Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Report: Saddam Tells Interrogators 'No WMD'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 07:56 PM
Original message
Report: Saddam Tells Interrogators 'No WMD'



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) denied during the initial interrogation after his capture that Iraq (news - web sites) possessed weapons of mass destruction, Time magazine reported on Sunday.



Citing a U.S. intelligence official in Iraq, the report said that when asked if his government had such weapons Saddam replied: "No, of course not. The U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us."


The news magazine reported that the official, who read a transcript of the interrogation of the former Iraqi president, said the interrogator asked: "If you had no weapons of mass destruction, then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?"


Saddam's reply: "We didn't want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy."

more.................

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=12&u=/nm/20031215/ts_nm/iraq_saddam_interrogation_dc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Never knew the reason
but I knew their were no weapons of mass destruction
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. the reason was...
the reason he didn't let the inspectors in too deep was because he was afraid they might be spying for the americans or israeli's, you know how paranoid saddam is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. "Paranoia",..what a term of art,...*LOL*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Yep...it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Heh. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
The U.N. inspectors have turned out to be spies in the past.

Two things always bothered me about what Bush did. First, he went as far as anyone could to determine there was no WMD BEFORE he attacked. In other words, he had a chance to explore his enemy's vulnerabilities before he made a surprise attack. And when he did attack, he had one plan: That was to kill Saddam in that first Shock and Awe strike. When it didn't happen, it turned out to be one of those ugly executions that required more than one bloody whack. By the time it's over, you've become as barbaric as the person you're trying to execute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. All to get revenge for them trying to off his stupid dad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Two holes in your argument
First, he didn't go as far as anyone could to determine there was no WMD before he attacked. Quite the contrary; he decided there were WMD before the inspectors went in then decided the lack of WMD in the inspections meant Saddam had either hidden or moved (or, after "Mission Accomplished," that he had destroyed before the war) the WMD.

Second, that was no surprise attack. He sounded off with "we're comin' to getcha" for months. If you don't destroy the WMD we're coming. If Saddam, Uday and Qusay don't surrender/leave Iraq/whatever by this time, we're coming. If the whole Ba'ath Party doesn't self-immolate, we're coming. If all Iraqis don't convert to Southern Baptist by Tuesday, we're coming. He kept piling on more and more conditions that you knew they weren't going to meet. Then when Saddam called the Americans and said look, I'll give up to prevent the war from happening, where do we meet, Bush decided to attack anyway because there just had to be a loophole in there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Okay, two holes in the argument, but the result is still a bloody mess.
Out, out! Damn spot!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TryingToWarnYou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. Actually, we did send spies...
We stuck some CIA guys in as inspectors and they were discovered if I'm not mistaken. It's one of the reasons they cut back on the inspections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. That's correct.
*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
54anickel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-15-03 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. Yes, and a few DUers have posted in the past the the inspections
were to verify there were no WMD, scouting to see if the coast was clear. If you caught much of the early days of the war with all the embedded reporters you may have noticed the troops were not in their "chemical suits" in many of those early skirmishes, nor when they rolled into Baghdad even though the media kept talking about this being the time Saddam would most likely unleash his chemical assault. You would just see those talking heads reporting from the rooftops of Baghdad putting on their gas masks for that "dramatic effect".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. He was trying to protect his privacy?
Surely that's something the Bush regime can understand!


rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozymandius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. OMG! Does this mean that the war was predicated on a lie???
If this is the gem of all blurbs to be released, why release this one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. How's this getting out?
The administration can't possibly want him to have a chance to truly talk; what's the scoop? If the locals get their mitts on him, they might just find out all sorts of greasy little details of our doings; are we going to let that happen?

This little blurb just floors me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Trial balloon?
Maybe they are checking on public reaction to what he says?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kalian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. What?
Makes no sense...
They capture the guy today (suppossedly) and they have already
"interrogated" him this thoroughly? :shrug:

I think its total bs...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It's Bizarre! How were Time & Newsweek on top of this when he was just
taken out of his "hole" yesterday? And, why say he had no WMD. This whole thing is very bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Zanti Regent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. TIMID and NEWSPEAK are lying
What these two pieces of shit are writing are lies predetermined by Karl Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. That makes no sense
Why would Rove want them to say that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Don't forget the "instant DNA" confirmation
Edited on Sun Dec-14-03 08:57 PM by lunabush
Who knows how long ti actually takes to get accurate DNA confirmation?

5 Day turnaround
Based on the length of rDNA used, Laragen currently provides two tests of bacterial identification by 16S rDNA and one test of fungal identification by 28S rDNA. We use both AppliedBiosystems Microseq(Current Version of Microseq has about 1286 500 bacterial sequences , 1211 full bacterial sequences and 1069 fungal D2 sequences ) and Genebank databases to identify the unknown bacteria and fungi. The advantages of bacterial and fungal identification by rDNA sequences are fast turnaround time and accurate results even for problematic bacteria and fungi. All reports include electropherograms and the consensus sequence of the tested bacterial/fungal sequences, the alignment of top 10 matches at species or genus level and a phylogenetic tree with these top 10 sequences. Our turnaround time is 5 business days.

Apparent DNA identification of Saddam a hurry-up job, expert says
In routine practice, a commercial lab that is handling thousands of DNA samples develops a DNA profile from a given sample in a month or so, said Mark Stolorow, executive director of Orchid Cellmark forensic DNA labs, located in Germantown, Md., and elsewhere.

For an extra fee, that can be hurried up to five days, he said. Focusing on just a single sample, such a lab could probably do the job in something under 24 hours, and a lab that has long been preparing to identify a particular person like Saddam could probably do it even faster, he said.

"I don't know what
the bare minimum is," he said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
san antonio Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. First question
I'm not sure it would take to long to get to "okay, you got us, we have no freaking clue where you put your bombs. do you have weapons or not?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. A shave and a hair cut and a bath and three interviews...
not counting the interrogations. Unbelievable!

Hope all this back fires on junior's stinking ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MASSAFRA Donating Member (461 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bush's Response
Saddam is lying. WHo are you going to believe him or me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Well I not going to believe you, G W, because you have a history
of lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salinen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. No,no,no
No F.Way Time or Newsweek would be near him, or anyone who's been near him this soon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-15-03 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
34. Saddams 'capture' a few months ago....
Perhaps they were telling the truth..until the Pentagon claimed it was untrue. SH looks to be brain-fried. Few would debate that the CIA has been working w? it for 50+/- years.
Isn't his capture convenient!!!! I mean, gosh golly - we established the Iraq War Crimes Court less that a week ago!! And Clark is about to testify at the Hague ( *( * )*!#$>%$#). In CLOSED COURT! Heaven forbid we see a REAL hero put a despot behind bars


But then, I' m just paranoid. Coincidences DO happen, RIIIIIIGHT!!!???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
17. they keep saying he said he didn't let the inspectors in...
but he DID!

what's up wit dat?

i think they are gonna try to keep the lie alive that saddam just snowed us, because he thought that would protect him. :crazy:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Didn't bush force inspectors OUT to freedom bomb Iraq into democracy?
Forgetting the bush regime's efforts to thwart inspections and to smear Blix, didn't the inspectors - on the ground in Iraq - have to leave to avoid being caught in bush's bestowment of democracy to Iraq?

There is, yet again, no "there" there with this gang. I don't fully believe any of this "saddam captured" bs. After 9*11, fool me once...won't get fooled again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Military Brat Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
18. He was afraid we would stumble onto his "shadow government"
There's nothing a dictator protects more fiercely than his hidden secrets which help him hold onto power. Surely bush** can understand that.

This "capture" is turning into the same bizarre guessing-game as the "Did I just see Air Force One" fiasco and the Jessica Lynch "rescue." There is something so weird about the event.

Possibly Saddam is dying from something (cancer?). Hurry up and trot him out to prove whatever. Remember Andrew Card said the WMD issue was moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Is Mr. Card saying a kangaroo court is in order?
Asshole!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
27. this is for show
they know there are no WMD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Yep, the Bush regime always knew that WMDs was a lie
Will they bring the troops home now? Nope!

Will they let the Iraqis choose their own government? Nope!

Will the resistance continue? Yep!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
30. memo to Bush: when the gods wish to punish you they answer your prayers
now we will either find WMD or not, and if not, there will be hell to pay when it is revealed that bush took us to war based upon a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
31. What if the military is controlling this and NOT bush/admin??
Could that happen? Could the military or special ops have busted this open without admin control?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
33. the only thing I like about the Bush admin
is that you know they'll royally fuck it all up at some point. They've been screwing up fast every time they get cocky...just wait and enjoy the show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imax2268 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-15-03 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. I'm already
loaded up on Kettle Corn popcorn and Sierra Mist...should be quite entertaining...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC