I just read a Sixty Minutes interview they had with an FBI guy who was tasked with interrogating Saddam for awhile. And it was pretty interesting, though I was left wanting more. The main thing I took from it was that I was right about Saddam. As suspected, he wasn't some loony "mad man" intent on destroying the world, but just a somewhat paranoid dictator living in a bubble who wanted to do anything to stay in power; where "anything" meant he wouldn't do something stupid like attack America. Sure, he did a lot of horrible things, but none of them were a threat to us.
And the most embarrassing revalation came from the interviewer, not the interviewee. When talking about WMD's and why Saddam pretended to have them, Scott Pelley the interviewer asks:
"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.
Inexplicably, Piro, the interviewee, doesn't correct that and goes on to answer as if it was a serious question; but what the hell is this about? Am I the one with the faulty memory here? Because I have recollections from back then of Iraq insisting that they didn't have WMD's and that these were lies and fabrications by America. Am I wrong about that? I remember Saddam letting the inspectors back in and everything, and giving them much of the access they wanted, and then Bush telling them to leave because it was time to bomb. Is that not how it happened?
Now, I understand that the Bushies and the media treated Iraq's statements on this to be some sort of silly game, and that the entire inspection process was just a ruse to stall for time. But all the same, I find it extremely unlikely that if Saddam had said "Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction" that this would have done much to stop the war. If anything, it would have just given the guys on Fox News something else to laugh about. Is this Pelley guy serious?? What a bonehead!
It's Good to be a Bonehead Shill
And that's what so sad about our current situation: That the media got so tied into the idea that this unnecessary war was pushed on us by Iraq that they still think it was Saddam's fault and wonder why Saddam "wanted his country to be invaded." At least this guy seems to realize the WMD's weren't there, but will it ever sink in that Saddam was telling the truth? I don't get it.
Of cousre, it looks like one reason this guy is so big is because he can get the big interviews and stories. According to his Wikipedia page, he got the first interview with president-elect Bush, was accused of being a CIA agent by Iranian President Mamoud Ahmaninejad, and was physically removed from the Kremlin after shouting a question at President Clinton in 1998. He also broke two big Monica-gate stories which, as we all know, can only be due to hard work and excellent journalisming, and not because the GOP pegged him as a shill they should throw a bone to. And apparently, a writer at the Washington Times once compared him to Edward R. Murrow. So you know he's got to be good.
And so here we are, almost five years after the war began, and one of the top reporters for the top news show in the country is just now finding out why Saddam pretended to have WMD's and that he wasn't the evil threat to America he was hyped as. Great. Now maybe if we can arrange to have Edward R. Murrow's ghost appear in a dream and convince this dumbass that everything else the Bushies have been saying were shameless lies, we might really be getting somewhere.