It was incorrect for 60 Minutes to suggest (on Jan. 27, 2008) that Saddam Hussein let the world think he had WMDs.

When Saddam Hussein was interviewed on 60 Minutes, on Feb. 26, 2003, he denied that Iraq had WMDs.

Here is a link to Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein on 60 Minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/main542151.shtml

This article/post was put up on the front page of HP late last night, why has it been taken down so quickly?

Bush will contradict all this stuff in his state of disunion message and get us back on track. He is the only one who is in the "know" and the ultimate "decider" After all there was no link between Saddam and Osama, who hated one another, no WMDs, yellow cake, mushroom clouds and Saddam begging the world to continue inspections in Iraq to look for non-existent WMDs before the pre-emptive strike and Invasion which was the biggest foreign policy disaster in our history. I am sure he will in his speech talk of his success in Iraq and the republican fascists and democrat enablers will stand and applaud, while the majority of us watching this dolt will dwell on the billions of dollars squandered and yet to be squandered, the numbers killed wounded and maimed in a phony "war" based on lies, deceit and chicanery for fun and profit. Fun because everytime he talks of his "war" he is smirking as though he has something to hide.

It is believed by the CIA that IRAN, not Iraq gassed the Kurds in Halajba in 1988. In retaliation, the US then sold chemical weapons to Saddam so he could attack Iran. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm

But, when our national interest is involved (oil and our desire to have a permanent presence in the Middle East to secure that oil - 14 US military bases in Iraq and counting), Bush lies and says Saddam attacked the Kurds, that he still has WMD's, al Qaeda is in Iraq, and that Saddam has a nuke.

If you believe one word the lying bastards at 6o minutes say you're a fool! It's possible the story is true but you better hear somewhere other than from Mike Wallace or some other filthy liar they have on there now.

I can't remember now the head of UN inspection in Iraq, he reported to the UN Security Council, there was no WMD in Iraq. But Bush and Cheney pushed for it with the help of COLIN POWELL in the UN SECURITY COUNCIL.

When Bush was asked why he invaded Iraq, he said; "he wanted to kill my father," referring to Saddam Hussein.

The reality is this, prior to assassination of JFK, USA sponsors assassination of world leaders and sponsor terrorism in other countries especially in Latin America using locals with CIA operatives as their advisors.

From that time on, USA start invading countries with leaders that doesn't agree with them. Bush SR, invaded Panama to extract Manuel Noriega who used to work for the CIA when Bush was DIRECTOR of the CIA. The reason for extracting Noriega was DRUGS, the CIA use Panama to transport drugs into the US. Saddam Hussein received the support of USA with his 10 years war against Iran. Saddam was a DICTATOR but USA supported him, Iran was sponsoring terrorism against USA.

Many Americans have failed time and time again to look back at the past, this country we all love have created more trouble to other nations than we can count our fingers. Once leaders of those nations doesn't serve any purpose for USA, they're forcefully removed from power. Our government supports tyrannical leaders provided their leaders serve USA.

The violence backed by our government for so many years overseas, are now coming home to roost.

And his 'surprise' led to a stretched neck. Go figure.......

Never underestimate the power of a BUSH in office, eh? Since the Defeatocrats ALWAYS put faith into lying dictators like CASTRO and CHAVEZ, Saddam's credibility was and still IS never in question. Too bad it's too late, eh?

What is so troubling about this report is that it"s news at all.
We"ve known for years now that Saddam"s own generals thought that he had WMDs.
Why is this still considered news?
You know, this is why the Bush administration can get away with their fantasy of the "democracy" in Iraq fighting AlQaeda and Iran, because the American people simply don"t keep up with what the rest of the world knows.
As to using the WMD "intelligence" as a reason to go to war, take a look at how the administration gathered information in 01 and 02. They basically started with a premise, accepted information that supported that premise, and dismissed that which didn"t.
This is why they would give credence to "intelligence" from someone like Ahmed Chalabi; a con artist wanted for bank fraud in Jordan, and dismiss it from CIA station heads and UN inspectors.
That all said, one would think by now that there should be some basic publicly accepted FACTS about our role in Iraq. You know, there have been books written.
There has been so much written by so many that it is just plain sad to see that this level of ignorance remains.

The criminals Bush and Cheney sleep well knowing that the feeble Democrats don't have the courage to impeach.

If George Bush was dishonest he would have PLANTED WMD in Iraq after finding none.

Obama will talk to our enemies? And ? Lets remember Bill Richardson was sent to talk to the Taliban by Clinton. The rest is history. He failed. 911 came later.

OK. If the government knew that saddam lied in 2004, WHY are we still hearing from certain members that he DID have WMD's and we had to invade? Why are they STILL using that tired old line of bull as a valid excuse?
Why are idiots still buying into this crap?

I may have the time-line wrong but...

Wasn't Saddam captured in late 2003?
The FBI agent says the WMD revelations were divulged after about 5 months of interrogation.
So that means this "authoritative" information was available to our government "leaders" in mid 2004.

Is it an unfair question: why wasn't the "public" informed of these revelations soon afterwards? Please don't answer the information was classified. Please don't answer the information was privileged. Please don't answer there was any doubt.

The withholding of this information was just one more example of the Bush administration mindset: we will divulge what we know when/if it does not damage us politically and does not interfere with our goals and those few that support us...in other words when it damn well pleases us and our supporters!

The bottom line is that I hope that we will forgo "preemptive strikes" as an acceptable policy in the future. Unless the country is "truly" threatened by an imminent nuclear or biological attack, preemptive strikes should be excised from our political thinking.

Bush should have finished off OBL and his supporters in Afghanistan or Pakistan before adventuring into Iraq based on a contrived argument laden with deceit and outright lies.

The nation would have been far better served had we completed our mission in completely annihilating OBL and his relatively small group of followers in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. After all, it was they who were responsible for the attacks against us on 9/11.

Ultimately, Saddam would have shot himself in the foot by doing something foolish, invoking the wrath and disapproval of the international community. Then we could've taken action with the blessings and support of the world community and we would not be viewed as some sort of superpower gunslinger bully on the world stage.

turned out that bush and co. were bigger liars than saddam......