Did we get him? [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

Supertanker

03-19-2003, 08:29 PM

It seems the only significant attack the US made on Baghdad last night was to hit a bunker that was the sleeping place for a number of Iraqi senior leadership. CBS is reporting that cruise missiles knocked the building away, and then F117s dropped bunker buster bombs into it. It would be interesting if the US was able to peg Saddam immediately.

Murph

03-19-2003, 08:59 PM

That's more specific than anything else I'd heard. I'd heard speculation very similar to that, but that's the first exact report of that.

It could very well be, though. I did hear a lot of reports talking how well our 'people intelligence' has been getting so much better over there, so it almost wouldn't surprise me. Man, wouldn't that be great...Over before it started.

I was impressed with Bush's speech, too. I've always liked him, and tonight really reinforced so many of my (positive) opinions of him.

wumpus

03-19-2003, 09:17 PM

That may be the funniest Murph post ever. If I was wearing a hat, I'd take it off for you.

chet

03-19-2003, 09:22 PM

Gordon Cameron

03-19-2003, 09:25 PM

Talk radio is or isn't going after him?

And you saying Bush didn't put his life on the line in the Champagne Division?

Ah who am I to talk... if I had connections that could get me a cushy posting I doubt I'd do the noble Oliver Stone thing and demand to fight with the grunts.

Captain Cookiepants

03-19-2003, 09:30 PM

Murph can you include a picture of the man you call Bush? I am really confused, maybe one of us has it wrong who the president is? The guy with glasses and dark hair is Aaron Brown.

On a side note, how come talk radio is going after bush for being a draft dodger? He dodged it as much as clinton did.

Chet

Already been discussed; wasn't 'cool' to diss Clinton. The man played sax for crying out loud, he obviously wasn't a suit monkey, he was a hip, wisecracking man of the people who felt our pain and got some in the oval office. Sax!!

DennyA

03-19-2003, 09:30 PM

What is the deal with Aaron Brown, anyway? People like him because he doesn't intimidate them with intelligent remarks? CNN's coverage was pitiful compared to NBC and BBC America.

I sincerely doubt we got him. And even if we did, his son went on the radio afterwards, so depending on whether it was Saddam Jr. or Murderous Party Boy, we could still have a problem government to deal with even if we did take Saddam out.

Murph

03-19-2003, 09:31 PM

Okay, so I'm the only who liked Bush's speech. I was one of the few who really liked him initially, too, so I guess that shouldn't surprise me.

I just feel like I can believe him. I feel like when he says something, he honestly believes it, and fully intends to follow through. That's a pleasant change, I think.

XPav

03-19-2003, 09:38 PM

I don't doubt Bush is sincere, I just think that he and his neocon buddies have an overly simplistic and ultimately dangerous view of the world.

As for the "try to kill saddam" missiles, we tried that in Gulf War I. I have no reason to believe our intelligence is any better and I think the chances of us actually getting him easily are slim to none.

Bub, Andrew

03-19-2003, 09:55 PM

Bush's speech was good. He said all the things he was supposed to say, all the things that he needed to say, and he took a note from Zakharia and thanked the tiny allies gathered round our giant feet. I honestly didn't laugh until he got to the part about the US "reluctantly" going to war. But he did say the right things about not being at war with the the Iraqi people, Islam, etc.,

Nothing special - said all the right things - didn't mess up.

Rodge

03-19-2003, 10:16 PM

and thanked the tiny allies gathered round our giant feet.

See? And some* Americans wonder why people call them arrogant and condescending. Sure, it’s true, but do you have to spell it out like that?

*I’m sure quite a few couldn’t care less

Anonymous

03-19-2003, 10:19 PM

Anonymous

03-19-2003, 10:34 PM

Already been discussed; wasn't 'cool' to diss Clinton.

You are officially on crack. Correction, you must be huffing dishwasher detergent. Leno and Letterman "dissed" Clinton every night, SNL "dissed" Clinton every week, and "dissing" Clinton practically made the careers of Limbaugh, Drudge, the late Barbara Olson, Ann Coulter, and a number of other media personalities.

I ain't defending the shithead, but you HAVE to be on the wackest of drugs to make a claim like you just did, Commander Crack.

DennyA

03-19-2003, 10:42 PM

Well, we didn't get him. Not surprised.

I do have to say, though, that Hussein is even worse on TV than the CIC.

chet

03-19-2003, 10:54 PM

Captain Cookiepants, I cannot make any sense out of your post.

I liked aaron brown when he used to do late night news with Lisa McCree (sp?). They were great together, very sarcastic and treated news as background to screw around. They did alot of news humor that others copied years later, like having bizarre stats - "The USA heat index reached 224 today" no explaination of how the number came about - just thrown out there. Most of their sports clips were unwatchable as they would fill the screen with logos. It just had a good vibe and actually delivered some news.

We used to watch it every night after working at the bars and coming home to relax.

Chet

Anonymous

03-19-2003, 11:27 PM

What is the deal with Aaron Brown, anyway? People like him because he doesn't intimidate them with intelligent remarks? CNN's coverage was pitiful compared to NBC and BBC America.

Aaron "Arrogant" Brown
http://slate.msn.com/id/2061061

I remember when he was a local Seattle news anchor.

I was at work when the first strike hit. Wow, talk about a letdown. From what I've read, the first punch was supposed to be massive, but the CIA felt it had the first solid lock on Saddam in months (probably one of his inner circle getting nervous and cooperating with UW intelligence), so they went for the quick strike.

Odds are the massive punch will land tonight.

Captain Cookiepants

03-19-2003, 11:43 PM

Captain Cookiepants, I cannot make any sense out of your post.

You must not read threads started by 'guest': http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2640

Anonymous

03-19-2003, 11:49 PM

From what I've read, the first punch was supposed to be massive, but the CIA felt it had the first solid lock on Saddam in months (probably one of his inner circle getting nervous and cooperating with UW intelligence), so they went for the quick strike.

40 Tomahawk missiles + support = forty to fifty million dollars. May not have looked like much, but it sure cost a fuck of a lot.

Anonymous

03-19-2003, 11:55 PM

You know what they say in DC. A billion here, a billion there, and then you're starting to talk about real money.

ydejin

03-20-2003, 12:15 AM

40 Tomahawk missiles + support = forty to fifty million dollars. May not have looked like much, but it sure cost a fuck of a lot.

I'm not a Bush supporter, but I think launching these was definitely the right decision. $40-50 million is nothing if there was a real chance they could have gotten Saddam. Even a 1-2% chance would have been well worth the cost. If they had gotten him that would have been it ... think about the number of lives on both sides that would have been saved that's in addition to the money that would have been saved by ending the war before it started.

Jason McCullough

03-20-2003, 12:15 AM

asspennies

03-20-2003, 01:03 AM

Looks like a body double in that video to me.

Today (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030320/168/3kfi1.html).

Dan Rather interview (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?c=news_photos&p=dan+rather).

Funny, that's the first thing I thought when I saw the video. It seemed really off.

But then I thought about how much time he probably prepared for the Rather interview, makeup, etc. Whereas he looked pretty bad here, like he just rolled out of bed. I think it's certianly possible that we're looking at a double reading this statement, but I wouldn't bet much money on it.

Reeko

03-20-2003, 01:08 AM

Looks like a body double in that video to me.

Apparently, Harry Carey style glasses are all the rage among despots (http://image.pathfinder.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/1225/kim.jpg) obsessed with nuclear weapons.

chet

03-20-2003, 02:43 AM

Aaron "Arrogant" Brown - eh, so the slate doesn't like him.
Brown's problem isn't just that he salts his ceaseless patter with references to his many, many years of experience as a reporter (which were mainly spent not in New York, Washington, or Tokyo, but in Seattle, where he was known behind his back as "Arrogant Brown")

He has been out of Seattle for what? 15 years? So figuring he is under 50? That means if he was a reporter starting at 20 he would have as much time on the national stage as he did at Seattle, so as they do most times, the slate decided they don't like him so they make up some spin. yay!

chet

Bub, Andrew

03-20-2003, 08:44 AM

I'm going to guess that was a double too (95% sure). The eyes on "TV Saddam" look almost grandfatherly and kindly. Saddam's real eyes look cold and hard and he has these cruel laugh lines around them. Other than that and some other softer edges, this fake-Saddam is pretty damn close.

Rywill

03-20-2003, 08:51 AM

It's funny, I look at Jason's pictures and the guys look different to me, too: Harey Carey Saddam's head looks longer to me. But on the radio this morning US officials were saying they think it's really Saddam. I guess they know better than I do.

Ben Sones

03-20-2003, 08:57 AM

I think those funky Poindexter glasses may be doing it--a lot of the facial features seem pretty close. If it's a body double, then it's a damned good one.

DennyA

03-20-2003, 08:59 AM

I was just watching the moving video on CNN, and there are some very small details that are identical, that look like they'd be hard to fake with makeup.

He has a little jowl of skin below the left side of his jaw, for instance, that's hanging down (and wobbling naturally) both on the file video and last night's video. Some very minute details like that did seem to match.

The Old Navy Lady glasses, high collar, and hat, as well as his reading the declaration, are suspicious, of course. But even though he looks bad there, it does appear to be him.

Bub, Andrew

03-20-2003, 09:09 AM

I disagree Denny. They look alike in the still shots but when the video moves it looks wrong to me. The guy from last night, while he does look like Saddam (plastic surgery is possible, of course) he doesn't have Saddam's attitude or charisma. From all I've seen of real Saddam video*, he fills a room with his presence, the guy in that video wasn't doing that. Maybe he's scared, or cowed, or hasn't slept well. Maybe he's got the runs. Bad timing to have the runs. Anyway, we'll see, they've got those CIA compu-analysts on the job right now. I'm just saying I'd be more surprised to learn it was Saddam than wasn't from my totally inexpert observations.

*There was an hour-long special on the doubles on some cable channel a couple months ago.

Case

03-20-2003, 10:07 AM

Bub, Andrew

03-20-2003, 10:25 AM

Well, yeah Loyd. I'm sorry, I'm not arguing that I think we got Saddam. He always uses doubles when threatened. Since we were hitting radio and TV stations last night, it only makes sense he would do it again. Of course, it also makes sense that he would appear personally to rally his troops to the cause.

Desslock

03-20-2003, 10:31 PM

Well, yeah Loyd. I'm sorry, I'm not arguing that I think we got Saddam.

Actually, the washington Post is now reporting that they have credible evidence that Saddam and both his sons were in the bunker that was annihilated: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A682-2003Mar20.html

Hussein's Fate Still Uncertain

By Walter Pincus, Bob Woodward and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 21, 2003; Page A01

U.S. intelligence officials believe Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, possibly accompanied by one or both of his powerful sons, was still inside a compound in southern Baghdad early yesterday when it was struck by a barrage of U.S. bombs and cruise missiles.

But intelligence analysts in Washington and operatives working in the region were not certain whether the Iraqi leader was killed or injured or escaped the attack, according to senior Bush administration officials, who worked yesterday to analyze a videotape of an appearance by Hussein broadcast on Iraqi television within hours of the pre-dawn bombardment.

"The preponderance of the evidence is he was there when the building blew up," said one senior U.S. official with access to sensitive intelligence. The official added that Hussein's sons, Qusay and Uday, may also have been at the compound. "He didn't get out" beforehand, another senior official said of the Iraqi president.

A third administration official said "there is evidence that he [Hussein] was at least injured" because of indications that medical attention was urgently summoned on his behalf. The condition of Hussein's sons, and any others who may have been at the compound, was also unknown, officials said.

While U.S. intelligence monitored Iraqi government communications and movements yesterday to pick up signs of Hussein's fate, the administration's attention was focused on the television appearance by Hussein in which he stated yesterday's date and made reference to "dawn" and an attack by the United States.

Officials said they were not surprised by the broadcast because they had information that the Iraqi leader had recorded several statements earlier in the week in anticipation of a military strike shortly after the expiration of a U.S. deadline for Hussein and his sons to leave the country.

Officials also said they were receiving conflicting analysis of the identity of the man in the broadcast, noting that Hussein has long been reported to use doubles as a precaution against assassination. Technical analysts, who used digital enhancement techniques and triangulation measurements of facial proportions, assessed that the broadcast depicted the real Hussein.

But the government also consulted Parisoula Lampsos, who the Defense Department believes has passed a polygraph examination in support of her claim that she was Hussein's mistress in Iraq for many years. Lampsos has previously distinguished Hussein from his doubles in more than a dozen cases, one official said, and this time she said he was not the man in the broadcast.

The wide array of opinions within the government about Hussein's fate -- some officials were privately buoyant that he may have been killed, others feared he may have gotten away -- mirrored an equally diverse set of motivations inside the administration about how the bombing should be portrayed. The attack came in the midst of an intensifying military campaign designed to intimidate the Iraqi government and military and sow confusion inside Iraq about the fate of the country's senior leadership.

For almost a year the CIA has been operating under a presidential directive authorizing a covert program to topple the Iraqi leader, including authority to use lethal force and a $200 million budget to bring about a change of government.

Last June, CIA Director George J. Tenet told Bush and senior Cabinet members that covert operations to eliminate Hussein had only a small chance of working. Tenet stressed that any attempt to remove the Iraqi leader would have to be accompanied by the threat of military force that would pressure those with direct knowledge of or access to Hussein to consider betraying him.

The decision to attack the compound, which President Bush and his senior advisers reached during a two-hour discussion at the White House Wednesday afternoon, provided an indication that the intelligence agency has succeeded in establishing an alliance with some Iraqis close to Hussein.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said yesterday that "what we call human intelligence . . . indicated the location of Saddam Hussein and his leadership in a bunker in the suburbs of Baghdad."

Other officials said the CIA had gathered highly sensitive and reliable electronic and other information, using a wide range of assets -- from humans in some proximity to the compound to image-snapping satellites miles above.

A knowledgeable official said the underground bunker was part of a secure compound guarded by the Special Security Organization, which is commanded by Hussein's younger son, Qusay, and is principally responsible for the president's safety. While there was no official bomb damage assessment yet, photo analysts said the bunker was severely damaged.

"The bunker was the primary target, but because we couldn't be sure where all the people were, we had to take out some other buildings as well," a senior defense official said.

The information that Hussein was in the compound had been collected over a period of days and was confirmed in the hours prior to the attack. In the White House meeting, Tenet told Bush and other senior leaders that "this is pretty darn good intelligence" that Hussein was in the bunker. As the downsides of the approach were discussed among the president's senior national security advisers, Tenet defended the quality of the information although others at the session described it as "too good to be true," one official said. "There's no doubt it's worth taking a shot," Tenet argued.