Sadam admitts pretending to have WMDs

This weekend 60 minutes aired an interview with FBI Agent, George Piro. He was the man responsible for conducting the interrogation of former Iraqi dictator, Sadaam Husein. In this piece, Piro discusses some very interesting confessions Sadaam revealed to him.

CBS News reports:

For a man who drew America into two wars and countless military engagements, we never knew what Saddam Hussein was thinking. But you are going to hear more than has ever been revealed before.

After his capture, Saddam met every day with one man, an American he knew as "Mr. George." George is FBI agent George Piro, who was the front man for a team of FBI and CIA analysts who were trying to answer some of the great mysteries of recent history. What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? Was Saddam in league with al Qaeda? Why did he choose war with the United States?

As correspondent Scott Pelley reports, Piro is the man who came to know Saddam better than anyone, as they sat face to face in a windowless room.


The following excerpts are taken directly from the interview transcript-


Sadaam on what happened to their WMDs

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

Sadaam on why he lied about possessing WMDS

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

"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.

"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. 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," Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says.

"Saddam didn't believe that the United States would invade," Pelley remarks.

"Not initially, no," Piro says.


Sadaam on the use of WMDs against his own people

The Piro interviews with Saddam turned up other revelations about one of the most notorious war crimes of his regime: the use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1988. Iraq gassed its own people in something called the Anfal campaign to counter Iranian incursions and Kurdish resistance to his rule.

Piro says Saddam told him he himself gave the orders to use chemical weapons against the Kurds in the North. When shown the graphic pictures of the aftermath, Piro says Saddam reacted by saying, "Necessary."

Sadaam on the future his WMD Program

In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. "The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro says.

"And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.

"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.

"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.

I have always found it to be an absurd accusation by the left that President Bush lied about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. I am willing to admit that there is a good chance that the President was wrong. But keep in mind that at the time Sadaam was being interrogated, he had not gone on trial yet. Thus, it would not have been in his best interest to admit to anyone that he actually had the WMDs.

And if the President was wrong, who could blame him since all the intelligence we and everyone else had at the time pointed to the same conclusion. And now we even have Sadaam clearly stating that he intentionally gave the impression that he possessed WMDs.


According to this 60 minutes piece, we have confirmed the following facts from Sadaam himself:

1. At one time he did possess weapons of mass destruction.
2. Even after the supposed destruction of the WMDs, he continued to maintain the impression that Iraq was still in possession of WMDs.
3. He personally approved the use of WMDs on his own people and saw their deaths as “necessary”.
4. He fully intended to reconstitute his WMD program and maintained the appropriate personnel to do so.


So are liberals going to change the slogan to “Sadaam lied and people died?”

On another note: I also found it interesting that Sadaam did not take the threat of an American Invasions very seriously; and that he based his miscalculation on the wimpy response of the Clinton administration in 1998.

__________________________________________

FACT: President Bush promised to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and crush Al Qaeda.

FACT: Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was known to be based in Afghanistan - Not Iraq.

FACT: At the time some in the administration (e.g. Cheney) were hyping ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda (2002-03), Colin Powell acknowledged there was no known, confirmed connection between Al Qaeda, Iraq and Saddam's regime. Declassified documents back up Powell's position.

FACT: Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters NOT to join forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops (translation - they were NOT in Iraq!!!)

FACT: Bush Administration insiders (e.g. Cheney, Rice and Powell) stated that Iraq was not a "threat", and that the policy of containment should be considered a success.

I can go on and on with this... the bottom line: If we are going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and both are in Afghanistan, why in the world are we fighting (still) in Iraq? Saddam arguing why he was fronting the U.S. with his WMD claims is immaterial. AGAIN - WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?????????

__________________________________________

Did I mention Osama Barak…Ooops!!!.... (A Kenedyian Slip!)… I mean Osama Bin Ladin? This post is about whether or not Sadam led the world to believe that he had WMD’s. The fact is that he did!

In the US, Democrats and Republicans alike thought he had them. (See Video Below)





And now we see that this impression was exactly what Sadam intended. To say that President Bush lied is not being intellectually honest and you know it.

Not that liberals care about being honest…. After all, according to liberals these Democrats (the ones in the video) lied and people died.

City in Vermont to vote on arresting Bush, Cheney

Once again a local municipality is making their voice heard on a national issue. But what makes this story different is that voters will be asked to decide whether or not the President and Vice-President should be arrested.

The Rutlan Herald reports:

Brattleboro residents will vote at town meeting on whether President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be indicted and arrested for war crimes, perjury or obstruction of justice if they ever step foot in Vermont.

The Brattleboro Select Board voted 3-2 Friday to put the controversial item on the Town Meeting Day warning.

According to Town Clerk Annette Cappy, organizers of the Bush-Cheney issue gathered enough signatures, and it was up to the Select Board whether Brattleboro voters would consider the issue in March.

Cappy said residents will get to vote on the matter by paper balloting March 4.

As I see it, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to put forth resolutions and referendums that address issues that are outside of the jurisdiction of these municipalities and thus have no legitimate basis in law. Here in Sacramento, CA our city council has wasted hours of staff and meeting time passing resolutions on the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act and President Bush.

Wouldn’t this time be better spent addressing the rising tide of youth violence in our city? Or maybe they could spend a little more time figuring out how the city amassed a multi-million dollar deficit despite substantive growth in city revenues? There are so many important issues that are within their sphere of influence and control that these folks refuse to address; one wonders why they don’t clean up their own messes before throwing in their two cents on issues that are outside of their jurisdictions.

I am reminded of the old adage: “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones…”

__________________________________________

Once again, you are looking at an issue from a skewed perspective. The local government serves as the elected representatives, and while I agree that the city representatives do have alot to deal with, they also have the biggest stage to communicate the discontent of the people they represent.

And why should't local governments take a stand on behalf of their citizens? This administration has plunged the country into an economic crisis while waging an unjust war on the backs of the sons and daughters from small towns like Battleboro. You just don't get it - peope are pissed off with the way the Administration has dumped on them.

While you are reminded that "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones…”, I am reminded that it is the responsibility of the governed to outline their greivences with their government. Remember the Declaration of Independence....? I bet if you were around then, you'd be right at home in the House of Lords or in the King's Court laughing at the colonies... and you see where that kind of attitude will get you!

__________________________________________

No my brotha, it is you who doesn’t get it!

We elect school board members to govern our schools. We elect sheriffs to make law enforcement decisions. We elect city council members to address issue relating to city government. We elect people to address issues that fall within a specific jurisdiction, not to use taxpayer resources to pontificate on matters which are outside of their scope of authority.

They can write opinion editorials and letters to the federal government to express their opinion. They can hold meetings and press conferences as well. But to waste taxpayer resources for political grandstanding is just wrong.

Liberals politicians think that taxpayer money belongs to them. Conservaitves believe that it belongs to the taxpayers and that it is our responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

People may be “pissed”, but there are legitimate ways to express those emotions. And this ain’t it!

NAACP head is paid by tribes, backs their plan- Conflict of Interest?

Please forgive the lateness of this post. But it was the discussion surrounding this issue that prompted the formation of this blog in the first place. So, it seems only appropriate for us to share our thoughts on it with our readers.

Last week the Sacramento Bee reported that Alice Huffman, President of the NAACP’s California Conference was serving as a paid consultant for those who support the Indian Gaming compacts, while at the same time advocating for these compacts as the head of the state NAACP. And according to the Bee this is not the first time.

According to the Bee:

The president of the California NAACP has been paid more than $40,000 in consulting fees – and the organization itself has received $60,000 – from a coalition of Indian tribes at the same time the civil rights group has endorsed four ballot measures pushed by its tribal benefactors.

The payments to Alice Huffman, who has served as president of the state conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People since 1999, continue a three-year pattern in which Huffman's political firm has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by special interest groups.

Those same interests, including tobacco and pharmaceutical companies, have also donated tens of thousands of dollars directly to the state NAACP while receiving the organization's backing.

It is commonplace for political campaigns to hire consultants for outreach to various constituencies and ethnic groups. But Huffman's dual role as a paid political strategist and president of a respected civil rights organization has raised questions about whether the group's endorsement can be bought.

I have to say that I do know Alice and have found her to be genuinely committed to serving the interests of the NAACP. And I truly do not believe that she sees anything wrong with getting paid to advocate on behalf of a position that she would have advocated for anyway. I have to admit that I can understand the reasoning. However, I would not be as quick to write off the potential conflict of interest as Ms. Huffman seems to be doing in this article.

The first question that came to my mind was, “When advocating for these issues before or on behalf of the NAACP, does she disclose that she is a paid consultant for the group supporting the position she is advocating?” I seem to remember another Black opinion leader, Armstrong Williams being racked over the coals a few years ago for being supportive of No Child Left Behind in opinion pieces and speeches because he failed to mention that he was paid by the Bush Administration to promote the policy. His argument was that he was always supportive of the landmark education policy and was simply being paid to express an opinion which he already held.

I can’t disagree with that. But I will say the same thing I said back then. As an opinion leader, he had an ethical obligation to disclose his contractual arrangement. Otherwise, those who value his “unbiased” opinion would know all the facts. The same can be said of Alice Huffman. Although, as the head of a major civil rights organization and not just an opinion leader, she has an even greater responsibility to provide full disclosure to the NAACP membership and to those to whom she spoke to while wearing her NAACP hat.

On another note: Right or wrong, it is a commonly held belief that many leaders in the Black community can be bought off. One only need consider Jesse Jackson and Al Shaprton’s history of shaking down corporate America to prove my point. Well, it is hard to argue that this conduct by Alice Huffman does anything but further this negative perception. Yes, she has to earn a living. Yes, she has also gotten some of the same groups to also contribute financially to the work of the NAACP. But taking money to advocate a policy and then using your hat as the head of a respected organization to conduct that advocacy just doesn’t pass the smell test.

As a matter of fact, I wonder how many of her current political clients would still be contracting with her if she were not President of the State NAACP?

__________________________________________________

I am not mad at Alice for getting paid. I would not have said some of the things she said (see the Gucci handbag comment), but I am not mad at her...


The bottom line: Alice Huffman is a political consultant - she has never hidden this fact the entire time she has served as President of the California State Conference of the NAACP. During her tenure, the California State Conference has grown from a non-existent entity to a significant, substantive organization organizing and advocating on behalf of minority and disenfranchised Californians.


Alice is tough - she comes with a reputation of effectiveness and and ability to "get down to business" with the best of them... and as a protege of arguably the most talented politician to grace the halls of the Capital (Da Speaker, Willie Brown), she has earned her stripes. Plus, unlike Armstrong Williams (whom Craig pointed out in his column), Alice is an advocate - not a neutral observer. Armstrong was putting himself out there as a neutral opinion leader who "happened" to support the No Child Left Behind education policy (I am ashamed to call him my fraternity brother... we can talk about that later). Alice, on the other hand, has NEVER put herself out to be a "neutral" party offering her analysis. She is a paid advocate. She gets paid to persuade targeted publics to believe a particular point of view.


Alice has made it a point to disclose to the members of the State Conference those business dealings that her private firm, AC Public Affairs, that may create even an appearance of conflict with the NAACP. And because of her effectiveness at building an operation - providing coordination, training, development and funding for much needed advocacy programming that generates significant public attention around the efforts of the NAACP statewide - the members are in no hurry to see her go.


As for the contributions to the State Conference from special interests: I get the point that leaders and organizations have a special obligation to ensure that they are above reproach. However, we live in the real world where real actions have real consequences. We live in a world where attacks on civil rights occur almost daily, and where the need for resources is not met by contributions from the community. Across the nation, the NAACP receives money from tobacco, liquor, and corporations like Wal-Mart - and yet has only supported policies and positions which are consistent with the mission of the organization. When have you seen Julian Bond or the NAACP out pimping Lucky Strikes, Schlitz Malt Liquor or Viagra? You haven't and you won't - period. And while you will find no instances of the NAACP out pimping for these companies, you WILL find the organization out opposing policies which could be viewed as supportive of such interests - including hitting Wal-Mart hard for its perceived opposition to employee benefits and issues with organized labor. No matter who pays for it, the work still needs to get done - legislation, the courts and the lives of individual victims wait for no one.

The much larger and more important question that should be asked is why such a storied, venerable organization has to look to corporate entities to fund its operations in the first place. Time was, the NAACP was funded by the people to do this important work - the churches, civic organizations, individuals and families. Now corporations have supplanted the community as the 'bread and butter' of the organization - a model which does compromise the authenticity of the organization. This is not unique to the NAACP, as other organizations also must look outside the community to fund their operations. With African Americans spending an estimated $630 - $690 billion in earned income in the larger American economy, the inability of African American institutions to significantly access this market to fund ongoing advocacy threatens the gains made by the community over the last 60 years. Without the ability for its institutions to be authentic - to be fully independent of a system it must often pressure for change - the disengagement of the community from its institutions will continue unabated and result in a regression and errosion of the standing of blacks in America.

__________________________________________________

David,

Those are all good points. No one is questioning Alice’s ability or effectiveness. But let’s be real! You and I both know that in politics, perception is reality.

The general perception is that most liberal black organizations and their leadership have been bought and paid for. This includes the National and California State Conference of the NAACP. The fact that the state president of the organization is getting paid by special interests to lobby on their behalf only furthers that perception.

If you truly want to know why “such a storied, venerable organization has to look to corporate entities to fund its operations” (By the way you forgot homosexual groups, labor unions and the democratic party), you only need to look at situations like this one. Alice’s actions bring into question the credibility of an organization that already has credibility issues in the eyes of many who once believed in them.

Have you ever considered that maybe the reason why the people don’t give to the work of the NAACP is because they no longer believe that the NAACP represents their interests or values? (A topic for a future discussion.)

DeLuz Brothers Take Family Debate to the Public Square

For years, the DeLuz’ have enjoyed many vibrant political debates at our family gatherings. Most of these discussions have featured the musings of two of Sacramento’s leading community activists and political figures; David & Craig DeLuz.

David De Luz, describes himself as a progressive Democrat. David’s community involvement has been primarily with liberal organizations. He has served as President of Sacramento Branch of the NAACP and the Chairman of the Ninth Assembly District Committee for the Sacramento Democratic Party.


Craig on the other hand is a conservative Republican and has focused his volunteer activities on more conservative efforts. He has been President of the California Black Republican council, founded the Republican Ethnic Coalition of Sacramento and currently serves as President of the California Republican Assembly’s Sacramento chapter.

Their diverse perspectives and brotherly bond will prove to bring an interesting twist to the discussion of cultural, political and social issues of the day.

__________________________________________

This is going to be a lot of fun!

Anyone who has ever spent any time with David & I know that we can tend to have some very heated discussions. But what is different about our family debates is that both of us are politically involved and knowledgeable about the issues we discuss. Also, I know my brother’s heart. And while I won’t hesitate to call him a bleeding heart liberal when appropriate, I know that he genuinely cares for people and is interested in “Good Government”- as if there truly were such a thing! :-)

In any case, I hope you enjoy reading our posts as much as I am sure we are going to enjoy writing them.

__________________________________________

Now it is really "ON"!!!!!

Finally, a forum worthy of an epic battle of good and evil, right and wrong.... of me and 'the other brother from another planet'!

Seriously, this blog is an opportunity to share with others a fact that Craig and I have know for years - that two people who see the world so differently can disagree and still get along in love and brotherhood. We've always been at odds - he loves the Cowboys, I am a Steelers's fan; he used to love the Lakers while I loved the 76ers (yes - and we can force him to admit his "Smell-A" love affair in the middle of the Capitol rotunda if you put enough pressure on him!!!!). But that never stopped us from kicking someone else's behind if you mess with either one of us!

We have much respect for each other, and largely agree on the type of world we want to leave future generations - we just really disagree on how to get there.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the fireworks - and who knows, you may just find some "news you can use" and get entertained...

About Craig

Community Servant, Political Junkie, Entrepreneur, Family Man, Man of Faith… There are many ways to describe Craig DeLuz.

Born in the Bay Area, Craig grew up in a working-class household, where his father, John DeLuz, was a warehouse supervisor, and his mother, El Vera, took care of his five brothers and sisters. His parents were dedicated to making ends meet for their family, and learn the value of honesty, work, and cooperation. From these humble beginnings, DeLuz went on to study business finance at California State University at Chico. While attending Chico State, he became CEO of all student-owned businesses and was elected as the first black Associated Student Government president in the university's 100-year history.

Craig’s professional experience is both vast and diverse. He is founder and Co-CEO of One Nation Eternal, Inc. a Christian Clothing Line promoting faith in Christ through Hip Hop Culture. He has also served as President of a The Joseph School of Business and Entrepreneurship, a business school that educates Christians on how to become successful entrepreneurs and business leaders using biblical principles. Finally, as Founder of Uncommon Sense Media Group, Craig serves as the publisher of the VOICE of North Sacramento, Editor-N-Chief for Man2Man Magazine and Host of Uncommon Sense Radio.

Craig’s resume as a community servant and political activist is equally as extensive. In 2000, he took over as the head of the Make a Difference Project as a leading community group promoting volunteerism and voter education. As the Interim Executive Director with the Women's Civic Improvement Club of Sacramento, the oldest Black organization in the state, Craig helped erase a $500,000 debt and get the group back on track and develop a programmatic focus. Craig also serves as President of the Robla School Board located in North Sacramento and Secretary for the Coalition of California Black School Board Members

Politically, Craig has served as Chairman of The California Black Republican Council, Former Chairman of the California Republican Party’s Ethnic Coalition Committee, Co-Founder of Public Awareness Ministries. Currently, Craig works for California Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries as his Capitol Director.

On many occasions, Craig also appears as a public speaker, radio talk show personality and frequent guest of political, faith and community television shows.

Craig and his wife Sobna live in North Sacramento where they are raising their two children, Craig Jr. and Jazmine.