Blind flight, equally blind pursuit for Saddam

Drudge/International Herald ^ | FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 2006 | Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor

[woofie]

As American troops were fanning out across Baghdad, Saddam Hussein turned to his sons. "We are leaving now," he said.

The Iraqi leader was determined to make his escape before more checkpoints were set up around the capital. Saddam had not anticipated the fall of the city, and his plan was simple: Drive west toward Ramadi, where there were few American forces.

In an examination of Iraq's military strategy, the U.S. Joint Forces Command prepared a day-by-day reconstruction of Saddam's movements, which shows that his escape was desperate and improvised. The study also indicates that American intelligence knew little about his whereabouts during the war and that Saddam was nowhere near the site of two failed bombing raids intended to kill him.

For Saddam, the first strike was a surprise. Relying on CIA intelligence, President George W. Bush ordered a bombing March 19 at the Dora Farms complex southwest of Baghdad. A CIA operative had reported that Saddam was in an underground bunker there, and Bush hoped to end the war with one blow.

Two F-117 Stealth fighters dropped bunker-busting bombs on the site, while warships fired nearly 40 cruise missiles. The fighters scored a direct hit, and for a while American officials believed that Saddam was wounded or dead.

[Dog]

I read this earlier....its a good read.

[Terpfen]

Saddam was nowhere near the site of two failed bombing raids intended to kill him.

No sh**! If the bombs didn't get him, he wasn't near them!

[Zeroisanumber]

Interesting, but a little spare on the details. I'm sure Saddam's odyssey will be good reading when a historian writes about it 10-15 years from now.

[Zeppo]

"Most of the leadership strikes were offset from where Saddam stayed during the war, denying use of government buildings, but not threatening his life," the classified study reports.

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that the New York Times continues to publish classified documents, doesn't it...

[USNBandit]

Relying on CIA intelligence, President George W. Bush ordered a bombing March 19 at the Dora Farms complex southwest of Baghdad.

There's the problem right there. The President relied on CIA intelligence.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Let's grieve for the poor schmuck barn attendant who drew night duty at the Dora Farms complex...OK time's up!

[Grut]

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that the New York Times continues to publish classified documents, doesn't it...

I think we're better off with a press that's free to commit acts of bad judgement or disloyalty than with one which is under the government's thumb, however righteous that thumb may be.

Which doesn't mean we can't call them on it.

[Zeppo]

I certainly wouldn't advocate having an official secrets act (such as that of the Brits), but there needs to be some downside or repercussions for certain actions by newspapers such as the New York Times that were calculated to, and did, harm national security and help the enemies of civilization. Specific recent ones come to mind, such as the disclosure (through a reporter's phone call) of the impending raid on a Muslim "charitable" organization, the CIA transport of prisoners through allied countries, and the NSA flap.

This particular story, although calculated to cast aspersions on the government's wartime intelligence competence as yet another in a continuing series of NYT articles designed to undermine the US war effort, is somewhat less of a concern than the others that I have mentioned. That doesn't stop me from, as you say, calling them on it...