?

Ironically, there has been a systematic campaign of executing Iraqi intellectuals, ever since the start of the illegal invasion of Iraq. There are some suspicions that the Israelis have been behind many of these killings.

Besides that, many of the most capable minds in Iraq are undoubtedly among the millions who have fled the country. The Bush regime war on science has marked some tangible gains in Iraq and elsewhere.

[deemsnyd]

It kills me to have it reiterated that (according to this) there really weren''''t any WMD and that Saddam bluffed about it in order to retain his image. That really just confirms that we jumped the gun in our decision to invade Iraq instead of more diplomacy.

Posted by madc0wdiseas at 04:29 PM : Jan 28, 2008

You think diplomacy would have worked with Saddam? Did you not just read the same article I did? He worked hard to make sure the world thought he had WMD, he thought no one would call his bluff. He was wrong. And anyone who thinks that he was not a legitimate threat is wrong. If Iraq had never been invaded, then all the people on these boards that are constantly ranting about how we shouldn''t have done it would be happy. Happy, that is, until he carried out his plans to create them again. So, everyone who thinks we should have just left poor little Saddam alone, what do you think now? Did you want to wait until he got them again and used them on us to do something? I have no problem with the initial invasion of Iraq. What I have a problem with is the fact that we have been there for so long.

[cbs_oliver]

CBS staff and management gets a nifty exclusive which will make some money for the firm and the Republican administration gets to put out their chosen messsage without question.

It must be nice to have loyal flunkys.

It kills me to have it reiterated that (according to this) there really weren''t any WMD and that Saddam bluffed about it in order to retain his image. That really just confirms that we jumped the gun in our decision to invade Iraq instead of more diplomacy.

I also find it interesting that (again, according to this article) Saddam actually somewhat feared Osama Bin Laden. If someone like Saddam is afraid of somebody, then you KNOW that person has to be a real threat to the world.

We found Saddam in a hole in the ground, we should be able to do the same with Bin Laden. What''s going on here?

[mrconservatv]

ABROAD AT HOME;
Paying for Reagan
ANTHONY LEWIS
Published: October 5, 1990


Shortly after Mr. Reagan was elected President, he said energy conservation meant being too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. His policy was in keeping with that ignorant sneer.

Funds for research on energy conservation were cut toward the vanishing point. Energy efficiency standards for cars and appliances were cut back, opposed, delayed. And the Reagan Administration just about ended the search for solar and other renewable energy sources.

By the conservation measures started in the Carter Administration, the United States had reduced its dependence on imported oil to 28 percent of its total supply. Now about half the oil we use is imported.

Ronald Reagan''s contemptuous attitude toward international law hardly needs to be described. He reversed the historic American position, going back to Theodore Roosevelt''s time, of respect for international law and international legal institutions.

In disregard of treaties and other obligations, the Reagan Administration made war on Nicaragua. When Nicaragua sued in the World Court, the Reagan Administration rejected the Court''s judgment and withdrew from its jurisdiction.

[mrconservatv]

Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World%u2019s OilHowever, the architects of the Bush-Cheney policy know that ensuring access to some oil sources may prove impossible without the use of military force. ...
www.commondreams.org/views04/0113-01.htm - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

[GRRN] Bush Administration Oil Industry TiesSubject: [GreenYes] Bush Administration Oil Industry Ties ... Cheney and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans both ran energy-related companies, earning millions ...
greenyes.grrn.org/2001/02/msg00097.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

BBC News | AMERICAS | Analysis: Oil and the Bush cabinetThe president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry. Vice-President *** Cheney amassed ...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

Monday, 12 January, 2004,
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O''''Neill said Mr Bush was looking for an excuse to oust Saddam Hussein.
As a member of the president''''s National Security team he said he never saw any evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Mr O''''Neill also portrayed the president as unwilling to engage in debate - a charge rejected by Bush officials.

Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by j-whitman at 04:17 PM : Jan 28, 2008

Yes, J, I''m still trying to figure out what possible relevance this article has to anything.

[mrconservatv]

Shell Oil Set To Stir Gas-Price Debate With Record Profits Of Amost $27 Billion

Higher Oil Prices Help Exxon Again Set Record Profit .

The big three US oil companies set record, as well as their smaller competitors, .

CRG -- "OSAMAGATE"The Bush administration''s ties to oil and gas are as deep as an offshore well. ... With Bush-Cheney in power, oil addiction is here to stay. ...
globalresearch.ca/articles/CAV111A.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages


Wednesday 04 June 2003
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair''s position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.


Cheney Energy Task Force," Cheney and his aides had already held at least 40 meetings with

Monday, 12 January, 2004,
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O''Neill said Mr Bush was looking for an excuse to oust Saddam Hussein.
As a member of the president''s National Security team he said he never saw any evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Mr O''Neill also portrayed the president as unwilling to engage in debate - a charge rejected by Bush officials.

Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

[jjloveyaya]

sweetpea, that is a remarkable gift. you are really special.
---------------------------------
i am a young and handsome man from us. i just wonder if i can meet a rich momma here, because i am at the beginning of my career and i need someone''s support..i uploaded my hot photos on sugarmommameet.com under the name piccolo , maybe you want to check out my photos firstly!

[j-whitman]

speakinup,,,, Nothing new in this article, we''ve known that Saddam Hussein wasn''t a threat for years.

[rowdytexan2]

Bushies keep trying to rewrite history, but alas, truth eventually wins out. :)

[sugarmoes]

i wonder if they''ll find bush in a spider hole too.

[speakinup]

j-whitman - I''m surprised, and delighted.

I like that they explained how they gained Saddam''s confidence. This was a good bit of intelligence gathering.

[speakinup]

Yeah, well, some folks wouldn''t know the truth if they were to see it, kittylady3c.

I respect your decision, but who''s to say they weren''t re-writting history from the get go.

I submit CBS has had a hell of a lot more ''mistakes'' that make them out as a liberal bias, than whatever you are complaining about.

So, if you must, drop off their site. We Republicans will love you for it.

BTW, I like cats too - my wife has three.

[j-whitman]

kittylady3c,,,, I''ll agree with speakinup, I thought it was a good article

[speakinup]

j-whitman - you do what you want, ok. Don''t let me hold you back.

I''ve tried to be understanding with you, just to be slapped around - so don''t try to insult me by telling me any of your opinions about me. Like, anyopne else is reading this cr@p.

[Kitty Lady]

I have finally had it with CBS. Rewriting history with Scott Pelley''s question about there not being inspectors in Iraq and Saddam Hussein "choosing" to go to war with the US was disingenous at best. YOur news has become a laughing stock among the terrible Main Stream Media, and now 60 Minutes, which used to be a primo show has bit the dist. I am sorry, but I will no longer watch any of your programs, nor will I patronize your advertisers. You can just go down the tubes with the Bush/Cheney crime family.