Posted on 03/20/2003 10:50:58 AM PST by ex-Texan
Update on our Exclusive Report: "Internet Rumors Fly ... Saddam Was Killed by American First Strike !"
NewsPundit.net "scooped the world" early this morning.
There is no doubt that we were the first news service in the world to break the report about Saddam being dead. We posted our exclusive report at 12:18 AM on our mirror site and on our home page. When I awoke this morning I discovered that the major networks were broadcasting essentially the same information that we had posted almost eight hours earlier. They also mentioned that rumors about Saddam's death were being transmitted on the Internet. Perhaps NewsPundit has some readers who are employed by the major televison networks.
The "Saddam" who appeared by the video taped broadcast did not look much like the real Saddam. There are photographs of the Iraqi leader available for people to compare and contrast at their leisure. Draw your own conclusions.
There were at least three international news reports making the similar pronouncements this morning. I quote briefly from all their reports below:
From the Washington Post we learned that the White House had reached "no immediate conclusions" about whether Saddam had been killed by our first strike:
* * * A senior Bush administration official today questioned the authenticity of a videotape showing Saddam Hussein speaking a few hours after the cruise missile strikes that opened the war in Iraq. "We reach no conclusions about who that was or when it was taped or anything like that," the administration official said. "It does not lend itself to immediate conclusions." * * *
The VOA News Service head line this morning was "White House Unclear About Authenticity of Saddam's Address." A brief excerpt from that report:
* * * The White House says it is drawing no conclusions about the authenticity of a television appearance by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein following the launch of the war. * * *
A senior Bush administration official said intelligence experts are investigating when the television appearance may have been taped or if it was really Saddam Hussein who delivered the remarks. The Iraqi leader is reported to have used doubles in the past. * * *
From the AP World Report this morning the headline was "Bush Assesses Initial Strikes on Iraq:"
* * * President Bush conferred with his national security adviser early Thursday on the initial strikes against Iraq, as officials tried to determine whether the attack aimed at killing Saddam Hussein had succeeded. * * *
`The president is not going to be a play-by-play commentator on it,'' White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. ``The president has a long approach to this.'' * * *
It is apparent that the Ba-Ath Party would quickly lose control of Iraq if they admitted that Saddam Hussein had been killed by a U.S. first strike. There are mass desertions taking place already from the Iraqi army. Conservative estimates put the number of desertions at "20,000 or more." I believe that the "or more" number is already above 30,000. Our military progress should be applauded.
Iraq has been under the domination of one very evil man for a long time. His personal addiction to brutality, death, torture, and murder of entire families in well known. By all accounts both of his sons are addicted to rape and murder in addition to common, ordinary bloodshed and brutality.
The world will be a better place after Saddam and this Ba-Ath party are beaten militarily and stripped of their power. Iraq will most certainly be a better place for the Iraqis. I strongly support the American effort to disarm Iraq and bring an end to this evil regime. What follows is our original report made early this morning.
(Excerpt) Read more at newspundit.net ...
We planned the operation pretty carefully.
You are just discounting any data which doesn't fit your presupposition that our military didn't do a very good job. I think it's easier to believe that they did. I think it's easier to believe that the Iraqis are just lying.
Maybe it's bad data. But it's still data. And you have no rational reason whatsoever to call it bad data, much less "fog."
Who knows? Maybe Saddam is still alive. But maybe he's not.
Very few.
Nobody in Bagdad has tried to ...position himself as a post-war leader.
Would you if you didn't know?
It is far more important for Saddam to convince his people, he is still giving orders.
1) US Government hasn't confirmed his death,
Means nothing. They are in much the same dilemma that we are in.
However, one of the Fox reporters just said that their contacts within the intelligence agencies strongly suspect that Saddam is either dead or severely wounded.
This generally agrees with what I have already concluded. (Those CIA guys must be pretty sharp [grin].)
2) Iraqis have fired SCUDS, which are usually under centralized control,
Centralized control by Saddam could have been delegated in preparation for the war--just as he ordered chemical munitions to be passed out.
In fact, Saddam may have someone already acting quietly as his successor--even if it is not clear to him what he should be doing. In any case, your argument has no force, IMHO.
3) Nobody in Bagdad has tried to claim credit for SH's (I love the OTHER things this acronym can stand for) death in an effort to position himself as a post-war leader.
I'm not sure anyone who is left would want to be a high-profile post-war leader. Even if I were an America-hating fanatic grieving over the loss of Brother Saddam (and trying to keep the war effort going in his name), I would not be too thrilled about claiming his Presidency at this auspicious time.
With Saddam dead, reality will begin to set in.
***
So, I think you do need to consider the data point which the early report of Saddam's "wounding" constitutes. (And I think that if he was badly "wounded," then he was probably wounded to death.)
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.