Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions

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

(CBS)  Piro says no coercive interrogation techniques, like sleep deprivation, heat, cold, loud noises, or water boarding were ever used. "It's against FBI policy, first. And wouldn't have really benefited us with someone like Saddam," Piro says.

Why not?

"I think Saddam clearly had demonstrated over his legacy that he would not respond to threats, to any type of fear-based approach," Piro explains.

"So how do you crack a guy like that?" Pelley asks.

"Time," Piro says.

Months of time, during which Piro manipulated Saddam, creating a relationship based on dependency, trust and emotion. Piro alternated between acts of kindness and provocation. He would jar Saddam with video, including pictures of his fall, and the pulling down of his statues.

"I wanted him to get angry. I wanted him to see those videos and to get angry," Piro explains. "You want to take him through those various emotions. Happy, angry, sad. When you have someone going through those emotions they're not able to really control themselves. And they're more vulnerable during the interview."

"When he was watching his statue being pulled down, what did you see?" Pelley asks.

"You could see the anger in his face. He would try not to watch. Look down," Piro remembers. "But you could tell he was angered by it. But at the same time he was trying to keep himself under control."

"What does an angry Saddam look like? Angriest you ever saw him," Pelley asks.

"The angriest you ever saw him, his face got extremely red. And his voice changed," Piro recalls.

"The eyes?" Pelley asks.

"A lot of hate in those eyes. We were talking about what led to the invasion of Kuwait. What led him to want to invade Kuwait," Piro says.

That invasion was in 1990. Back then, Saddam accused Kuwait of wrecking Iraq’s economy by stealing oil and demanding repayment of loans. But Piro learned, for the first time, that the brutal invasion was triggered by personal insult.

"What really triggered it for him, according to Saddam, was he had sent his foreign minister to Kuwait to meet with the Emir Al Sabah, the former leader of Kuwait, to try to resolve some of these issues. And the Emir told the foreign minister of Iraq that he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him, to invade Kuwait. He wanted to punish, he told me, Emir Al Sabah, for saying that," Piro explains.

The U.S. ejected Saddam from Kuwait, leaving the dictator with no love lost for the Bush family. "He didn't like President [George W.] Bush. He would have liked meeting President Reagan. He thought he was a great leader. Honorable man. He liked President Clinton. But he did not like President Bush, the first or the current," Piro says.

Getting to Saddam's secrets depended on patiently undermining the self confidence of a man who was used to total control. Piro saw an opportunity one night when they flew Saddam to a hospital. They loaded him on a helicopter, manacled and wearing a blindfold.

"And once I saw how beautiful Baghdad was in the middle of the night, so I took advantage of it. I allowed him to look out and the lights were on. There was traffic. And it looked like any other major metropolitan city around the world. And for him to see that. And as I mentioned, you know, big Baghdad is moving forward without you. I mean, little things like that didn't require a lot of suggestion on our part. It made its point," Piro recalls.

Piro even used Saddam’s birthday, a former national holiday, to drive home another painful point. "In 2004, no one celebrated his birthday on April 28th. So the only one that really knew and cared was us. I'd brought him some cookies, and we, the FBI, celebrated his birthday for him."

The cookies, Piro says, he got from his own mother. "He loved 'em. I told them they were Lebanese cookies, which, of course, he was a big fan of the Lebanese people, as he said."

Piro says he told Saddam the cookies were from his mother, and that he appreciated it. But when he told his mom about the cookie gift on his return, Piro says, "She actually slapped me. In the back of the head."

Piro’s mother supplied another gift unwittingly: flower seeds. Saddam was given a small plot behind a high fence where he gardened with his bare hands because he couldn't have tools. Piro and Saddam took walks in the tiny garden and what flowed was a series of revelations.

[spike1949]

Sadaam lied, people died

Impeach him!

Whoops

[d-lock1]

Saddam lied, people died.

[devan95]

Per his comment below, Saddam was a serious threat and we did the right thing to take him out. Funny how many of those who criticize "W" for getting him criticized his father for not getting Saddam and finishing the job in 1990.
Saddam admits to interrogater before he was hanged: "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%u2026to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

[Mark_K_Davis]

Hearsay is nice, but we are ignoring primary source evidence that Iraq OFFICIALLY denied any WMD stockpiles when it submitted the 12,000 page report to the United Nations (see http://www.courant.com/news/nation-world/chi-0212080460dec08,0,323005.story).

Regardless of rumour, innuendo, and hearsay, Iraq officially denied WMD stockpiles. This was confirmed by U.N. inspectors before the invasion and American inspectors after the invasion.

[seeitright]

So if Saddam was intentionally acting as if he had a fully functioning WMD program, then the pretences under which we went to war with Iraq were accurate. Our intelligence reports weren''t false, they were accurate with respect to the circumstances (i.e. Saddam acting in every way, shape, and form as if he had WMD''s). How does this do anything but exonerate George Bush from the accusations that he orchistrated the Iraq war with lies and deceit? History will show that he was not a terrible President, but a corageous one.

[spike1949]

Wait til Dennis the Knut hears about this!

[skyk-2009]

So if Saddam was intentionally acting as if he had a fully functioning WMD program, then the pretences under which we went to war with Iraq were accurate. Our intelligence reports weren''''t false, they were accurate with respect to the circumstances (i.e. Saddam acting in every way, shape, and form as if he had WMD''''s). How does this do anything but exonerate George Bush from the accusations that he orchistrated the Iraq war with lies and deceit? History will show that he was not a terrible President, but a corageous one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by seeitright at 03:42 PM : Jan 24, 2008
+ report abuse

So let me see if I understand you here... BECAUSE Saddam was afraid of Iran, whom we also are afraid of in Iraq, that makes Bush LYING to us about Iraq 935 times okay? That''s INSANE!! Have you looked at those LIES?? In EVERY case there was OVER RIDING reason to believe there was NO justification to attack and the Bush Administration simply MADE it UP as they went along. Please tell me you aren''t this hung up on your party.

[incog-nito]

seeitright: Wrong. The purpose of the intelligence agencies, with its multi-billion dollar budget, is to determine the facts--what really is going on, not what the enemy wants us to believe. If we act based on what they want us to believe, then there would be no need for intelligence, and the enemy can easily manipulate us into doing what they want.

[chinaski25]

"He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,"

Ummmm what? Iraq invaded Iran, not the other way around. I would think that an FBI agent assigned to interrogate Saddam Hussein would at least have his facts straight. That statement is very odd.

From Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580640/Iran-Iraq_War.html
"Iran-Iraq War, armed conflict that began when Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 and ended in August 1988 after both sides accepted a cease-fire sponsored by the United Nations (UN)."

[kevin67a-2009]

"If you''re 20 and not a liberal, you don''t have a heart. If you''re 30 and not a Conservative, you don''t have a brain."

[bobnjersey]

[History will show that he was not a terrible President, but a corageous one.]
[Posted by seeitright at 03:42 PM : Jan 24, 2008]

he''s an idiot ... before the presidency ... during the presidency ... and following the presidency.

[megame1]

spike1949,
I agree, Sadaam lied but how are you going to impeach a guy who is dead?

[ozymandias88]

Bush hiss! Cheney snarl! Haliburton screech! No Blood for Oil!!! shaking with rage!

Watch as this new information simply bounces off the eyes of Bush Derangement Sufferers. There is NOTHING that could come to light that would deflect them from their lovingly nurtured hatred.

[incog-nito]

ozymandias88: No more hateful than your hate of anything you label "liberal".

[kkddbb]

the left will still claim bush lied no matter what. that bumper sticker add has proved to damage this nation and the left is invested in doing exactly that. if these leftists could think clearly we could actually get things done the right way the first time.

[ozymandias88]

incog-nito: I didn''t say I hate anything "liberal" - you did.

Do you often imagine people are persecuting you?

[one_american]

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD%u2026to reconstitute his entire WMD program."

This completely justifies our invasion of Iraq.

You lose the argument for all time, liberal moonbats!

This will be the main point in how history is written about the War.

[incog-nito]

ozymandias88: No, do you?

[seeitright]

So you are saying that even if we (the USA) wanted to, we would never be able to trick any other country with a billion dollar intelligence budget? Do you have any idea how much money Saddam had? If he spent a billion dollars on creating the illusion of having WMD''s, you think that would just easily dismissed by the CIA? Do you really think that it is impossible to hide something? Please remember the "Plywood Airforce" that was created to trick Germany into thinking we were going to invade another location in France on D-Day. So, despite Germany''s enormous resources, they were misled because they didn''t have a spy building the fake airplanes? I truely belive that our intelligence officers are some of the brightest people in the world at what they do, but unless we have a spy inside the WMD factory that isn''t producing anything...how would we have known? Also remember that despite a $25 Million bounty on his head, not a single member of Osama Bin Laden''s "inner circle" has yet to turn him in. That clearly shows a certain degree of loyalty in these groups that we will probably never be able to infiltrate.

[ozymandias88]

what a comeback, incog-nito. Pee Wee Herman couldn''t have done it any better.

[feelfree1]

Re: "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."

This was pretty obvious to anyone that was paying attention, but since so many FBI agents are chronic liars, murderers, and terrorists, we would be foolish to accept anything else that Mr. Piro is claiming as being truthful.

[incog-nito]

The fact remains that even the intelligence agencies said at the time that there was no credible evidence of WMDs in Iraq, a fact that Bush & Co. conveniently ignored. There are many, many countries out there with WMD aspirations. When do we invade them all?

[feelfree1]

Continued- For one thing, Saddam made sure that every Iraqi household had a weapon, and he released everyone that was being held in Iraqi prisons before the invasion, so it looks like he DID know what was coming.

[feelfree1]

Re: "But Piro isn%u2019t convinced that the insurgency was Saddam''s plan."

Liar? Moron? Both?

[one_american]

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD%u2026to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

This completely justifies our invasion of Iraq.

You lose the Iraq War argument for all time, liberal moonbats!

This will be the main point in how history is written about the War.

[matthew_m1]

seeitright, you''re hilarious.

Our intelligence reports weren''t false, they were accurate with respect to the circumstances (i.e. Saddam acting in every way, shape, and form as if he had WMDs).

Do you have any idea what an inane line of reasoning you''re trying to advance? You have essentially said "Our intelligence reports weren''t false, they were just fooled by Saddam''s crafty lying." Uh, what''s the point of an intelligence department if you don''t want facts, but are happy to believe the way every two-bit dictator acts? You could save a few billion dollars there.

And what if Saddam did have WMDs and acted as though he didn''t have them to avoid invasion? Would you have then said "Our intelligence wasn''t wrong, it was accurate with respect to the circumstances (Saddam acting in every way as if he didn''t have WMDs)."? Would be a bummer if he then used them. But nobody''s fault, because how can an intelligence department be expected to dig up real facts, right?

And, by the way, our intelligence reports weren''t false. The fact that Saddam didn''t have WMDs was widely known in the CIA. Heck, we had information from Naji Sabri, Saddam''s former foreign minister. Some it was suppressed until after the war, but it''s all public record now (see http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/).

Oops. I guess we weren''t as stupid as you thought. But I guess it''s a lot less stressful no to use that cauliflower-shaped organ at the top of your spine.

Matthew

[summarex]

Yup
The US thought he had WMDs because he wanted them to think that! It was all his fault Iraq got invaded, wasn''t it! And with President Hussein conveniently murdered, who''s to say otherwise.

[texasboy1011]

How did we know that Saddam might have WMD''s or atleast the capability to manufacture them? Easy, we sold him the equipment and technology while he was fighting Iran (more than 1 mil dead). He used WMD''s against his own people. Every intelligence agency thought he had them! I wonder how long it will take before this FBI agent is slandered here as a lier or a puppet of the administration!

[Bearleton]

This makes a lot of sense.

I was never really sure he got the stuff over into Syria as many thought.

It makes more sense that Saddam was lying, just like Chalabi and the Iraqi exiles telling the CIA and MI-5 the WMD was there and their family members were even working on it.

What was Bush supposed to do with all these dangerous lies being floated? The CIA, MI-5 and the Mossad all told him to attack.

But this is an interesting wrinkle.

[one_american]

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD%u2026to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

This completely justifies our invasion of Iraq.

You lose the Iraq War argument for all time, liberal moonbats!

This will be the main point in how history is written about the War.

[lawyeratl]

To SkyK and Incognito:

I think the purpose of the article isn''t to say that our intelligence agencies did a stellar job but to show that Bush did not lie, because there was a factual basis for their beliefs rather than some purposefully manufactured reason to invade Iraq. No one is denying that the administration had the wrong result, but to say that they flat out lied is a much more serious allegation.

As to the 935 comments, this really is the practice of inflammation on the part of the media. Yes, there 935 statement made regarding Iraq to the media...by the ENTIRE administration - not just Bush. I''m sure if we took the time to analyze all the statements made by past presidents'' administrations we would have just as many if not more lies. Two come to mind: Slick Willy and Nixon.

[samskud]

Let''s say that Bush lied. This was his big scheme to invade Iraq and take over the oil. It was all planned months, maybe years in advance. Don''t you think that part of that plan just might have been PLANTING THE WMDs SO WE WOULD FIND THEM?????

I don''t hate liberals, honestly. But sometimes it''s just impossible to take them seriously when they refuse to think.

[feelfree1]

Re: "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."

What was he supposed to do? Execute them?

What was agent Clepto''s take on this?

[ikez78]

so first Bush lied about WMD and Saddam NEVER had any? Now, Bush gave him the WMD''s?

You libs never stop spinning webs of lies. Disgusting

[zmonster]

The Iraqi government repeatedly stated to the news agencies, and in public forums, that they had absolutely no WMD program. There are several interviews of Tariq Aziz stating to western journalists that Iraq was not developing WMDs. Saddam, through these spokesman, repeatedly stated they had no weapons. The FBI interrogator here has it completely wrong. Iraq did indeed state they had no weapons. They were not remaining silent on the issue. This is a very weak attempt at rewriting history. It seems as if the neo-conservative madmen have only 11 months left in office to save their historical reputations.

"The purpose of the intelligence agencies...is to determine the facts..."
A true statement. So we have a choice of believing that our intel agencies were deficient or believing that the Bush admin had ulterior motives to start a war. IMO, any ulterior motives espoused by the Bush haters (ex. wanting oil industry buddies to profit) are just rationalizations for their opinions. Haven''t we already had proof that our intel agencies were hoodwinked? "Curveball"? Have any of those same agencies come out and ever denounced the admin''s use of data? Some grumblings, yes, but nothing on the order of "THEY''RE LYING". For me, it still comes down to a moment when the president has to decide to take action or not based on the intel data at hand. Without the benefit of hindsight, the president can only have rough level of confidence in that data. What would you do if posed with the scenario: "Intel is 50% confident that Irag has WMD and will use them on the continental US"? What it the confidence level was 10% or 90%. Each of us would probably have a different "breaking point". The point being, however, that the confidence level was not (and could never be) 100%. The president is paid to make those tough decisions. I believe that he made the same one I would have made at that time given that information. That''s not saying it was the "right" choice knowing what we know now, but it is unfair to judge that decision except in the context of the day on which it was made.

[im4fred]

Everyone seems to forget that Saddam thumbed his nose at Clinton 1 for 8 years trying to get him to comply with UN Resolutions from the Gulf War. At the time, we had no indications that he didn''t have WMD. He had gased his own people! Any decent human being would want to help those who are suffering any way they can. Oops, I forgot, Clinton had more important things to do. Please, God, don''t let us have a Clinton#2!

[texasboy1011]

I just love all the liberal "Monday Morning" quaterbacking done on this issue. You think intelligence work is an exact science! Never has been, never will be. Stop watching TV fiction about that line of work and taking it as fact! If you think you can do better, than get some of your guys into those agencies!

[mrconservatv]

Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion - 13 hours ago
Bush and his top officials waged a campaign of misinformation about the ... made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11




This is a stupid story and is for stupid people, like most Republicans that still believe Bush.

Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam
Tells 60 Minutes Former Dictator Bragged About Eluding Capture

[feelfree1]

Check out all the first time spook apologist posters here, trying to prop up the idiotic ramblings of this FBI goon!

[andor3]

One_American said [in reference to the idea that Saddam wanted to pursue WMD programs]: "This completely justifies our invasion of Iraq. You lose the argument for all time, liberal moonbats!"

When will these conservative delusions and rationalizations end? They were wrong Bush was wrong. His motives are questionable but it is clear that GWB was not acting in the best interests of the USA or upholding his oath of office.

The fact that Saddam WANTED WMDs is evidence AGAINST the justification for the invasion--he did not have them, was not a threat. Most leaders would like a powerful weapon to defend their country and their position--that does not justify an attack, does not justify putting our soldiers in harms way, no matter how many loony tune right wing moonbat nutcases try to fantasize that there is any support for their delusions of a justified invasion and occupation

[terrorislam6]

Posted by mrconservatv at 04:16 PM : Jan 24, 2008

funded by soros

[zmonster]

US President George W. Bush and his top officials ran roughshod over the truth in the run-up to the Iraq war lying a total of 935 times, a study released Wednesday found.
Bush and his administration "waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein''s Iraq," said the damning report entitled "False Pretenses."
According to the Center for Public Integrity, eight administration officials "made at least 935 false statements" about Iraq''s possession of weapons of mass destruction, or links to Al-Qaeda, on 532 separate occasions.
"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

[Bearleton]

"Check out all the first time spook apologist posters here, trying to prop up the idiotic ramblings of this FBI goon!"

Typical liberal, attacking the FBI agent.

[terrorislam6]

Dutch Braced For ''Koran Insult'' Backlash

If I insult you, am I responsible for your violence?

It''s a question being debated in the Netherlands this week as Dutch embassies around the world beef up their security ahead of the release of a film on the internet which allegedly insults the Koran. It''s reported to show the Koran being torn up and otherwise desecrated.
http://martinstanford.typepad.com/foreign_matters/2008/01/dutch-braced-fo.html
Dutch Politician: Islamic Culture Is ''Retarded''

Dutch Politician Plans to Air Film Criticizing the Koran

A Dutch politician known for his views against Islam plans to air a film he produced that is critical of the Koran, which he likens to Adolf Hitler''s hateful writings.
Parliamentarian Geert Wilders spoke to FOX News about the documentary, insisting the Muslim holy book is dangerous and should be banned.
"I believe the Koran is, indeed, ''Mein Kampf.'' They are the same package," Wilders said. "I believe that our culture is far better than the retarded Islamic culture."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325305,00.html

[feelfree1]

andor3,

Re: "The fact that Saddam WANTED WMDs is evidence AGAINST the justification for the invasion--he did not have them, was not a threat."

Excellent point, although I would not even accept as fact that Saddam even wanted them. This is mere hear-say conjecture presented by this FBI goon.

On the bright side, the fact that the Regime is presenting this absurd story, seems to indicate their increasing worry about facing a war crimes tribunal/gallows/firing squad.

[andor3]

"I just love all the liberal "Monday Morning" quaterbacking.."

You think this is a friggin football game?! Do you know how many people have been killed, maimed, injured, orphaned, widowed in this "game"? Do you think people who hold power should not be held accountable for their ignorance of facts and advice, especially when that leads to such terrible consequences?

[mrconservatv]

Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion - 13 hours ago
Bush and his top officials waged a campaign of misinformation about the ... made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11

How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of ''Curveball''U.S. and German officials feared that Ahmad Chalabi had coached Curveball after the defector said his brother had worked as a bodyguard for the ...

Another Bush
Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic

Another Bush Administration surrogate where;s the audiotape or video of these so-called debriefings of Saddam.

Most Bush apologists believe anything the Bush Administrations puts out.

When%u2019s Bush going to tell you idiots to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge?

Will tape it for youtube. HA HA

[terrorislam6]

Posted by zmonster4 at 04:19 PM : Jan 24, 2008

funded by soros

[incog-nito]

LawyerATL: Thanks for the civil response. No one is saying Bush flat out lied. Whatever Saddam''s pretense was, the actual evidence of WMDs was inconclusive at best, and simply did not justify a full-scale invasion. Inspectors were not given a chance to do their jobs, and they apparently were doing a pretty good job, as evidenced by the fact that nothing was found. So I do not think it was a flat out lie, but the intention to invade was there, and this provided a convenient pretext.

[Bearleton]

"This is a stupid story and is for stupid people, like most Republicans that still believe Bush."

It''s only stupid to you, but it''s clear that it passed muster with 60 Minutes.

The fact is it absolves Bush of the liberals "lies" bs.