[version]

Was Saddam Already
In US Custody??
The Capture Of Saddam Hussein
By Joseph P. Diaferia
Contributing Writer
Online Journal
12-16-3

"Could it be that the former Iraqi dictator has actually been in U.S. custody (or under house arrest) for some time, and that the administration waited until it needed this public relations boost to announce Hussein's capture to the world?"
_
In the seven months since the fall of Baghdad, U.S. troops have clumsily and fruitlessly searched for the dictator believed to pose the greatest threat to world peace and security. A military that could not stop terrorist attacks carried out by alleged suicidal hijackers armed only with box cutters on 9/11 should have surprised no one with their abject incompetence in finding and apprehending Saddam Hussein. However, suddenly Saturday, a US military contingent 600 strong came upon a hole in the ground in southeast of Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, and voila! There he was!
_
Both the timing and the circumstances of Hussein's capture are highly suspect. In recent days, the Bush administration has faced intense international condemnation over its policy of excluding "uncooperative" nations from sharing in the spoils of the war with Iraq. In addition, Halliburton, an energy company of which the current vice president is former CEO, now faces a congressional investigation for its skullduggery in the price of the oil it delivered to Iraq. Furthermore, there have been recent signs that the Bush's election prospects have begun to erode, owing primarily to his administration's atrocious and indeed criminal foreign policy and his appalling inattention to domestic matters.
_
The appearance of a bearded Saddam Hussein on international television, with several hundred thousand dollars in U.S. currency in his possession should immediately instill doubt. Why would he be so well endowed financially and yet appear so unkempt? If he were trying to elude U.S. occupation forces, why would he not make himself completely unrecognizable? In fact, Saddam's face is unmistakable despite the uncharacteristic beard. Could it be that the former Iraqi dictator has actually been in U.S. custody (or under house arrest) for some time, and that the administration waited until it needed this public relations boost to announce Hussein's capture to the world? Such a suggestion may at first seem preposterous, but it would not be the first such psychological tactic ever employed. Other examples include the spectacular lies and distortions relating to 9/11, the bogus "The War on Terrorism" and the Jessica Lynch hoax.
_
Moreover, is it not a compelling coincidence that the formation of an Iraqi war crimes tribunal preceded his capture by only a week? And, why an Iraqi war crimes tribunal (comprised of U.S. puppets) and not an international one? Perhaps the Bush administration knows that the United Nations and other world bodies will not be duped by U.S. propaganda.
_
Finally, that Saddam Hussein will be charged with war crimes and genocide is staggeringly disingenuous. While Hussein is undeniably a criminal, it is the United States that has destroyed Iraq and killed 2 million of its people with genocidal sanctions. It is the United States that has flagrantly violated international law in pursuit of regime change in Iraq, and it is the United States that bears full responsibility for bringing Hussein to power.
_
Since the United States brought Saddam Hussein to power after the assassination of Abdul Karim Kasim, any charge of war crimes or genocide should be brought not only against the former Iraqi leadership, but also against every U.S president since and including John F. Kennedy (obviously deceased presidents would be tried in absentia).
_
The U.S. boasts a long history of deposing and installing leaders as Washington's and Wall Street's "interests" have required. In addition to the American CIA's installation of Saddam Hussein, examples include: The Somozas in Nicaragua, Battista in Cuba, the Shah of Iran, Salazar in Portugal, Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, Stroessner in Paraguay, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Mobutu in The Congo, Suharto in Indonesia, the government of South Africa during apartheid, and even Pol Pot in Cambodia.
_
Seldom, if ever, did any of the aforementioned dictators elicit a word of censure from their benefactors in the Oval Office.
_
Saddam Hussein is likely to face some form of justice, whether in a legitimate international tribunal, or in some U.S. orchestrated kangaroo farce. To the extent that he has dealt with his political adversaries violently and that he has long been a willing accomplice in U.S. atrocities, he should be brought to decisive and conclusive justice.
_
But, will the real war criminals and authors of genocide ever be brought to justice? The final chapters of that book have yet to be written.
_
Copyright © 1998-2003 Online Journal. All rights reserved.
_
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Comment...603diaferia.ht ml

[version]

Saddam met Bushy boy in November.

"Bush met Saddam on November 27

Islamabad, Dec 16 - A Pakistani newspaper on Tuesday published a report, claiming a meeting had taken place between US President George Bush and former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein on November 27.

The Urdu language newspaper, Khabrain, quoting some reports said that during his unexpected sojourn to Baghdad, Bush met deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein on November 27.

The daily further said that Saddam had tried to commit suicide on November 23, while he was arrested with the help of Kurd leader Jalal Talabani and his own guards, three days before the attempt to kill himself.

The local press, like in all the other countries, gave front page extensive coverage to the stories about Saddam's arrest and the circumstances which led to his capture"

[version]

Madelaine Albright thinks Bushy inbred boy knows where Bin Laden is, and will pull him out when the time is right, ie. election time.

Albright thinks Bush hiding bin Laden

World Net Daily

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told Fox News Channel analyst Morton Kondracke yesterday she suspects President Bush knows the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and is simply waiting for the most politically expedient moment to announce his capture.

Kondracke made the announcement about what Albright told him backstage before an appearance on another Fox show on "Special Report With Brit Hume."
Kondracke was incredulous that a former secretary of state could believe something like that about a U.S. administration.

"She was not smiling when she said this," offered Kondracke, who believes Albright is serious about the conspiracy theory.

Albright is on a media tour to promote her new book, "Madam Secretary, A Memoir."

She was mildly critical of Bush administration policy in Iraq on camera in later appearances on "The O'Reilly Factor" and on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews."

"I'm one of these people that said I understood the 'why' of the war, but I didn't understand the 'why now' or the 'what next,'" she told O'Reilly. "I still have a lot of questions. And I think that we don't know, frankly, what the effect of Saddam's capture is on the general situation in Iraq. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have, in fact, warned about violence still going on, and the effect within the rest of the Middle East of a prolonged trial or an execution or generally how he is treated."

[Lerkfish]

Interesting. whether true or not, one has to admit the fortuitous timing of saddam's capture, on the eve of Baker's trip which was destined to be an abject diplomatic failure, and shortly after Gore endorses Dean, a vocal antiwar critic.

even if not orchestrated, Bush benefits greatly from the timing.
IF orchestrated, then I assume we'll see bin laden surface in custody somewhere close to the election.

edited to add: LOL! I was drafting this while version posted albright's similar conclusion.

weird.

[The Ayatollah]

And the insane conspiracy theories commence full-speed with this wonderful piece of garbage.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
And the insane conspiracy theories commence full-speed with this wonderful piece of garbage.

hm. are you calling madeleine albright insane?

[version]

The timing is too good to be true, too many coincidences. It reminds me of the time last year when British forces in Afghanistan knew exactly where Bin Laden was, but a command from the US forces told them to halt, to not capture him. The British army commander was furious and there were a number of articles in the British press covering it, and his comments.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hm. are you calling madeleine albright insane?

Madeline Albright said that her comment was a joke. Are you calling her a liar?

[version]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Madeline Albright said that her comment was a joke. Are you calling her a liar?

Were you there to see the look on her face? She wasn't smiling, and the people there knew she thinly disguised her remarks, like many a people would. Are you now disregarding how facial expressions are used in communication?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Madeline Albright said that her comment was a joke. Are you calling her a liar?

hm. I was unaware she was joking....even so, that does not equal me calling her a liar to question someone calling her insane, does it?

[ebuddy]

It's still good that they're in custody right?

Just checkin'

Either our intelligence is inept and unable to glean important information when necessary or our intelligence is so adept that it can toy with today's dictators...Which do you think?

Honestly, I'm not sure. What I do know is there are major negotiations going on daily. Timing could always be spouted in reference to the successes on our war on terror.

The child looks at his disgruntled grandfather and asks; "Grandpa, why are you upset?" The grandfather looked at the curious boy and responded; "boy, there are two wolves that live inside us. One wolf is angry and pessimistic all the time and the other wolf is happy and optimistic. Those wolves fight each other every day." Then the boy asked; "which one wins grandpa?" and the Grandfather answered; "whichever one I feed more."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hm. I was unaware she was joking....even so, that does not equal me calling her a liar to question someone calling her insane, does it?

Just checking to see if you knew that she claims her comment was a joke. Or to quote her exactly: It was a "tongue-in-cheek comment and was not intended in any other way,".

Actually, I think if it was a joke, it's a very poor one. And if it were serious, it would qualify if not as insane, then certainly rather paranoid. But we'll take the former Secretary of State at her word that she was only joking.

[version]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Just checking to see if you knew that she claims her comment was a joke. Or to quote her exactly: It was a "tongue-in-cheek comment and was not intended in any other way,".

Actually, I think if it was a joke, it's a very poor one. And if it were serious, it would qualify if not as insane, then certainly rather paranoid. But we'll take the former Secretary of State at her word that she was only joking.

Why is it insane? The British forces already have it on record that they knew where Bin Laden was, but were stopped by the US< it's recorded. SO i'm sure her words were carefully chosen and she knew exactly what she was talking about.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Just checking to see if you knew that she claims her comment was a joke. Or to quote her exactly: It was a "tongue-in-cheek comment and was not intended in any other way,".

Actually, I think if it was a joke, it's a very poor one. And if it were serious, it would qualify if not as insane, then certainly rather paranoid. But we'll take the former Secretary of State at her word that she was only joking.

paranoid does not automatically mean wrong. I prefer the term cynical, which is more accurate: it refers to a basic mistrust. At any rate, she was speculating, whether in tongue in cheek or not, the same as I was, at the convenience of the timing and whether a similar convenient capture would occur on the eve of the election.

Although pure speculation, I don't find that an insane or unreasonable surmise. Certainly it would not be the first time such things have happened --meaning orchestrated high profile captures timed a certain way to maximize political mileage -- and I don't imagine it will be the last. Happens all the time with high profile mob arrests, for example. Investigators spend a long time gathering evidence and pick just the right time to drop the hammer.

What tends to make it a more reasonable surmise than a paranoid one as far as the timing of the capture is that none of the 600 apparently had any idea who they were going to capture, but knew it would be high profile. That's a little different from a sector search of a suspected area. That implies prior knowledge of what they would find, n'est-ce pas?

[adamk]

Originally posted by version:
The timing is too good to be true, too many coincidences. It reminds me of the time last year when British forces in Afghanistan knew exactly where Bin Laden was, but a command from the US forces told them to halt, to not capture him. The British army commander was furious and there were a number of articles in the British press covering it, and his comments.

do you know the links to these articles, since i take it, you've seen them?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
paranoid does not automatically mean wrong. I prefer the term cynical, which is more accurate: it refers to a basic mistrust. At any rate, she was speculating, whether in tongue in cheek or not, the same as I was, at the convenience of the timing and whether a similar convenient capture would occur on the eve of the election.

Although pure speculation, I don't find that an insane or unreasonable surmise. Certainly it would not be the first time such things have happened --meaning orchestrated high profile captures timed a certain way to maximize political mileage -- and I don't imagine it will be the last. Happens all the time with high profile mob arrests, for example. Investigators spend a long time gathering evidence and pick just the right time to drop the hammer.

What tends to make it a more reasonable surmise than a paranoid one as far as the timing of the capture is that none of the 600 apparently had any idea who they were going to capture, but knew it would be high profile. That's a little different from a sector search of a suspected area. That implies prior knowledge of what they would find, n'est-ce pas?

No, I'd call it paranoid if (which she denies) it was intended to be taken seriously.

Cynical is saying that all politicians will spin things favorably. Paranoid is saying that they (but only the ones you don't like) are an evil cabal lying and manipulating the truth, and able to create a conspiracy capable of keeping enormous and manipulative secrets.

Albright spent enough years in the government to know that the former happens, but the latter is basically impossible. The US government is an uttely leaky sieve. There is no way that Bin Laden's capture could be kept secret. It's uttely paranoid to suggest that it could be.

It's also irresponsible of Albright to make that comment. She should know better. If she has evidence, then let her come forward with it. But if all she has is idle speculation, she should be more responsible. She's a former Secretary of State. She should understand that people will believe her and take her seriously even if she is only making jokes.

In any case, she says she was joking. That means unless she is lying, there is no story here.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
That implies prior knowledge of what they would find, n'est-ce pas?

no, it suggests they had intelligence information which turned out to be accurate.

-r.

[Lerkfish]

Simey, that's your take on it. You view the speculation as paranoid on the basis of how easy it would be to successfully pull it off. And, that's more an analysis of the relative competency of black ops rather than the paranoia of the speculator.
I also would have thought it bizarre to send Castro an exploding cigar...and yet, it happened.
You think it paranoid to contemplate this possibility, yet I also think it naive to dismiss it out of hand completely. Governments have done all sorts of bizarre things, from poison pellets in the points of umbrellas to planting forged documents from Nigerian officials who weren't even in office at the time of the memo.

I do not think it all that bizarre, in fact, it would be utilitarian and machiavellian to time the capture fortuitously. And utilitarian and machiavellian are hallmarks of this administration, and qualities which you seem to have admired yourself in the past.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I also would have thought it bizarre to send Castro an exploding cigar...and yet, it happened..

It also became public quite quickly.

Lerk, remember those people on the right who tried to prove that Vince Foster was murdered and Ron Brown was assassinated?

[chris v]

Originally posted by version:
Saddam met Bushy boy in November.

"Bush met Saddam on November 27

Islamabad, Dec 16 - A Pakistani newspaper on Tuesday published a report, claiming a meeting had taken place between US President George Bush and former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein on November 27.

The Urdu language newspaper, Khabrain, quoting some reports said that during his unexpected sojourn to Baghdad, Bush met deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein on November 27.

The daily further said that Saddam had tried to commit suicide on November 23, while he was arrested with the help of Kurd leader Jalal Talabani and his own guards, three days before the attempt to kill himself.

The local press, like in all the other countries, gave front page extensive coverage to the stories about Saddam's arrest and the circumstances which led to his capture"

Are you just the local conspiracy-theory nut, or what?

Maybe you'll enjoy infowars.com

CV

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It also became public quite quickly.

Lerk, remember those people on the right who tried to prove that Vince Foster was murdered and Ron Brown was assassinated?

yeah. I also remember the nehru jacket. so?
one does not prove/disprove the other, any more than a false claim of rape invalidates all other rape cases.

--The exploding cigar did not become public quickly, IIRC, it was decades before we knew it, right? If Saddam's capture was orchestrated as far as timing, the lid only needs to stay on until the first Tuesday in November.

[Spliffdaddy]

wow. This conspiracy stuff has gone way over the top.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
wow. This conspiracy stuff has gone way over the top.

What we're seeing is the implosion of the Democratic Party. The moderates of the party and the so-called swing voters have shifted over towards the Republican side, enabling the conspiracy nuts to claim the majority in the Democrat party.

Look at the numerous (moderate) Democrat senators planning to leave office when their term is up. It's gotten to the point that Joe Lieberman is starting to look out-of-place in his own party.

Want to see the DNC's desperation? Read this story...

DNC chairman’s school visit sparks anger among Portsmouth city officials

PORTSMOUTH — Several city officials are furious over the Democratic National Committee chairman’s recent visit to Portsmouth High School, who they feel turned a social studies lesson into a one-sided bashing of President Bush.

After requesting to visit the school, Terry McAuliffe was allowed by Principal Forrest Ransdell to come to teach what the principal believed to be social studies classes on democracy and the political process. However, several city officials are livid over what they say turned into a biased Democratic view of Republican President Bush’s term of office.

During the presentation, McAuliffe told students that due to Bush’s mismanagement of the country, 70 percent of college graduates will not be able to find a job upon graduation. He also told students that if the war in Iraq continues as it has, there could be a reinstatement of the draft.

"He comes into the school and just says what he wants," City Councilor Bill St. Laurent said. "At what point does he stop his politicking to the point of scare tactics? Saying that the draft may come back, and kids cant find jobs, those are scare tactics. He is out trying to get votes. This is taxpayers money, excuse me, but this is my tax dollar and I don’t want to use my tax dollar for his pulpit."

According to school Superintendent Lyonel Tracy, McAuliffe was allowed to speak to the students by Principal Forrest Ransdell as a civic lesson.

[ThinkInsane]

Version, would you be so kind as to point out some links to this earlier arrest of Saddam? And please, if possible, have at least one from a credible source?

You make a lot of claims, but do a poor job of providing any sort of proof. I'm still waiting for the info on the incident you claimed to have witnessed, in which US Marines murdered an Iraqi woman in cold blood right in front of you.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Version, would you be so kind as to point out some links to this earlier arrest of Saddam? And please, if possible, have at least one from a credible source?

You make a lot of claims, but do a poor job of providing any sort of proof. I'm still waiting for the info on the incident you claimed to have witnessed, in which US Marines murdered an Iraqi woman in cold blood right in front of you.

cant' speak for Version, but for me, I'd reiterate that what I've said is speculation on my part. As such, it would be difficult to provide links to an "unknown known".
Since the very nature of the speculation is concerning things intentionally kept under wraps.

[thunderous_funker]

I'm sorry, but the mind really rebels at these assertions.

Not only would such a secret be virtually impossible to keep, as Simey points out, but they make almost no sense whatsoever from even a pragmatic standpoint.

What on Earth could the administration possibly gain by having Saddam in custody and not telling anyone? Didn't they argue that Saddam was the linchpin holding the insurrection together?

Not only would holding Saddam effectivly undermine their own goals of security, but it would allow their critics to gain considerable momentum in the public's mind.

Trust me. The administration wanted Saddam 6 months ago and would have paraded him on TV for the world to see the very first second they could have. Why on Earth would they suffer 7 months of bad press in the hopes of slightly mitigating it with his dramatic capture this late in the game??

The fact that it took so long and so much money hurts the administration's cause and they know it. Better late than never, but in this case early would have trumped late hands down.

Now take all of that pragmatism and multiply it by about 1,000 in the case of OBL. Why would the president give his harshest critics 2 full years to bash our failed efforts at capture?

Capturing OBL when your approval rating is at or below 50% is good. Capturing him weeks after the invasion when your approval rating is 90% would have resulted in amending the Constitution to elminate term limits and declare him Caesar for Life.

Politics is about striking while the iron is hot. Come on, people.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
cant' speak for Version, but for me, I'd reiterate that what I've said is speculation on my part. As such, it would be difficult to provide links to an "unknown known".
Since the very nature of the speculation is concerning things intentionally kept under wraps.

I am asking Version for some specifics here. He claimed that the arrest of Saddam in the early days of the war was carried by many sources. There should be some sort of linkage to that story available, and I would like to read the articles. It's not an "unknown unknown" if it was reported by multiple sources, it's a news story.

As for the other part of my inquiry to Version, he has claimed to have first hand knowledge of the murder of a woman at the hands of US Marines. Hey claimed he witnessed this, it was reported, and covered up. I have asked him on multiple occasions to provide additional info, such as the units involved, the date this allegedly happened, and the location. With this information, one can at least find out something about this. If the info doesn't line up, then it supports my supposition that the whole story is BS.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
And the insane conspiracy theories commence full-speed with this wonderful piece of garbage.

I agree 100%. This is about a far fetched as the conspiracy theories placing Hussein at the centre of the planning for the 9/11 attacks. That is to say, both are plausible, but I am disinclined to believe either until seeing actual evidence.

[Twilly Spree]

It is completely preposterous to think President Bush conveniently hid Saddam Hussein until he needed him caught for a ratings boost. It so happens that we Americans have been dragged unwillingly into a justified war against a ruthless dictator. We won that fight and eventually caught the dictator. No wonder people are happy about that. I sincerely hope that OBL is next, if he is alive that is. America still stands on firm legs of justice and morality. We are a beacon to the civilized world and beyond. The President would never delay the capture of Saddam Hussein. Not to increase his ratings nor for any other reason. Have some faith in the government because this presidency has a clear goal and a true purpose. To ensure the American way for generations to come.

[theolein]

"The earth is the centre of the universe"

-Pope Paul III

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Have some faith in the government because this presidency has a clear goal and a true purpose. To ensure the American way for generations to come.

hm. what exactly do you mean by that?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hm. what exactly do you mean by that?

Yes, I'm pretty sure he meant what you think he meant.

I just wish they'd stick to ensuring the American Way for Americans, and leave the rest of the world to their respective Rest of the World Ways.

Most of us would be better off that way.

-s*

[MacGorilla]

It defies common sense that they had Saddam and hid it from view until now. Why wait. Now, I can see holding him for a few days in secret so that any leads he generates are 'fresh" but otherwise, no.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

[Spliffdaddy]

heh

lookie, it's Lerk and LBK as kids.

(that was uncalled-for, I apologize)

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:


heh

lookie, it's Lerk and LBK as kids.

(that was uncalled-for, I apologize)

and this is NOT a personal attack because you recognize it was uncalled for?

ok, you're an insensitive idiot. (that was uncalled for, I apologize)

BOT: I hope you realize I never said I thought this is necessarily what happened, merely that the timing benefitted bush, and it was an interesting speculation.
Reread my posts. of course, that's too much trouble. Much easier to just do character assassinations than to actually know what the hell you're talking about.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

in this movie, the children were wearing tin foil hats because they were afraid aliens would attack their house.

Aliens attacked their house.

What do we learn from this example?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:


heh

lookie, it's Lerk and LBK as kids.

(that was uncalled-for, I apologize)

That was pretty funny.

Asshole.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
in this movie, the children were wearing tin foil hats because they were afraid aliens would attack their house.

Aliens attacked their house.

What do we learn from this example?

Lerks was better.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

What do we learn from this example?

That you're boarding up all your doors and windows too?

[Spliffdaddy]

oh alright, dammit.

Lerk's post was funnier.

*sigh*