Posted on 11/12/2007 7:21:03 PM PST by ikez78
In seven months of secret debriefings, Saddam Hussein admitted that he faked having weapons of mass destruction but planned on developing a weapons of mass destruction program with nuclear capability within a year.
Saddam made the admissions in videotaped interviews with George L. Piro, an FBI agent who was assigned by the FBI with the CIA’s approval to try to develop his cooperation.
For my book "The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to the Next Attack" — being published this week — Piro described the debriefings, which have never been previously revealed. [To get Ronald Kessler's new book, go here now.]
The book is being excerpted exclusively in the December issue of Newsmax magazine.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
PING
And the proceeds from this pensioneer’s book about his knowledge gained on OUR payroll go where?
Interesing.
why would this not be debriefed? why would the administration allow the public’s perception of this war to sour so badly and afford the dems the opportunity to call Bush et al liars? time and time again I wonder if they want the dems to win they make it so easy and miss so many opportunities.
Damn good questions though I hear a lot of stuff about Saddam was discovered post invasion that we haven’t heard about.
While I’m glad this guy is telling his story we already knew Saddam was trying to make nukes. He tried to buy yellow cake and he did by centrifuge parts among other things well established.
Saddam did all this because he was afraid of Iran??? I don’t think so although Saddam did think of himself as an incarnation of that previous King of Babylon and it was Darius the Median that took the kingdom from Neb’s grandson Belshazzar.
Thank you for the post and the ping.
This will be just like General Sata’s book. It doesn’t fit the media template so it will be ignored.
no problem.
This is something I never understood either. Bush admin has ample of evidence of Saddam’s plans. Perhaps Bush just wants to move on and avoid the public fight with dems (like that strategy has ever worked). Probably 20 years from now, MSM love Bush (just like they love Ronnie now) and agree that he was right, after all.
Ken Timmerman - SHADOW WARRIORS: Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender
View the SECRET email from Valerie Plame Wilson to her bosses at CIA that she was hoping would remain classified.
It shows beyond any doubt who sent Joe Wilson to Niger in Feburary 2002....
• Read my story about the Senate Intelligence committee's rebuke of Joe Wilson at Newsmax
• Sept. 17, 2007: Read my story about the return of the Rogue Weasels to the CIA at Newsmax
“Damn good questions though I hear a lot of stuff about Saddam was discovered post invasion that we haven’t heard about.”
Yes, there has been small to moderate caches of chemical weapon rounds found, and it was reported on such places as Fox News, but the story never got legs.
The stuff that has been found is older stuff, contemporous to the First Gulf war. Stuff that never got reported and destroyed like it should have been.
What is scary have been things like IEDs being found where they used unmarked mortar rounds. It turns out some of them were filled with blister agents (AKA Mustard Gas). Fortunately, the persons that rigged the IEDs didn’t realize what they had, and most of the active chemical agents were destroyed by the conventional munitions mixed in the pile (burned up). So, no major releases have occurred. This is just heresay that I am repeating and I cannot verify its accuracy.
What concerns me is that someone amoung the various bad guys over there will find a sizeable cache of “nerve agents” and actually know what they have found. If such a thing occurred, then an IED or exposive laden vehicle in the heavily populated part of Bagdad or elsewhere could have very high casualties; much more than a conventional explosive.
If several of these were to occur, then the pyschological effects on the friendly Iraqis and our own military would be significant. Operating in a mixed environment with both chemical and conventional munitions being used, would be difficult to say the least. Military personnel wearing protection masks & suits would not function as effectively in counterinsurgent operations, and would be more vulnerable to conventional attack (one can only wear so much protection). If our military shows up without being in a chemically protective posture they would be vulnerable to chemical attack. If they show up in chemically protective posture, they would be more vulnerable to conventional attack and the effects of heat. Mixing the two would wreck havoc on us.
I just hope the bad guys don’t find a cache of these WMDs. Stuff that isn’t “supposed” to be there.
e’s dead.
“just like they love Ronnie now”
What MSM do you watch/read? Krugman was just called out by his own NYT libby buds for calling Reagan a racist (search for the post on FR)...
bttt!!
I can’t wait for the in-depth story on 60 Minutes, Today, or the CBS Evening News with Katie Colonic. Should I hold my breath?
I still do not believe that Plame came up with this idea to send Joe. Given what has taken place since he went this plot was bigger than these two.
At some point - after 2004 elections were over - it was more important for President Bush to have a clear [political] success in Iraq, i.e. “stable and democratic” Iraq, than arguing and reasserting the reasons for going in.
Most Americans are results-oriented - “all is well that ends well”. Bush reasoned that, with time, if Iraq is a success, people won’t care why and how we got into Iraq, and if Iraq is not deemed a success, people also won’t care even if we had undeniable proof that Saddam had nuclear missiles stashed or tankers filled with anthrax...
For all practical purposes, after 2004 for Bush success of the mission in Iraq was more important than re-arguing original case about Saddam’s threat... That was exactly the opposite of what it was for Democrats who needed “Bush lied us into war” argument to support their opposition to the mission and the goals of the mission. To liberals, goals / reasons and outcome have to be inseparable, i.e. “bad war” should end in defeat and have “bad end” (”Vietnam syndrome”), only “good wars” should end in victory...
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.
