Dan Rather interviews Saddam Hussein

I hope that this isn't somewhere else, but I looked for it and came up empty, so here it is.

Last night I read the transcript from Rather's 2/24/03 interview with Saddam. It was interesting and very revealing. I have no doubt that Saddam is a bastard and a murderer, but I was very impressed by his interview. He is very intelligent and well-spoken, and he makes a better case for himself than Bush ever has. That's not to say that I believed every thing he said. It's just that if I heard them each tell their side of the story, not knowing anything about either one, I have to say that I would believe Saddam.

I found Saddam's challenge of Bush to a live, unedited, televised debate to be of particular interest. This is what he said:

Translator For Saddam Hussein: If-- the American people-- would like to know the facts for what they are, or as they are, through a direct dialogue, then I am ready to conduct a direct dialogue with the President of the United States, President Bush, on television. I will say whatever I have to say-- about American policy. He will have-- the opportunity to say whatever he has to say about policy of Iraq. And this will be in front of all people, and-- on television, in a direct�uncensored � hon - honest manner. In front of, as I said, everyone.

And then they will see what the facts are, and where falsehoods are....
The American people, as we see on films - are great. On films, we see that the Americans, when they are challenged for a duel, they will not-- decline the - the offer...We are asking for a � a � a - an opportunity to be seen by the Americans, the Iraqis, and all of the people in the world in a debate that is shown on television...This will be - This will be an opportunity for him, if he is committed to-- to war, and if he has decided to-- commit to wage war, this will be an opportunity for him, if he's convinced-- to-- to convince the world. If he's convinced in his own position, this will be an opportunity for him to convince the world that he is right in taking such a dec-- (GLITCH). It could also be an opportunity for us - To - tell the world our own side of the story. And why we want to live in peace, and in security...I believe that it is the right of the American people, the Iraqi people, and the world, of honor. Which makes it incumbent-- incumbent upon us to say what we have (UNINTEL), so that-- they-- they will be clear about-- our position.
Don't you call for the truth to be released in the United States? This is how we hear. This is� And what we read, from-This is what we read and hear about the American philosophers..So, why should we hide from the people? So, why should we discredit ourselves? Why should not we-- why shouldn't we disclose ourselves to the people? We as President - President of the United States, and President of Iraq, in front of our people...
What I mean is that we sit-- as we are sitting, you and I, now as-- Here is-- I will address questions to him and he will address questions to me. The position of Iraq and he will - the position of the United States...
www.cbsnews.com... (for the rest of the transcript)

I was completely disgusted by the White House's response to this challenge.

"This is not a serious issue," Ari Fleischer said. "There is no debating his need to disarm."
"We view what Saddam Hussein has said as propaganda and lies"
"I just want to point out that in the past when Iraq had disputes, it invaded its neighbors. There were no duels; there were no invasions. There was use of weapons of mass destruction and [the] military. And that's how Iraq settles its disputes." Ari Fleischer told reporters.

In my opinion, the refusal to accept Saddam's challenge to a live, uncensored debate destroys a great deal of Bush's credibility. If he was so sure of the fact that Saddam was lying and that he was justified in wanting to go to war, why would he decline the challenge? We were the ones that had the evidence supporting the need to invade Iraq, weren't we? This would have been Bush's chance to expose Saddam as the lying, WMD holding, threat that he was, and gain everyone's support. They said it wasn't a serious challenge, but they never tried to verify if it was or was not. It looks like they were afraid that if Bush went up against Saddam, he would embarrass the administration and the country.

The White House wanted to have a chance to rebut Saddam by airing a reply after each segment of his interview. CBS News said it would include either Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney or Secretary of State Colin Powell in its broadcast.
...the administration countered by offering either Fleischer or...Dan Bartlett, which the network deemed inappropriate for the show. At that point, the discussion seemed to end...Since they couldn't get on the air during the Saddam interview, they got several broadcast networks to televise live an address by the president in which he reiterated the administration's case for war ( it aired 2 hours before the Saddam interview.)
They broadcast an address by the president that was not delivered from the White House or to Congress, but instead to a conservative business organization, the American Enterprise Institute.
www.foxnews.com...

because Bush is the village idiot and Saddam would destroy him in a debate.

Somewhere deep in Texas, a village is missing their idiot...

lol I love that one

because Bush is the village idiot and Saddam would destroy him in a debate.

Yep, though Saddam is a ruthless tyrant (or was), he didn't get to where he was due to daddy's money.... He got their on his brains and talent for manipulation.... He would OWN Bush in a debate (then again....your average fourth grader would own Bush too, hehe...)

The following excerpt was actually the most disturbing part of the interview for me. I realize that Dan Rather laughs when he says this, but I get the feeling that there was a underlying seriousness to it.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: - the responsibility of - The responsibility of displaying the truth as-- as an outstanding man of the media-- to carry out this responsibility is something that is on-- of course you will do that while maintain - when you can play the truth he'll be sparing people many-- a lot of harm.

Rather: Well-- first of all, I want to be serious that I-- I appreciate-- your confidence - Mr. President. I'm pausing because I'm tempted to ask a favor of the president. (Editor's note: Rather is referring to Saddam Hussein) He has surprised me. I wonder for my good health if he could denounce me? (LAUGHTER)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Denounce you?

Rather: Yes.

(OFF-MIKE CONVERSATION)

Rather: (LAUGHTER) Well, I - I think this is -

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I met you in 1990. And I'm meeting you now. We have not met-- We are not partners in any enterprise or any - not competing with any people for any other - So this is the basics of--

It seems to me, that he's making more of a nervous joke to disguise an inner fear, than a purely jovial remark. I know a lot a people will say I'm seeing more in this than there is, but this is just the sense I get when I read it. I wish I knew what the "off-mike conversation" was about.

Last night, on the History Channel, this was discussed .
I encourage all to watch this show.
What I found intriguing is the fact that Rather declined from asking Saddam about the fact that he used chemical weapons against his own people. He came up with some lame excuse, how he wanted to take the position of a reporter and not of an announcer...
It was as if he was told not to discuss that factor- and when asked he danced all around it (why he did not ask Saddam about it).
This would have been a question any "reporter", given the oppurtunity Rather had, would have asked. I really smelled a fish in this one-

Originally posted by Journey
Last night, on the History Channel, this was discussed .
I encourage all to watch this show.
What I found intriguing is the fact that Rather declined from asking Saddam about the fact that he used chemical weapons against his own people. He came up with some lame excuse, how he wanted to take the position of a reporter and not of an announcer...
It was as if he was told not to discuss that factor- and when asked he danced all around it (why he did not ask Saddam about it).
This would have been a question any "reporter", given the opportunity Rather had, would have asked. I really smelled a fish in this one-

If Rather had asked anything about Saddam's use of chemical weapons it would have either been denied, since Iraq has always denied that they were responsible for the gassing of the Kurds, or Saddam would have reminded everyone that the US was the supplier of those weapons, and knew about the use of them at the time, but didn't care.

I imagine that Rather was warned, prior to interviewing Saddam, not to ask anything regarding the attacks on the Kurds. They don't want people to remember our role in those crimes.

I gained instant respect for Dan after he did this interview and the followups he did, he was on larry king and kept incredibly impartial like a journalist should be whilst tom brokaw was doing his WAR IS FUN talks.