FBI agent: Saddam viewed bin Laden as a threat.
FBI agent: Saddam viewed bin Laden as a threat.
Last night, CBS’ 60 Minutes aired an interview with FBI agent George Piro, the man who was charged with interrogating Saddam Hussein over the course of seven months. Piro reported that he asked Saddam whether he had any relationship to Osama bin Laden. Saddam responded by saying he was “wary” of the 9/11 mastermind and “didn’t want associate” with him. Moreover, Saddam viewed bin Laden “as a threat to him and his regime.” Watch it:
Transcript:
PELLEY: Among the most important questions for U.S. intelligence was whether Saddam was supporting al Qaeda as had been claimed by some in the Bush administration.
PELLEY: What was his opinion of Osama Bin Laden?
PIRO: He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, “You can’t really trust fanatics.”
PELLEY: Didn’t think of Bin Laden as an ally in his effort against the United States in this war against the United States?
PIRO: He didn’t wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn’t want to associate with Bin Laden.
PELLEY: Did he think bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime?
PIRO: Yes.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
63 Responses to “FBI agent: Saddam viewed bin Laden as a threat.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good thing we ousted Saddam then.... oh wait..
January 28th, 2008 at 9:46 amPelley is such a tool, I had to stop watching as all Pelley did was try to justify the murder of Iraqis by Bushco.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:59 amDid BushCo know all this during SH's trial? Of course, & way before that, probably from the beginning of their little Iraq gambit. Maybe we should dig Saddam up & inform him of it, now that 60 Minutes has gotten on the clue train. If only the guy wasn't so very dead.
This has been another installment of "Simple Answers to Simple Questions"...
January 28th, 2008 at 10:02 amBUT IRAQ HAD WMDS AND WAS GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.... and he did try to kill my daddy.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:07 amSaddam also told the FBI agent he held up his lie and continued to make the world believe he had WMD's. This all proves that Bush and congress never lied, they were simply misled by Saddam himself. I guess it doesn't suprise me that Saddam is the true person at fault for Iraq afterall. I only hope now the Dems will work with the Administration on Iraq to make it a place for freedom and Democracy whatever it takes.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:07 amWell, that explains why those two were in cahoots and Iraq caused 9-11. It all makes sense now.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:08 amSaddam responded by saying he was “wary†of the 9/11 mastermind and “didn’t want associate†with him. Moreover, Saddam viewed bin Laden “as a threat to him and his regime.â€
- - - - -
In a bit of irony, the only reason why Saddam is gone is because of bin Laden's actions. I guess Saddam was right to consider bin Laden a threat to his regime....
January 28th, 2008 at 10:09 ambegin the right wing smearing of Piro...
January 28th, 2008 at 10:11 amThis all proves that Bush and congress never lied, they were simply misled by Saddam himself
Comment by Roger_Roger Debate_Dodger — January 28, 2008 @ 10:07 am
And that justifies the slaughter of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians? of nearly 4000 of our brave men and women?
January 28th, 2008 at 10:11 amYou're a tool!
No wonder they executed him so quickly. Any further interrogations, and we would truly see what a delusional leader he was, and incapable of producing any threat to the U.S.!
I accept the idea of a non-relationship between Saddam and Osama, but I still have trouble reconciling that with the evidence prior to 9/11 that seemed to link them, like this:
If anyone wants to address that, please feel free because it's a legitimate question, I think.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am#5, Saddam's posturing doesn't ameloriate the fact that Bush/Cheney specifically installed political hacks in the Pentagon (the Office of Special Plans) with the explicit mission to distort intelligence, to shave off caveats, and to promote unreliable sources like Chalabi and Curveball to make the case for war they wanted long before 9/11. So that's still a lie.
Nor does it change the fact that they lied about yellowcake and aluminum tubes, and that they ignored the inspectors on the ground.
And after the war began, Bush most certainly LIED when he claimed the war was justified because "Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in" - when it was Bush's impending war that forced them out.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:13 amRoger2: What a little foolish person you are. Yes, Saddam lied about having WMD. However, the intelligence services were not fooled to the degree that you think. We certainly did not see Germany, France and other allies feeling so convinced that the WMD existed and constituted an imminent threat so as to join the United States in its little venture. We now also know that the UD intelligence services sexed up the file to make the case for war more marketable. We also know that there were serious doubts within our own intelligence agencies.
However, this all occurred prior to the admission of international weapons inspectors into Iraq. Although met with some initial resistance, Saddam backed down and cooperated. Guess what, no evidence of weapons despite the provision of detailed intelligence information by Washington.
Bush went to war despite serious questions within his own intelligence community and despite the continuing inspections within Iraq. The pro war crowd always wants to forget the UN inspections. No wonder why. They were disputing the over-sold basis for the invasion.
My hope for after the election is for people like you to be picked up as traitors and placed in GTMO.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:20 amhttp://rawstory.com/news/2007/Saddam_didnt_believe_US_would_invade_0128.html
"Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein never believed the US would actually invade his country in 2003, despite his bluffs about weapons of mass destruction, expecting instead a bombing campaign like the one former President Bill Clinton launched five years earlier, according to an FBI agent who interrogated the deposed leader.
"He told me he initially miscalculated President Bush and President Bush's intentions," FBI interrogator George Piro told CBS's 60 Minutes Sunday. "He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially."
Open your eyes. Saddam himself admitted he mislead the world. Pretty sad how you continue to blame those that simply were trying to protect us and our Allies.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:20 amR_R trusts Saddam more than UN inspectors.
That's a whole new category of stupid.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:21 amOne of the most powerful things that the FBI agent said during the interview was, when asked by Pelley, if they had used any "harsh" interogation techniques, he responded that no it is against the FBI's rules and policy to do so.
In other words they got the info without resorting to the CIA's methods, methods that do not work and at best only get info that the torture victim thinks will end the pain, true or not.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:23 amBest War Ever.
http://www.tshirtinsurgency.com
January 28th, 2008 at 10:24 amSo, let me get this straight... the trolls are now saying that because Saddam was propagating the lie that he had WMDs, that fooled our intelligence agencies and thus let's Bush off the hook??
That's just like us believing that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons because they tell us so... no wait, bad example....
January 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am60 Minutes actually said, "Saddam drew the United States into two wars" at the beginning of their segment. It shocked me for a minute until I realized that it was the corporate media speaking/lying.
I did enjoy the interview though, but it wasn't anything we didn't already know. Saddam did not have WMD and he hated OBL.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:27 amOpen your eyes. Saddam himself admitted he mislead the world. Pretty sad how you continue to blame those that simply were trying to protect us and our Allies.
Comment by Roger_Roger Debate_Dodger — January 28, 2008 @ 10:20 am
Close yours! You're obviously blind! Saddam DID NOT mislead the world. France, Germany, the UN (all of the coalition of the unwilling) knew Iraq was incapable of producing WMD. It was this current administration, that was so gung ho for war, that was misled.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:29 amAnd yet, you still follow.
You're a tool!
all of the coalition of the unwilling
Which, DrxJ, would mean the majority of the world!!!! - Right Roger "too dumb for words" Roger!
January 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am*NOW* you tell us!?!?!?!??!?!?!
This is years too late.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:39 amOh thanks for this, FBI "patriot" guy.
Comment by DRxJ — January 28, 2008 @ 10:29 am
for all troll feeders:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2008_01_27_archive.html#3984599913399738086
thanks!
January 28th, 2008 at 10:39 am3rd party, just because AP says it, without sourcing, and CNN reports it, doesn't make it fact...
January 28th, 2008 at 10:40 amYou're right joe, they crave attention, that's the only reason they're here.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:42 amComment by RUCerious — January 28, 2008 @ 10:42 am
btw, there's a new "troll" policy over at "newshounds".
check it out.
(sorry for being ot)
January 28th, 2008 at 10:45 amI only hope now the Dems will work with the Administration on Iraq to make it a place for freedom and Democracy whatever it takes.
Comment by Roger_Roger
I honestly don't know how much more cooperation you could possibly explect......the republicans have been given everything they asked for and they still screwed it up.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:54 amComment by Roger_Roger — January 28, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Good news, Roger! I have recommended your post not because I agree with it, but I want those who sort the posts by rating to see how ignorant you are.
The United States knew months before 9/11 that Saddam was not a threat. Both Powell and Rice said so. You can read about it at this link.
Looks like they were right, doesn't it??
You are seriously suggesting that lies, and lies alone, tricked our intelligence agencies (and those of other countries) into believing that Saddam was on the brink of launching an attack on the U.S. In other words, we really didn't have any hard evidence that the WMDs existed, did we?
Saddam says "Boo!" and that justifies an invasion and an escalation of an endless "war" on terror.
How about the fact that Bush should have let the inspectors finish their job before launching the invasion, which would have resulted in no WMDs being found?
January 28th, 2008 at 10:57 amIt was this current administration, that was so gung ho for war, that was misled.
And yet, you still follow.
You’re a tool!
Comment by DRxJ — January 28, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Misled?
I think you're giving the Administration way too much credit. If they had received credible intelligence about Iraq's capabilities and had decided to go to war based on this intelligence, then maybe - MAYBE - you could say they were "misled."
But that's not what happened.
The Administration first decided to go to war with Iraq. Then they wrote the narrative about Iraq's capabilities to give the country a reason to go to war. Then they went to the intelligence community and said "here's our story and we're sticking with it. Now go find enough evidence to make it true. We don't care how weak the evidence is."
January 28th, 2008 at 11:02 amNo wonder Americans are looked as stupid to the rest of the world. Maybe they are right we allowed him into office twice.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:03 amThe trolls have identified the problem in this country. They think in black-and-white terms only. Thus, either Saddam was a lying, manipulative, misleading dictator or BushCo was/is a lying, manipulative, misleading administration. *News flash.* Both statements are correct.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:08 amI only hope now the Dems will work with the Administration on Iraq to make it a place for freedom and Democracy whatever it takes.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Whatever it takes? Another 3000 American deaths, Roger? Will it be worth it if that's "what it takes?" Another half a trillion dollars? Will it be worth it, Roger?
If the Iraqi people, especially those who are responsible for the security of their country, including those who are capable of joining the security forces, really wanted to take back their country, don't you think we'd be seeing some real effort by now?
I found a WP report from July 22, 2005, nearly 2 1/2 years ago, that quoted the Pentagon as saying "Iraqi Forces Are Not Yet Able to Defend Country." This is about halfway through the war. The report also says that there are about 170,000 Iraqi troops trained and equipped, with many in "early stages of development."
OK, Roger. Two and a half years later, they apparently still aren't ready to take over security of their country. Why not? Don't you expect just a little bit more from the Iraqis? Apparently the Bush Administration doesn't.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:10 amSeems to me that Saddam should have heeded his own advice: "You can't really trust fanatics." He obviously severly and fatally underestimated George Bush's fanatiscism.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:13 amThis all proves that Bush and congress never lied, they were simply misled by Saddam himself. I guess it doesn’t suprise me that Saddam is the true person at fault for Iraq afterall.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 28, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Oh, yes, R2, poor, poor, President Bush, betrayed by the one man he trusted most -- Saddam Hussein.
So sad for the President that his legacy will be tremendous damage to our nation's security, prosperity and reputation, when NONE OF IT WAS HIS FAULT, even a little bit.
After all, he was FORCED to invade a nation that hadn't attacked us, because he took Saddam at his word that he had WMD. If ONLY Bush had been a little less trusting!
Seriously, R2, how do you even dress and feed yourself?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:19 amResponse to 13: Roger_Roger: WE KNOW THAT OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES HAD SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO THE INFORMATION CONCERNING WMD. WE KNEW THAT SOME OF OUR "BEST" SOURCES SUCH AS CURVEBALL WERE UNRELIABLE. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE UN HAD LIVE, EXPERT INSPECTORS IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE INVASION. THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DISCOVER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING SADDAM'S POSSESSION OF WMD.
Now roger, I know that you obviously have some serious problems. It is time to stop believing in the Easter Bunny.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:19 amComment by JMOHR — January 28, 2008 @ 11:19 am
And, I remind Roger Roger, Bush pulled the inspectors out before they finished their jobs. Saddam did not "kick them out."
January 28th, 2008 at 11:21 amJust had one of those schazzam moments!
I wonder if there was a Mr. Piro for Manuel Noregiaga in Panama and what he had to say.
Just wondering?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:21 amThis is propaganda pure and simple.
Also frustrating because for he sake of propaganda they are willing to give up interragation techniques. Shameful.
This admin cares nothing about natioinal security. They prefer National insecurity aka fear.
Party uber alles. Sad.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:43 amdoesn't it make you sick? this is old news - people were saying this before we even invaded Iraq in the first place!
yet, here we are with the MSM belatedly bringing the issue to the fore: where where thy with these stories before the ill-fated invasion?
this is nothing new to those of us who spoke against the war before it happened... yet it seems new enough to the MSM to report on now. what gives?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:48 amSo, Saddam Hussein "tricked" George W. Bush into "fearing" and invading Iraq because Georgie was even dumber than Saddam thought he was. The problem with tricking a stupid person is that you can't predict how irrational or disproportionate or self-destructive his reaction might be. It scares the hell out of me our U.S. military is now unprepared and ill-eqipped to effectively address a legitimate military threat to our nation unless we resort to the use of nuclear weapons! What is going to happen with our military so depleted if another leader with real military power "tricks" Georgie into "fearing" them too? What will happen if Mr. Bush is stupid enough to order our troops to attack Iran, North Korea or Syria? What are our military options if Pakistan attacks India?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:54 amYou know, in a hundred years, students are gonna be laughing over history books about this occupation.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:59 amPretty sad how you continue to blame those that simply were trying to protect us and our Allies.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 28, 2008 @ 10:20 am
Pretty sad how you continue to defend the corrupt, inept Brusch Admin, no matter what.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pmPretty sad how you continue to blame those that simply were trying to protect us and our Allies.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 28, 2008 @ 10:20 am
Projection, since it was the Democrats that clearly wanted to protect us and our allies, whereas you sad TARD only seem to want to protect your allies (Osama) and EXXON... Poor ROGER, how long have you had Dementia? ;)
January 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pmGreat story for a movie to bad he made it up. Look the pictures of Bagdad at night while Saddam was taken to the hospital were an out right lie. Remember we bombed Bagdad so bad they didn't have electricity. The city was totally bombed. Now we are to believe the pretty picture we saw was after the invasion. Like Saddam would not know he was set up and knew nothing about the US Government is to call all Americans idiots. Let's see the record of the FBI and CIA. The FBI director lied under oath and committed crimes he said he's sorry for. CIA outed a covert agent working in Iran name Valerie Plame. This is the group we are to now believe can tell the truth. If anyone believed this fake story the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale for 50 cents go buy it.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pmThis isn't anything new. Anyone with half a brain knew that the last thing that Saddam wanted was to lose power. The quickest way to have that happen was to incur the US's wrath.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pmGet back under the bed, Roger Roger. The terrorists are coming.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pmWow...what...a...shocking...revelation.
How come some people never fall for the propaganda while others fall for it every time? In my opinion, anyone who blindly trusts their leaders like the pub-tards do have no clue why this country was founded.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:52 pmGuess that interview won't make fox news.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pmHussein's WMD capabilities were never presented by the Bush administration as a potential threat; they were always presented as a dire reality the US needed to confront as soon as possible.
The rationale for the war were not Hussein's "capability and aim" to rebuild his WMD program, but his stockpiles of said WMD.
Let's not move the goal posts after the fact.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:20 pm“He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program.†This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.â€
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 28, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
So the threshhold for launching a "preemptive" strike on a country is met when its leader has a pipe dream about maybe someday having weapons of mass destruction someday?
January 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pmLet’s not move the goal posts after the fact.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — January 28, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
That's asking quite a lot of the right-wing noise machine, isn't it, Gregor?
I mean, they have an entire department dedicated to simply keeping the wheels greased on those goalposts.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:39 pmSweet CaptainMantaste! Next time I get robbed by a "meth-head", I'm going to torch my neighbors house to ashes because once, along time ago, he wished he could make the same amount of money as dope dealers. Who cares if he has toddlers in the house. I will be justified!!!
January 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — January 28, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
No kidding.
And when moving them doesn't do the trick anymore, then the next step is always to change the subject: "Look, over there! Something shiny!"
Perhaps these kool-aid drinkers think everyone has the same short attention span they do.... sshheesshh...
January 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pmTHEY LIED AND PEOPLE DIED! WAR CRIMINALS!
January 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pmTHEY ARE ALSO LYING ABOUT IRAN AND VENEZUELA!!!! WATCH "WAR ON DEMOCRACY" BY JOHN PILGER. YOUTUBE!!!!
January 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pmMore moving the goal posts....
January 28th, 2008 at 2:28 pmKuwait committed an act of war against Iraq when they started slant-drilling Iraqi oil. The US approved of Hussein's plan to respond with an invasion of Kuwait, just as they approved of his suppression of the Kurds and his war on Iran. In fact Kuwait is historically part of what is today Iraq, separated from it by the British after World War I as part of a general partition of the Middle East to reward their wartime allies.
Nothing Hussein ever did remotely approached the war crimes of the Bush administration, which are more similar to the Nazi crimes than to a police action. Murdering him was not good, either. Murdering people is never good. There was not a pretense of justice in the trial and hanging of Hussein. If there were, he might still have been executed, but there was not.
No, Hussein did not fund Palestinian suicide bombers. He supported the families of those who lost their lives protecting their homes against invading and occupying armies, as a humanitarian act. Amoral madmen twist this into an accusation, as though his actual crimes, such as participation in the US proxy war on Iran, were not already capital.
Those who accuse the current administration of incompetence do not understand: They are very good at what they do. They set out to destroy the United States of America, and they are succeeding in doing so. They have subverted the democratic process through vote counting systems, centralized the mass media propaganda organs, abolished the civil liberties won by centuries of struggle against totalitarianism, removed the bulk of the wealth of the US to Europe and Asia, converted the ownership of the assets of the US to centralized and foreign ownership, and left generations of Amerians to be born into oppressive debt, to live out their lives in slavery. This could not be accomplished by accident.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm"Didn’t he invade Kuwait?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 28, 2008 @ 2:11 pm"
In the belief he had the U.S. stamp of approval. You know, when the US gov't tells you it is ok...
January 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pm"They didn’t lie. Saddam bluffed and had just about everybody fooled."
They didn't have Hans Blix or Scott Ritter or the IAEA fooled, did they? And the CIA wasn't convinced. Don't you think you would take a harder look before invading? Not if it was a pretext, which it was.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:40 pm"No wonder they executed him so quickly. "
If you recall, the execution came days before the Democrats took over Congress. Last thing this administration wanted was Saddam spilling the beans to a Congressional committee on the past 30 years of dealings he had with the USA, and the Republican administrations.
Many of us understood that the reason for the invasion was simple - steal Iraq's oil. This is the policy of Big Oil that was carried out.
Al Qaeda was a creation of radical Islamic fundamentalism. Hussein, for all his faults, was a secularist who had the most progressive society in the ME. Of course we knew he had no WMD....we had his country in a No-Fly-Zone vice for years. Our sigintel would have picked up any movement into neighboring countries. And why would he if the US was planning an invasion? Wouldn't he have used those in a scortched Earth policy to take out as many coalition forcers as possible? Fact is, we invaded once the UN confirmed that the WMD no longer existed. I think Saddam's bluff was that of a toothless, defanged dictator who said he had WMD as a way to keep his enemies (neighboring and domestic) in check.
So what did the war accomplish?
* We took out SA's #1 secular threat.
* We got the price of oil boosted to $100/bbl (Exxon thanks the US military and this administration for "mission accomplished"!)
* We've pretty much taken the #2 oil reserves off the market, making SA oil that much more expensive.
* We donated hundreds of billions to Dick Cheney's favorite charities - Dick Cheney and the MIC.
Anyways, killing 100's of thousands of Iraqi innocents, 4000 American soldiers, spending $1,000,000,000,000.00+, destroying a country, destabilizing the entire region, and shitcanning our international reputation was worth the price to remove a defanged local dictator and increase our energy dependence on ME oil....right?
January 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pmSo, Pres Bush claims -for months- that Hussein has WMD stockpiles, even contradicting the inspectors who were in Iraq at the time, hinting they are incompetent.
After the invasion said WMD are never found, clearly putting all of the pre-war claims to rest, and vindicating the war skeptics, but Bush's policies are "not that misdirected"?
LOL
Can you spell kool-aid?
January 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pmI was saying back in 2002 that obviously Saddam does not want the entire world to know how defenseless they are! Noone would want that. He did have enemies like Iran, US, Israel, etc. You do not tell your enemies "Hey everybody, We don't really have any deterent! You can invade us and win!".
Obviously the Cheney/Bush administration had a reason to lie: OIL.
But the UN weapons inspectors did not have a reason to lie when they said they had looked everywhere and could find nothing.
OBL did call Saddam a secular heretic. OBL was mad that he was not allowed to fight against Saddam in Gulf War I.
I have read that the Arab League said in March 2003 that they had made a deal with Saddam that he would leave for $1 billion and a guarantee of safety---but the US wanted to invade.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:03 pmWhat have you guys been smoking. Saddam declared he had no Weapons of Mass destruction and he allowed UN weapons inspectors in to check his claims. He provided the UN with a 12,000 page document listing exactly what he did have.
There is so much revisionist history here its hard to believe.
Prior to this he wanted the world to believe he still had them but faced with UN threats he did exactly as he was asked.
Why do so many of oyu have such short memories?
January 29th, 2008 at 12:59 amIt amazes me that people in America have so soon forgotten 9/11. In their hate of President Bush (not, George or Bush. Try calling former Pres. Clinton, Clinton or Bill.) they have disrespected the people who died in 9/ll.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:29 amPersonally, I think he is hated because he stand up for Jesus. If Obama goes in we will see who he stands up for. It may change your whole life and way of living.