Fisking The Saddam Hussein Interview

04 Feb, 2003 by John Hawkins

Print this article Font size -16+

Fisking The Saddam Hussein Interview: You’ve just got to read this fawning, softball, interview w/ Saddam done by some anti-war British politico.

To begin with, the Brit pol in question, Tony Benn pumps out a little leftist spiel that somehow reminds me of when Scott Ritter said that he wasn’t going to talk about the horrors of a children’s prison he saw in Iraq because he was, “waging peace.”

“I come for one reason only – to see whether in a talk we can explore, or you can help me to see, what the paths to peace may be. My only reason, I remember the war because I lost a brother. I never want to see another war. There are millions of people all over the world who don’t want a war, and by agreeing to this interview, which is very historic for all of us, I hope you will be able to help me, be able to say something to the world that is significant and positive.”

Saddam responds by saying among other things….

“…The Iraqis are committed to their rights as much as they are committed to the rights of others. Without peace they will be faced with many obstacles that would stop them from fulfilling their human role.”

I don’t know whether to just write that off as gibberish or to consider it a threat given Saddam’s human rights record and the fact that the “human role” of the Iraqi people right now may as well be “slave.” However, Mr. Chamberlain…ehr…excuse me..Mr. Benn then goes on to ask Saddam whether he has WMD. Here is the crucial part of Saddam’s reply…

“There is only one truth and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever.”

Can you imagine what someone like Bill O’Reilly would say after that? “Come on Saddam, stop the weasel dancing. The inspectors have already found artillery shells tipped with mustard gas! That means you’re lying Saddam! And why would you have chemical warheads lying around if you didn’t have chemicals to put in them hidden somewhere? You’re not going to get away with that kind of spin on the “Factor” Saddam!”

Of course, then Saddam would have had him shot. Maybe that explains why Benn swallows Saddam’s obvious whoppers wholesale and moves on to ask Saddam if he has, “links with Al Qaeda?” Saddam replies,

“If we had a relationship with Al-Qaida and we believed in that relationship we wouldn’t be ashamed to admit it. Therefore I would like to tell you directly and also through you to anyone who is interested to know that we have no relationship with Al Qaeda.”

That’s Saddam’s way of winking at the Arab world and saying, “I have to deny being connected with Al Qaeda to keep the Americans from invading, but I really admire them. I certainly wouldn’t be ashamed to be associated with them if I didn’t have the threat of war hanging over my head.”

Benn, being a lefty dupe, accepts that answer and EVERY answer Saddam gives without a single follow-up question and without giving the slightest indication that he’s doing anything other than eating up the kaka is spewing like it was escargot. Then Benn goes on to ask Saddam about the inspectors and Saddam gives a long, rambling answer that does contain at least one interesting assertion,

“…They have claimed before that Iraq did not implement the previous resolutions. However after many years it became clear that Iraq had complied with these resolutions. Otherwise, why are they focusing now on the latest resolution and not the previous ones?”

Now that is an interesting point, although not in the way that Saddam means it. Absolutely no one (other than Saddam) is arguing that Iraq has complied with the previous resolutions, so why does the United Nations, when confronted with a defiant Saddam, choose to create new resolutions instead of enforcing the previous ones? The answer is simple — making new resolutions is easy while enforcing the previous resolutions is hard.

Then after asking Saddam a completely inane question about the UN’s role in creating peace on earth, Benn’s questions start to become even more irritating than Saddam’s replies. Witness Benn’s next questions about the eternal favorite of the mindless anti-war crowd, the ‘war for oil’….

“There are people who believe this present conflict is about oil, and I wonder if you say something about how you see the enormous oil reserves of Iraq being developed, first for the benefit of the people of Iraq and secondly for the needs of mankind.”

It’s asinine enough that he’s asking Saddam about the whole, “war for oil” thing, but asking Saddam about how Iraq’s oil is going to “benefit of the people of Iraq” & “mankind” is just unbelievable. Who but an imbecile could believe Saddam cares in the slightest about benefiting his own people, much less mankind?

Saddam, sounding like an Iraqi Gore Vidal, goes on to hit most of the left’s favorite theories in his response….

— It’s all about the Jews: “The first factor is the role of those influential people in the decision taken by the President of the US based on sympathy with the Zionist entity.”

— It’s all about the oil: “Those people and others have been telling the various US administrations, especially the current one, that if you want to control the world you need to control the oil.”

— Bush is an imperialist who wants to rule the world: “They could dictate to China the size of its economic growth and interfere in its education system and could do the same to Germany and France and perhaps to Russia and Japan. They might even tell the same to Britain if its oil doesn’t satisfy its domestic consumption.”

Ya know if Saddam had mentioned the “Bush Family Evil Empire” or had gone on to call Bush a Nazi, he could have really scored some points with the left.

Then to finish up, Benn goes into, “full Susan Sontag mode” in his last question and says that we must prevent war — are you ready for it — you can almost feel it coming — for the children…

“There are tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of people in Britain and America, in Europe and worldwide, who want to see a peaceful outcome to this problem , and they are the real Americans in my opinion, the real British, the real French, the real Germans, because they think of the world in terms of their children. I have ten grandchildren and in my family there is English, Scottish, American, French, Irish, Jewish and Indian blood, and for me politics is about their future, their survival. And I wonder whether you could say something yourself directly through this interview to the peace movement of the world that might help to advance the cause they have in mind?”

Since we’re thinking of things, “in terms of the children,” I wonder how many American children would die if let’s say an Iraqi sponsored terrorist were to sneak into LA and cause it to disappear under a mushroom cloud? How many Kuwaiti and Saudi children would die if Saddam were allowed to rearm and conquer the region? What’s the count up to on Iraqi children that Saddam allowed to starve to death while he built new palaces for himself? How about those Iraqi kids in the children’s prisons, do these “terms” apply to them too? I guess not.

However, I digress, let’s get back to interviewee. Saddam then launches into another semi-incoherent reply that starts with, First of all we admire the development of the peace movement around the world in the last few years.” Hear that all you anti-war protestors? Saddam admires you. So make sure you don’t forget your, “We admire you too Saddam” signs whenever the Commies at ANSWER decide to hold their next peace rally.

It’ll be interesting to see how much play this little “Saddamercial” gets tomorrow and what the general reaction to it will be. If only Benn’s interview had gone more like this pre-George W. Bush fake interview w/ Saddam, then the whole world would be better off….