Saddam Interview transcript

I don''t tend to believe either Bush or Hussein, but just looking at the speeches, Hussein certainly comes out as a more intelligent, constructive person.

so did hitler

i''m not defending bush, he''s an idiot. just pointing out that you don''t become the leader of a country by being stupid. bush is an exception to the rule.

oh please!!! I picked thru a couple of paragraphs and already found flaws, got sick and threw up on the monitor.

quote:

---

(CBS) This interview was taped on February 24, 2003, by Iraqi TV crews, as is standard practice for Hussein, and the Iraqis delivered a tape that combined all three cameras into one composite feed. However, as far as we can determine, the content of the interview is intact. There are places in the tape where two people are talking at once and there are repetitions. This is a transcript of that composite tape and we apologize if it is confusing in places.

Note: in almost every case, the translator is translating what Saddam Hussein has just said in Arabic. In a few minor cases, the translator is speaking for himself to Dan Rather.

Rather: I want to ask questions in two categories, please. Category one would be those questions that I think many, if not most, of Americans would like to have answered about the news of right now. And in category two, more philosophical questions.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The news are with you. News are almost (UNINTEL) (Editor’s Note: “UNINTEL” refers to a sound or word that the transcriber finds unintelligible.) different way. But the facts news are there, with you.

Rather: Mr. President, do you intend to destroy the Al-Samoud missiles that the United Nations prohibits? Will you destroy those missiles?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: We have committed ourselves to Resolution. We're implementing that resolution in accordance with what the United Nations wants us to do. It is on this basis that we have conducted ourselves, and it is on this basis that we will continue to behave. As you know, it a-- is allowed to produce - r- r- land-land rockets, with a range of up to 150 kilometers. And we are committed to that.

---

What?? Committed to making them illegal rockets eh?

quote:

---

Rather: I want to make sure that I understand, Mr. President. So, you do not intend to destroy these missiles?

(SKIP IN TAPE)
Rather: Mr. President, I do appreciate your agreeing to spend an hour, because I want to ask questions in two categories, please.

---

Skip in the tape? Did you have to go think up some answers?

quote:

---

Rather: So, you do not intend to destroy these missiles?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Which is that? Which missiles are you talking about? We do not have missiles that go beyond the prescribed ranges, by the…U.N. The inspection teams have been here. They have inspected every place. And if there is a question to that effect, I think the question should be addressed to them.
(OVERTALK)

---

Do I sense a little defensivity? That question should be addressed to them.. yea ok. Getting a little irrated and passing the buck.. defensive as hell, very suspicious. Also using the 'lost in the translation' technique, the oldest CON in the book. Speakin out of both sides of his translator's mouth.

And anyone comes out as more intelligent than Dan Rather, don't base it on that.





I fseek, therefore I fam.

[edited by - drarem on February 27, 2003 5:02:48 AM]

quote:

---

Original post by drarem
...

---

He says the missiles are within the rules and so does the inspectors so what''s your point?

quote:

---

Original post by En Dum En
He says the missiles are within the rules and so does the inspectors so what's your point?

---

Uh, Blix said they are not and demanded that Iraq disarm them.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
No, comitted to making land-land rockets with a range of up to 150 kilometers. Not illegal rockets. Read the text, puke-boy.

---

From UN Resolution 687, of which 1441 is meant to enforce:

quote:

---

8. Decides that shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:


All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

---

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
Thank you for proving my point as to why these rockets are legal. After all, the rockets with a range -greater- than 150 km must be destroyed. Not the ones with ranges up to 150 km.

500x1

---

Don't you read the news? Saddam has been asked to destroy those missiles. And if he want's to hurt Bush's image, he will.

From what I read in the newspapers the majority in the world sees Bush as a bigger threat to peace than Saddam. I do not share this point of view, I think they are both equally dangerous (without taking into account the military power).



[edited by - xaxa on February 27, 2003 10:29:17 AM]

The skip in the tape is probably not Saddams fault.

You can bet anything that this tape was probably looked over, edited, and censored by our government to keep certain issues from appearing.

Also, Bush is hardly dumb. He''s managed to manipulate 70% into thinking he''s a great president, and 30% to think he''s an idiot. It takes some intelligence to do that. If anything, he''s deceitful, but not dumb.

Let''s face it. A debate wouldn''t help. Either side could give the best debate ever stated, and 99% of this world is going to keep the same mindset. Debates are only helpful if people are uncertain.

I seriously doubt anyone questions that Saddam is a tyrant, or that Bush is lusting for a war.

quote:

---

Original post by xaxa
From what I read in the newspapers the majority in the world sees Bush as a bigger threat to peace than Saddam. I do not share this point of view, I think they are both equally dangerous (without taking into account the military power).

---

IMO, Bush is a bigger threat to peace than Saddam. Is he as much of a tyrant? No.

But, Bush is throwing the world into a war, which chances are there will be thousands of casualties. Innocent civilians of Iraq, Iraqi soldiers, European & USA soldiers. Not to mention the thousands of people who will decide to join terrorist organizations to get back at the United States, which causes more wars and Sept. 11 tragadies. Then, you''ll have other countries which will think that they can now preemptively strike. North Korea, Pakistan, India, etc. In the long run, probably over a million (if not a billion if India and Pakistan decide to nuke each other) people will die due to what Bush is about to do.

Saddam on the other hand might continue to kill his own people, but you''re talking about thousands, at most. Besides, the middle east is so volatile that the world has already accepted it, and things aren''t going to get worse by much without the war.