Neither do I. I saw him bombed with my own eyes. ;-)
Posted on 03/20/2003 10:04:30 AM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON, Mar 20, 2003 (AP WorldStream via COMTEX) -- U.S. intelligence picked up early signs the Iraqi leadership might be incapacitated or out of communication with military field commanders who failed to muster a coordinated response after a dawn Thursday strike on a suspected Saddam Hussein hideout, government officials said.The officials, who spoke to The Associated Press only on condition of anonymity, said it was too early to determine whether Saddam and his sons were caught in the dawn attack, but there was growing optimism the strike had left the Iraqi leadership in disarray.
Early intelligence reports suggested Iraq's leadership was not organizing any coordinated response to the U.S attack, suggesting the Iraqi regime might be in chaos or cut off from the military.
There was no coordination in security and military efforts around Baghdad and the rest of the country, the officials said.
Military officials "believe it is significant that there is a lack of coordination and significant resistance to what we did," one official said.
"It's little things here and there. Some individual commanders are hunking down while others are launching small attacks and setting fires," the official said.
At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said military planners had good reason to believe Iraqi leaders were at the site of the bombing.
"We are in communication with still more people who are officials of the military at various levels - the regular army, the Republican Guard, the Special Republican Guard - who are increasingly aware that it's going to happen, he's going to be gone," Rumsfeld said.
The sources said U.S. intelligence suspected Saddam's sons, Qusai and Odai, may have been with him during the strike on a complex where Iraqi leaders were suspected of sleeping.
Even if Saddam and his sons weren't killed, U.S. officials hoped the surprise attack would leave them distrustful of their inner circle, suspecting betrayal by one of their advisers.
Officials said the surprise attack was the product of a complex operation that benefited from human intelligence, electronic spying, special military operations and changes in technology that permitted military chiefs to quickly reconfigure the cruise missiles for a special, pinpointed attack.
The officials said the attack began with about three dozen cruise missiles that leveled the aboveground structures and which were followed up quickly by Air Force F-117 precision bunker-busting bombs that could penetrate deep into the leadership compound.
---
AP writer John Solomon contributed to this story.
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN Associated Press Writer
Neither do I. I saw him bombed with my own eyes. ;-)
I've been wondering about this strategy myself, i.e., start flooding the so-called inner circle with rumors about other inner-circle members. Attribute information to them, and then some how make that information come to pass. We can start by broadcasting that we got the whearabouts of the bunker we busted last night by _____ and ______. That oughta liven things up!
No
But that is my belief...there doesn't seem to be a power struggle or we would have picked up something in the chatter. A Saddam missing several body parts and perhaps still in surgery would explain this. Barely alive, and in no condition to direct the war.
What I'm wondering is is the Iraqi broadcast communications equipment advanced enough that they can broadcast from anywhere without our being able to pinpoint it. This may sound like a stupid question, but this isn't CNN we are talking about.
Are you crazy? And have her in the way while he romps with the 72?
These were armaments calculated to do the job--and then some!
When you think about it, there is actually no reason whatsoever at this point to believe that he is still alive. (The fact that Saddam is incommunicado is potentially significant in that very regard.) The Iraqi's "live broadcast" of Saddam speaking doesn't add up, and we shouldn't count it as having any significance whatsoever.
In fact, several things about the broadcast positively argue that he is probably dead. According to one report I heard on TV, the "live broadcast" shows technical signs of being a videotape. I think the speech was pre-recorded as a generic rant for just such an eventuality. (Come to think of it, this would explain his tone. He was speaking as an unconvincing dead man.)
See my argument at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/870163/posts?page=10#10
See also 15 and 17 on that thread.
She had nothing to loose
So she lit up the fuse
And her insides were spread all about us.......
And why NOT?
Which is why we haven't seen a tape of him for about 5+ years.
That's right. Not on his best day.
(I think the Iraqis messed up by "admitting" that Saddam was wounded and then pretending that the broadcast was live. The apparent discrepancies in the account suggest to me that the Iraqis are just plain lying about Saddam's status.)
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.