|
|
May 24, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Saddam’s Interrogator SpeaksPosted on Jan 24, 2008
George Piro, the FBI agent who spent nearly seven months interrogating Saddam Hussein, tells “60 Minutes” that the late Iraqi leader didn’t think the U.S. would actually invade and didn’t deny having weapons of mass destruction in order to intimidate Iran. “He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush’s intentions,” Piro revealed in the interview, which airs this Sunday.
Advertisement Previous item: House, Bush Cut Stimulus Deal Next item: Kucinich to Quit Campaign New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
After Oklahoma Disaster, Give Thanks to Government
 . '/' . substr('9780802821720',-6,3) . '/' . '9780802821720' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By amunaor, January 26, 2008 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
<All Saddam had to do was make a deal with the US on the oil and Bush would have been visiting Saddam and planting kisses on his cheeks as he did with the dictator of Saudi Arabia.>
THOMAS, youve got that absolutely correct.
The irritant was that Saddam had begun to trade oil for Euros, which is actually what got him invaded and lynched, with millions of Iraqis dead as collateral damage. This very same fate has now placed Ahmadinejad in the cross-hairs of this neo-roman legion, because, as of December 2007, he too had begun trading Oil in Euros, to the silent cheers of the Saudis.
In similar light, if Ahmadinejad had fallen under the spell of the American dream, he too would have been inundated with Haliburton contracts, ready to build for him any number of nuclear power stations his heart desired; showering his population with credit cards; with the deceptive intent of debt slavery.
They simply see the transparency of the scheme and do not wish to be corralled into this American fright-mare. The magicians of sound and vision, the corporate lens, has been very effective in casting its psychological tricks of demonization, when if fact, it is they who are the real demons.
Please read the following:
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, January 25, 2008 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment
By P. T., January 25: “What currency oil is traded in is no big deal to anybody, including the U.S., since the major currencies are readily convertible…”
You are quite wrong, P. T. and the current economic crisis should prove a thing or two to you, uhh.
I’ve posted this link before but it is perhaps timely to look at it again…....
Cost, Abuse and Danger of the Dollar:-
Those who use dollars outside the US continuously pay a contribution to the US. It comes in the form of an inflation of 1.25 million dollars per minute. This is the result of the fast increase of the US foreign debt. Half of all US’ imports are simply added to the foreign debt and paid for by the foreign dollar holders through inflation.
Moreover these dollar holders do not seem to realize, that the dollar rate they are looking at, is nothing more than a dangerous façade. If they don’t understand what is still keeping it upright, the façade may hit them by surprise. Meanwhile, well camouflaged, the dollar is at the center of several US’ conflicts…...
Free shopping - In this oil trade a huge amount of dollars is needed. Many dollars will stay in the permanent money cycle outside the US, that is to say between the OPEC-countries and other countries. The US consumes 25 percent of the world oil production. In 2004 it produced about half of its needs itself. (Tendency quickly deterioating: in 2006 it needed to import 60 percent.)
At the start there were not enough dollars for this. They had to be printed. [2] It cost the US paper and ink. But then the enormous benefit arrives: there is only one way to get those nice new greenbacks out of the country: the US goes shopping abroad. And as these greenbacks remain abroad permanently, the US never delivers something in return. So, these shoppings are for free!
This free shopping did not only occur at the start. As soon as more dollars are needed in the oil trade, by increase in price or volume, that means free shopping for the US….. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6893
Report thisBy P. T., January 25, 2008 at 11:14 am Link to this comment
Saddam’s attack on Iran was a big risk and a big mistake. What currency oil is traded in is no big deal to anybody, including the U.S., since the major currencies are readily convertible.
Report thisBy Expat, January 25, 2008 at 8:52 am Link to this comment
Calm down, I’m in Asia with a U.S. account and get updates no problem. Check your settings again, nobody’s messin with you. That said, I understand your angst. Give it a little time.
Report thisPeace
By Frank, January 25, 2008 at 6:36 am Link to this comment
99, it may be sound misleading, but it is not a lie. Iran may not have started the war, but they did invade Iraq several times during the later part of the eight year Iran-Iraq war, attempting to capture Iraqi cities like Kirkuk and Basra, with their government calling for the overthrow of the Baath regime.
The word invasion does not necessarily denote instigation of hostilities, but simply the offensive entry of armed forces into another nation’s territory during a conflict.
Example: When we say the WW2 Allied Powers invaded Europe on D-Day, we are not implying that they started the war in Europe, or were the ‘bad guys’.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, January 25, 2008 at 3:51 am Link to this comment
They will risk disaster, as in Iraq - #By P. T., January 24: “It is ironic that Saddam, a risk taker himself, did not seem to understand the big risks the most aggressive U.S. imperialists will take…”
No, P. T., Saddam was NOT a risk-taker back then. He was onto a sure thing. Whatever the USA wanted, he co-operated. It was only when he chose to accept some other currency than $US for oil that things changed.
But the Iranians didn’t simply “invade Iraq”. There was more to the Iran-Iraq war than that. Thus, there is nothing in this story and that is simply another cheap slur against Iran for the usual reasons.
Back in the 1980’s, Saddam got a big head. He was going to be the leader and eventual ruler of the Arab world. But he didn’t realize that he was being used and would then be set up for a fall by the USA.
Thus, fighting Iran was a sheer waste of time and lives. Washington loved him for it but used the bad press against him to make him appear an ogre in the end. Once he gassed the Kurdish villagers and was found out, it was effectively already over for him.
Report thisBy aafshar, January 24, 2008 at 9:25 pm Link to this comment
You forgot it’s Scoot Pelley how is doing the reporting, he is a right wing stooge
Report thisBy P. T., January 24, 2008 at 8:37 pm Link to this comment
It is ironic that Saddam, a risk taker himself, did not seem to understand the big risks the most aggressive U.S. imperialists will take. They will risk disaster, as in Iraq.
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, January 24, 2008 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment
All Saddam had to do was make a deal with the US on the oil and Bush would have been visiting Saddam and planting kisses on his cheeks as he did with the dictator of Saudi Arabia.Saddam did not realize that when you are talking about billions of dollars in oil that George Bush would dummy up intelligence to facilitate invading Iraq.If Saddam had allowed the inspectors to continue inspecting and found no weapons of mass destuction Bush would have found another reason to invadw.Saddam listen to me ,it was about the oil.
Report thisBy 99, January 24, 2008 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
...Iranians from reinvading Iraq…
Outright lie, not corrected by Pelley, and makes Iran look like bad guys. Now who would be served by that, and how can we just sit back and watch these guys LIE in furtherance of fascism? Just shoot me!
Report thisBy jdogg333, January 24, 2008 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment
Ok I’m just curious if anyone else has this problem. I have my account here set up to notify me of thread updates here. The messages keep getting marked as spam even though I marked them as NOT spam. WTF is going on here?
Report thisBy amunaor, January 24, 2008 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment
Some while back, I remember Bush responding to a reporter’s inquiry as to how he felt history would reflect on his presidency. Without much thought, his response was quite telling, “What history? We’ll all be dead”.
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
Report thisBy Kevin James, January 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
And the spin goes on…
Saddam invaded Iran on the order of his master USA. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980. The Iranians did not invade Iraq to begin with so how could they RE-invade Iraq?!
Saddam was as good a Lacky as they come, good to the last drop!!
Report thisBy waxman, January 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment
I COULDN’T AGREE MORE….WE COULDN’T ALLOW HIM TO LIVE AND RUIN BUSH’S LEGACY..I’D LIKE TO SEE WHAT HISTORIANS SAY ABOUT BUSH 50 YEARS FROM NOW..
Report thisBy amunaor, January 24, 2008 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment
The victors write the history which will always be slanted to suit their own agenda.
Too bad Saddam was gaurded to the extent his words could never fall on non anointed ears, before his tongue was silenced forever, by the lynching.
I’m sure that he had quite the tale to tell involving the even greater barbarity of the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz neocon cabal.
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
Report this