home

U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly'

The AP reports that the July issue of GQ magazine (subscription only) features an interview by Lisa De Paulo with three U.S. soldiers who guarded Saddam after his 2003 capture. They say he's friendly - and a hygiene nut.

Thrust unexpectedly into the role of prison guards for Saddam Hussein, a group of young American soldiers found the deposed Iraqi leader to be a friendly, talkative "clean freak" who loved Raisin Bran for breakfast, did his own laundry and insisted he was still president of Iraq, says a report published on Monday.

Saddam liked Ronald Reagan, thought Clinton was okay, and initially disliked the Bushes:

"The Bush father, son, no good," one of the soldiers, Cpl. Jonathan "Paco" Reese, 22, of Millville, Pa., quotes Saddam as saying. But his fellow GI, Specialist Sean O'Shea, then 19, says Saddam later softened that view. "Towards the end he was saying that he doesn't hold any hard feelings and he just wanted to talk to Bush, to make friends with him," O'Shea, of Minooka, Pa., told the magazine.

A third soldier, Spc. Jesse Dawson, quoted Saddam as saying of Bush, "'He knows I have nothing, no mass weapons. He knows he'll never find them.'"

The soldier's are not breaking rules with the interview. Their agreement with the Government pertains to logistics of Saddam's detention but not their interaction with him.

The article quotes the GIs on Saddam's eating preferences - Raisin Bran Crunch was his breakfast favorite. "No Froot Loops," he told O'Shea. He ate fish and chicken but refused beef at dinner.

For a time his favorite food was Cheetos, and when those ran out, Saddam would "get grumpy," the story says. One day the guards substituted Doritos corn chips, and Saddam forgot about Cheetos. "He'd eat a family size bag of Doritos in 10 minutes," Dawson says.

Saddam believes he will be restored to power.

He insisted that everything he did, including the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, was for the good of his people, and invited his guards to return to Iraq and stay at his palace after he was restored to power.

"He'd always tell us he was still the president. That's what he thinks, One hundred percent," says Dawson.

< Today's Supreme Court Actions | Rumsfeld to Promote Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#1)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    You mean we could have achieved regime change by sending junk food?!?

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#2)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    Clarification for portsiders: I am not in any way comparing U.S. service men and women to Cheetos, Doritos, HoHos, or Ring Dings. And certainly not Twinkies.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    Two scoops of raisins are the reason, Saddam Hussein's behavior is pleasin'.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    Gee, what a nice butcher.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    Since Bush was lying through his teeth about why we entered this war, his real motives are still a matter of speculation. Obviously they reflect poorly on him, else he wouldn't lie--he'd brag. Does anyone seriously think Bush would hesitate to send thousands of American soldiers to their deaths and plunge our country into debt for generations, to avenge some personal beef with Saddam? (Or be the instrument of the Sauds' beef with Saddam?)

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    one of the unplumbed last depths of the left sometimes spoken of here: SH was really a good guy hero. it was Bush's problem with him that was the cause of problems.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    Ed, Your straw man is showing. Nobody here thinks Saddam was a good guy. Some think A) he was contained, and B) he was harmless to the U.S.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#8)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    Um, Ed? The opinions are those of the U.S. soldiers who guarded Saddam! You're not comparing our soldiers to Joe Isuzu are you?

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    actually, that's not true. posters here have spoken of him admiringly. kdog would join the insurgency if an Iraqi. ask Paul in LA of SH's real patriotic face.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    kdog would join the insurgency if an Iraqi.
    At the risk of putting words in kdog's mouth, I read that as meaning he thought Iraq was better off under Saddam's rule than under U.S. occupation. Not necessarily well off, just better off, and not necessarily due to any benevolence from Saddam. As for Paul in LA, I've conditioned myself to ignore him entirely. If he said "Saddam Hussein is a nice guy", I'll never know it, and I apologize for doubting you just in case.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    posters here have spoken of him admiringly. kdog would join the insurgency if an Iraqi. ask Paul in LA of SH's real patriotic face. What crap. In case you missed it, Ed has totally lost his ability to think beyond repeating slogans: you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on this planet, let alone this blog--not kdog, not Paul in LA, not me-- who thought Saddam was, as you put it, "a good guy hero." But Ed's mind is made up--no need to distract him with facts.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    Let me clarify, I said if I was an Iraqi I MIGHT join the insurgency. If my house was leveled by a US clusterbomb and my family killed, might becomes probably. If I was a poltical prisoner of Saddams liberated by US forces, might becomes probably not. The fact remains it was never our place. I want to be liberated from Bushco, but I wouldn't support a foreign power invading the US to do it. That would be my job, just as disposing of Saddam is the job of Iraqis. One thing for sure, if the US was attacked and occupied, I'd be an insurgent, no maybes there. Ed hears what Rush tells him to hear.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    sorry, don't listen to RL. Don't need to. I just read your words. they do better than any commentator could to explain your positions. the insurgents in Iraq blow up innocent Iraqis-if you might be one were you Iraqi, you have chosen a side. I'm happy he was harmless when in custody-I have no problem with the soldiers giving interviews. Try not to mistake the guy in jail for the one who gassed his people when loose.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    To perhaps re-rail the discussion... Saddam's behavior sounds borderline nutty. The strain of imprisonment must be tremendous. Maybe if we treated him the way he treated Iraqi prisoners, he'd feel more at home.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    roy writes:
    Some think A) he was contained, and B) he was harmless to the U.S.
    And some think the US didn't land on the moon, flying saucers are real and that New York sewers have alligators as big as horses... kdog - I know what you are saying, but your basic premise is wrong in that there was no way the Iraqi citizens could have revolted against Saddam. See China. See Iran. So it had to be done by an outside force.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Here is the damaged psyche we could've exploited in our favor, had we the sense to engage in REAL psychological warfare. I have this odd feeling, had a president actually gotten on the phone with this guy, with force in place and ready to be deployed, that we could've gotten this guy outta power and started "regime change" without the destruction and death we have now. Not possible? Remember when apartheid couldn't possibly be dismantled without a civil war? Or, better yet, when communists would never give up power in the ussr or central america? And then...they did. But we don't have the minds in power to handle the task of REAL psychological warfare. The minds we have in power would fight fire with fire EVERY time, when water is the solution MOST of the time.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    PPJ..Difficult, yes. Bloody, yes. Impossible, no. The American revolutionaries faced near impossible odds and suceeded. A couple hundred thousand Iraqis storming the presidential palace would do it. If things were bad enough, it would happen. Maybe things weren't as bad as the media and the govt. led us to believe?

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    PPJ: Do i have to give you a history lesson AGAIN on the military capabilities of Iraq during the first conflict and the second conflict? Being that we spend 450 Billion on defense and they spent 6 billion, I would imagine that making the jump about "threat" would be difficult to make even for that little lad who liked to cry wolf.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    and while we are at it, why don't those lazy Sudanese get up and overthrow their oppressors. Tibetans? Zimbabweans?

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    So the Iraqi's could have overthrown Saddam? Give me a break. I thought one of the left's arguments was that we didn't support them in 1991 when Saddam was at his weakest. Remember this was someone who gassed his own people and murdered them in great quantities in order to keep them in line. And while the Soviet system did ultimately fail due to political pressure I guess the 3million who died in the gulags and the thousands who starved to death under the Soviet system was an acceptable price to pay for a peacefull end to a totalitarium regime. America's only mistake in Iraq was not marching to Baghdad in '91. Better late then never. More often then not hindsight shows that not only should we have used force, but that we should have used it sooner.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    If the Soviet people overthrew their tyrannical system, the evil empire that ruled them; and if the Sandanistas could step down after being defeated in elections; that black South Africans overwhelmed apartheid without a widespread civil war; then...yes, I think the Iraqi's largely could've done it themselves. But it would've required an actual plan, carried out with sound intellect and imagination, with patience and persistence -- none of which are in much supply in this administration. For example, hiring masses of IRAQIS to rebuild their country doesn't seem that hard to figure out, but evidently...it was. I mean, that was a NO-BRAINER if you were going to actually invade. You have to be NUTS not to possess that menial kind of foresight. Macadamias anyone?

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    If the Soviet people overthrew their tyrannical system, the evil empire that ruled them
    What? Overthrew? The soviet system collapsed and the people living under it had nothing to do with it. Gorbachev chose to join the West long after he realized that the theory of Communism didn't work. See China for the "new communism". Your sandanistas comment is true but hardly relates to Iraq. Saddam had some elections and guess what? He won 100% of the vote each time. The argument against war for "Anti-War" people like yourself is selfish. You would rather let people suffer under the rule of a regime or dictator for decades on the off chance that the regime will eventually collapse. Meanwhile the country and it's people suffer so that their won't be a horrible "WAR". I'll take some nuts please.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    SA, even under apartheid, had more freedom and less repression than in many African countries today. try the SA experiment in the Sudan, Zimbabwe or the Congo.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Iraq never would have devolved into a popular revolution to overthrow Saddam? Please. People would have said the same about Romania before ole Nicolai got executed on Xmas Day.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Slado, I gave you examples, you give me empty rhetoric. If no actual citizens were involved in changing the former USSR, I suppose it happened magically. And what I support is intelligence, imagination, humanity. Where else are you going to war to spare suffering? In Uzbhekistan, where we support their tyrant? Why aren't you calling for the overthrow of the Chinese gov't? Or even the corrupt and tyrannical Saudi Royal family that Bush is so chummy with? And I guess we should've invaded South Africa to free the blacks there, if we really cared about suffering, despite Ed's belief that South Africa's struggle doesn't count because other Africans also suffer, often because of leaders we support -- how long did we help Mobutu Seko destroy his own people as long as he wasn't "communist"? Play devil's advocate with your own thinking. You have a lot of the world to bomb and invade.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Suffering of SA blacks doesn't count because other Africans suffer? hard to say where that came from-I'll bite though. SA changed because the government there was under pressure internationally and, even though you will never admit it, far less brutal than many that existed at the same time. It's not working in Zimbabwe as that international hero is held to a lower standard than SA leaders at the time(they were icky white racists, not just run of the mill psychotic killers).

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Dadler, My reasoning is not empty rhetoric but a difference of opinion. SH would never have been overthrown without military intervention. The "people" in the USSR did not overthrow their government and were not responsible for it's collapse. Economic and military pressure from the West caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. But that wasn't my point. My point is that while you wait for "magical" people power to bring change to said gov't millions suffer for decades. Saddam tortured and killed his own people for 20plus years. How much longer would it have taken for him to be overthrown peacefully? How many more mass graves were necessary for the people to rise up? These questions are never answered. Because they can't be by the anti war movement. But when a dictator is removed by the US gov't then all the sudden we're hypocrits because we don't save every country at once. What's your point?

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    Slado, We HELPED SH torture and slaughter when he was at his peak; and now in our nitwitted "war on terror" we are coddling up to murderous dictators (such as is Uzbhekistan) just because they promise to hate the terrorists. Which is why we coddled murderers like Hussein in the first place, only then it was because the said they were anti-communist. This is a game of circular idiocy, quite apparent to anyone familiar with facts and history. THAT IS MY LARGEST POINT, EINSTEIN. You seem to want the easy win, the fistfight victory over the bully we all fantasize about, when war and humanity aren't that simple to deal with. It gave even liberal me a big chubby to see Sadaam humiliated and captured, and his rapist son laid low, but then....that temporal b.s. wears off, and you realize you needed more than just murderous rage for the tyrant you used to be chums with -- you need some kind of coherent, in touch with reality plan, you needed some actual saavy knowledge of the culture you were about to start raining fire upon. We had none. The same way we had none in Vietnam. See "The Fog of War", listen to McNamara regret. And you're still assuming points you provide absolutely no supporting evidence for. You just say SH could never have been overthrown. That his tyranny could ONLY be ended by throwing the country into another generation of chaos, violence, division, madness. As if you saying it makes it true, when history -- which I quoted -- has given us many recent examples of historic turns that no one expected. Let me ask: do you think the mess in Iraq is going to end soon? There are THOUSANDS of years of history at work in that region, and our blind faith in the tools of death, our shock and awe, are going to end that? Very naive to think so. And most Iraqis know their position, know we used to help Hussein when it helped us, and they doubt our intentions, they doubt us, entirely. Our credibility is zero. We have replaced a sociopathic dictator with a sociopathic occupation, a civil war, a serious erosion of women's freedom and rights, just to name a few, and a situation worsening by the day that our idiotic leaders hadn't the sense or smarts or self-critical ability to deal with. Hell, at least Hussein could keep the power and water running better than we can. Sarcasm intended, in case you didn't know. And continue to give actual Russian people no credit for helping get rid of their tyranny, but the illogic behind it is disturbing. I'm sure all those politicial prisoners, all those dissidents, all those normal citizens who took to the streets, I'm sure they'd be happy to know they made no difference. And talk about waiting for magic, you seem to think it is only when WE wave our magic wand that anything can get better for anyone else on the globe.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    PPJ: Do i have to give you a history lesson AGAIN on the military capabilities of Iraq during the first conflict and the second conflict? Yeah PPJ.... what makes you think Iraq was a threat when they only spent a fraction of what we did? What's wrong with you anyway? We all KNOW that the guys that flew planes into buildings (killing 3000 +) spent more than we did...thus allowing them to get to us. And let's not forget those Koreans. They have nukes & the missiles to get here...so they too must have outspent us! C'mon...get with it will ya. It's simple 'lefty logic' after all.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    Dadler
    We HELPED SH torture and slaughter when he was at his peak; and now in our nitwitted "war on terror" we are coddling up to murderous dictators (such as is Uzbhekistan) just because they promise to hate the terrorists
    You probably need a new example: here and here

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    Hell, at least Hussein could keep the power and water running better than we can. This simply says it all and makes my point for me. You would fall into line witht the previous administrations and international community which believed it was better to let a dicatator remain a dictator then remove him and deal with the mess. As long as Iraqi's are in line (which is brought about by gassing and mass graves) you're happy. I agree that Bush and company could have done a better job but so what? What's your point? Nothing was as bad as living under Saddam. Under Saddam their was no free press, no rights, no outlet for Iraqi's to free themselves. Now they have a choice. Freedom or dictatorship through Islamic fundamentalism. Hopefully they'll choose the first option and critics/doomsdayers like youself won't keep them from getting there.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    I almost forgot. Now your saying I'm besmirching Russians for opposing communism. Of course I'm not no more then I'd besmirch Iraqi's, Iranians, Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, etc.. who try in vane to stand up to their regimes. My point is that only outside force brought down the Soviet Union. Communism ruled for 80years and the "real" gulags were the tool used to suppress the unfortunate few who had the courage to stand up. And while we're at it there were doomsdayers like yourself back then who told Reagan and Thatcher that their tough talk and "overly optomistic" belief that the Soviet Union could be brought down is earily similar to the blather that you and other lefty doomsdayers predict @ naseum today.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    Hey BBmoron, the terrorists were mostly Saudis and flew a plane into one of our buildings after an FBI agent warned of it being a high probability. Read some history and the National Intelligence reports that are publicly available about the military capabilities of Iraq/Iran who never attempted to attack us. Read some history about McVeigh and perhaps that will enlighten you about our vulnerability from psychos, whether they are muslim or christian (and yes McVeigh espoused christianity not as a reason but as his faith). Again, how many submarines does Iran have? 3 How many nuclear subs does the US have? 50 How many fighter planes does Iran have? maybe 300 most cannot dogfight. How many f-22's does the US have? around 3000. We did not have to get in bed with Iraq to help beat the Iranians and had the Iranians won, perhaps there would have never been an anfal campaign. We made the monster and paid for and ignored the massacres. Iran, even if victorious poses no threat to us. Our arsenal is 1000 times theirs in nearly every category and has been for 20 years. Now the Saudis, who are responsible for 9-11 according to the ethnicities of the bombers are still hangin with the pres. BB, if melons weren't so tasty I would compare you to one, instead i will have to compare your brain to fecal matter.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    In case you are too lazy, let me remind you that Iraq had more military capability than Iran in the first gulf war. We entered 1-17-91 and the war ended 3-3-91. Less than 90 days to utter the 6 billion dollar armed forces into peanuts. Historically speaking, 450 Billion in spending beats 6 billion. Call me silly but I believe saddams army folded this time in less than 30 days. And we still have done nothing to the Saudis who represented more than 80% of the murderers on 9-11.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    In case you are too lazy, let me remind you that Iraq had more military capability than Iran in the first gulf war. We entered 1-17-91 and the war ended 3-3-91. Less than 90 days to utter the 6 billion dollar armed forces into peanuts. Historically speaking, 450 Billion in spending beats 6 billion. Call me silly but I believe saddams army folded this time in less than 30 days. And we still have done nothing to the Saudis who represented more than 80% of the murderers on 9-11.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Slado, I'm sorry you don't understand what satire is. If you can't get the satirical tone of my "at least he keeps the water and power running" line, I cannot help you. At all. MY POINT, EINSTEIN, IS THIS: We should have thought about this before we invaded with pie-in-the-sky hopes and a predominant desire to protect oil fields alone at the expense of EVERYTHING ELSE. Have you no ability to be self-critical?

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Slado- "Nothing was as bad as living under Saddam." How many Iraqis have you been able to discuss this with? Don't tell us what Iraqis think today, unless you have been there to speak to them personally. I'm not saying they don't think that way, but I also won't say they do. I refuse to put words in their mouths. That would be presumptuous.

    Re: U.S. Soldiers Say Saddam 'Friendly' (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Cheetah, I talk to a few, and I agree with Slado