[Scott from the Left Coast]

Fox is playing it to the hilt, so there must be some serious "rumouring" going on in places.

A very plausible reason why they are handling it this way is that they may well have suspected right away that they got him, but could not be sure until the invasion played out and they saw how Iraqi forces reacted (were they being led or just flailing away on their own). They probably also would not want to announce it until we held the whole country -- including occupying Baghdad -- because the moment the military aspect ends the diplomacy picks back up again. And we need possession of the country before that happens -- possession is that 9/10ths...

[outpost44]

"how do they know to surrender"

"They took lessons in 1991..."

From the French????

[Yankee]

Fox is playing it to the hilt, so there must be some serious "rumouring" going on in places.

Are they looking sad on CNN. That would be confirmation.

[Lauratealeaf]

They probably also would not want to announce it until we held the whole country -- including occupying Baghdad -- because the moment the military aspect ends the diplomacy picks back up again. And we need possession of the country before that happens -- possession is that 9/10ths...

That makes a lot of sense.

[vbmoneyspender]

The general that was on with Tony seems to have given the story away. He talked about 7th Cav and 3rd Infantry already being across the bridges and heading towards Baghdad. BTW, the Fox reporter Greg ? said earlier today that 7th Cav had run into some resistance, but it sounded like they were handling it pretty well without having to rely on 3rd Infantry. The resistance was probably encountered near the bridges. Maybe we'll get lucky and wake up tomorrow with American tanks on the outskirts of Baghdad.

[GraniteStateConservative]

That and we want to make sure the city doesn't fall into chaos.

[GretchenEE]

A very plausible reason why they are handling it this way is that they may well have suspected right away that they got him, but could not be sure until the invasion played out and they saw how Iraqi forces reacted (were they being led or just flailing away on their own). They probably also would not want to announce it until we held the whole country -- including occupying Baghdad -- because the moment the military aspect ends the diplomacy picks back up again. And we need possession of the country before that happens -- possession is that 9/10ths...

Can you imagine the howling and crying from the UN if we announced that we knew with absolute certainty that Saddam was toast, and yet kept bombing the snot out of Baghdad? W remembers, as well as we do, that short-stop outside of Baghdad in 91, and he isn't about to pick up his dad's failure to prosecute to total victory. They're smart to keep these cards close.