Skip to comments.
Saddam's Briefcase Yielding 'Intelligence Windfall'
Newsmax.com ^
| 12/15/03
| Carl Limbacher
Posted on 12/15/2003 7:00:43 AM PST by truthandlife
Less than 48 hours after he was taken into custody, U.S. military officials say that Saddam Hussein's capture has already produced an "intelligence windfall" of new information on Iraq's insurgent movement.
Speaking to reporters Monday morning, Brig. Gen. Mark Hurtling said, "Intelligence stemming from Saddam's arrest has led soldiers to capture several other top regime figures and uncover rebel cells in Baghdad."
The new information came from a briefcase of documents that the deposed Iraqi dictator was reportedly carrying when he was caught, according to MSNBC.
Hurtling told reporters that, based on the find, U.S. officials now believe Saddam was indeed playing a role in leading the anti-American insurgency.
The new information contradicts accounts from former Clinton administration officials who said on Sunday that the Iraqi dictator was likely too isolated to direct continuing attacks on U.S. GIs.
The documents in Saddam's briefcase are said to have provided U.S. military officials on the ground with "a clearer picture of the insurgent command and control network in Baghdad and confirmed the existence of suspected rebel cells."
TOPICS: Breaking News; Extended News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 200312; aqi; briefcase; husseincapture; insurgents; intelligence; iraq; isis; rebuildingiraq; saddam; saddamsbriefcase; viceisclosed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-134 next last
To: truthandlife
Never trust an officer who carries a briefcase to the front.
2
posted on
12/15/2003 7:02:27 AM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(Liberal Whine of The Day. "We are the new Soviet Union. We are the bad guys.")
To: truthandlife
This can't be true. Katy Couric said that there's no way Sadam could have been running any operation.
3
posted on
12/15/2003 7:02:28 AM PST
by
zook
To: truthandlife
Looks like there was more in the briefcase than a week-old falafel wrap.
To: truthandlife
The new information contradicts accounts from former Clinton administration officials who said on Sunday that the Iraqi dictator was likely too isolated to direct continuing attacks on U.S. GIs. And former Clinton officials should know what it takes for a leader to orchestrate attacks on enemies...
5
posted on
12/15/2003 7:04:03 AM PST
by
2banana
To: truthandlife
There goes his POW status. Too bad. NOT.
6
posted on
12/15/2003 7:04:21 AM PST
by
thatdewd
To: thatdewd
WHy would he lose his POW status?
To: truthandlife
The new information contradicts accounts from former Clinton administration officials who said on Sunday that the Iraqi dictator was likely too isolated to direct continuing attacks on U.S. GIs.I don't believe anything a Democrat says.
Bill Clinton set the standard!
8
posted on
12/15/2003 7:06:56 AM PST
by
CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
(I don't believe anything a Democrat says. Bill Clinton set the standard!)
To: thatdewd
"There goes his POW status. Too bad. NOT."Actually if he is directing the insurgency, doesn't that confirm his POW status? Not like it matters. The war crimes tribunal will make whether he is a POW or not a moot issue.
9
posted on
12/15/2003 7:07:43 AM PST
by
DannyTN
To: 11th Earl of Mar
I believe that in order to have POW status, you need to be captured in uniform to be considered an enemy combatant. If you are wearing civilian clothes, you are NOT a POW.
10
posted on
12/15/2003 7:10:30 AM PST
by
anoldafvet
(Democrats: Making the world safe for terrorists one lie at a time.)
To: DannyTN
Rumsfeld repeatedly pointed out that if he were found to be involved in the insurrgency, it would change his status. That has a direct effect on his rights and regarding questioning, which will go on and on for a LONG time before he is turned over to any tribunal.
11
posted on
12/15/2003 7:12:24 AM PST
by
thatdewd
To: truthandlife
The new information contradicts accounts from former Clinton administration officials who said on Sunday that the Iraqi dictator was likely too isolated to direct continuing attacks on U.S. GIs. Just shows that the Clinton Admin people are just as clueless today as they were when Bubba was Da Pres.
12
posted on
12/15/2003 7:13:00 AM PST
by
commish
(Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
To: 11th Earl of Mar
Why would he lose his POW status?Because he would just be a terrorist, like those guys at Gitmo.
13
posted on
12/15/2003 7:14:42 AM PST
by
thatdewd
To: truthandlife
Brig. Gen. Mark Hurtling With a name like that, he should be out flying something that can go Mach 3....
14
posted on
12/15/2003 7:15:24 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: zook
Yeah, all them DemaRats said that the violence would get worse now and here we are kicking butt on the insurgents. What's with that? Who do we think we are?
15
posted on
12/15/2003 7:16:57 AM PST
by
mrobison
(We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams.)
To: truthandlife
Hmmmmmm. One is left to wonder why, if it's an "intelligence windfall," we're being told about it. Obviously they've already used it to take down a bunch of bad guys, but you'd think there'd be more to glean.
Obviously there's some strategery behind this -- maybe stir up the nest and see who flies.....?
16
posted on
12/15/2003 7:18:59 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: .cnI redruM
You mean he wasn't in that hole 24/7? God Bless Our Troops! Now if there were bank acct numbers in that briefcase we can drain the swamp quicker.
Pray for W and Merry Christmas Troops
17
posted on
12/15/2003 7:20:04 AM PST
by
bray
(The Wicked Witch of NY is Taking the Rats Down in Flames!)
To: truthandlife
The Dems don't want Saddam to have been orchestrating the insurgency. They want Saddam's capture to have no effect on the resistance.
18
posted on
12/15/2003 7:20:08 AM PST
by
Tricorn
To: r9etb
Obviously there's some strategery behind this -- maybe stir up the nest and see who flies.....? Yeah, something else going on here. My thoughts are that by making it sound like Saddam is singing, they rest of the badguys are more likely to try to get the best deal they can and surrender.
19
posted on
12/15/2003 7:21:49 AM PST
by
Paradox
(Cogito ergo boom.)
To: anoldafvet
"I believe that in order to have POW status, you need to be captured in uniform to be considered an enemy combatant."
So does taht mean all of the Taliban we captured in Afghanistan are NOT really POW's? They were not wearing uniforms.
20
posted on
12/15/2003 7:22:11 AM PST
by
txradioguy
(HOOAH! Not just a word, A way of life!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-134 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson