We caught Saddam!

[Toby]

In the bits I highlighted in my last post, yeah, I believe that his quotes reflect that he's presenting Iraq as a threat to the rest of the world. He doesn't specifically mention WMD, but he's saying Iraq's a threat that must be removed. So I'm trying to discuss that, sorry if I'm not eloquent enough

In response to your 2nd bit, I thought that that was dealt with in '91? I wasn't aware that Iraq was threatening to invade anywhere anymore. Was that ever mentioned? Seems to me, they were (internationally speaking) minding their business.

The reason I'm referring to is that overthrowing Saddam presented a great strategic goal to Dubya and the US. i.e. the whole oil issue.

I know you'll disagree with the last part. I view him as a bigger potential threat. Doesn't threat imply a future event, not e.g. the current death toll? In any case, I view him as a bigger potential threat because I think he's insane. I have at times thought (seriously) he could spell the end of human life on this planet, given an opponent with the ability and equal level of madness to challenge him. Glad not everyone has nukes.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Toby
In the bits I highlighted in my last post, yeah, I believe that his quotes reflect that he's presenting Iraq as a threat to the rest of the world. He doesn't specifically mention WMD, but he's saying Iraq's a threat that must be removed.

Sure, I don't have any problem with that interpretation.

I thought that that was dealt with in '91?

The 50,000 Shiites who were lined up and executed in '93 might disagree, for example.

The reason I'm referring to is that overthrowing Saddam presented a great strategic goal to Dubya and the US. i.e. the whole oil issue.

Overthrowing Saddam most certainly presented a great stategic goal to Dubya; that's precisely what he says, right? He mentions alot of reasons why it's a strategic goal; but none of them is oil.

You can bet that some factions in the American government had strategic interests there he didn't mention, but it's unlikely oil ranks very high on that list (consider that the trouble here started when Iraq wanted to seize Kuwait's oil; that Kuwait is a US ally; and that oil has had to be imported into Iraq).

I view him as a bigger potential threat. Doesn't threat imply a future event...

Yes, but it also implies some sort of underlying reasoning. And while your off the cuff opinions about his sanity might persuade you, I'm sure you understand they're not very compelling as an argument presented to others.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Where is Saddam #2-6 @?

[Toby]

Originally posted by Christopher M
The 50,000 Shiites who were lined up and executed in '93 might disagree, for example.

I'm low on facts. I was unaware of that. Just another uninformed internet opinion . Still, '93 is hardly an immediate threat that needed to be stopped in '03, is it?

Overthrowing Saddam most certainly presented a great stategic goal to Dubya; that's precisely what he says, right? He mentions alot of reasons why it's a strategic goal; but none of them is oil.

You can bet that some factions in the American government had strategic interests there he didn't mention, but it's unlikely oil ranks very high on that list (consider that the trouble here started when Iraq wanted to seize Kuwait's oil; that Kuwait is a US ally; and that oil has had to be imported into Iraq).

Iraq might've needed to import oil, but with their potential oil reserves, they might just need some expertise to help them develop their oil fields. Like, say, the expertise that companies like Halliburton and Enron could supply

Yes, but it also implies some sort of underlying reasoning. And while your off the cuff opinions about his sanity might persuade you, I'm sure you understand they're not very compelling as an argument presented to others.

No reasoning. I don't need reasoning to think that he may be trigger-happy. Just my opinion. Just like I am of the opinion that the old guy who talks to himself on the train is crazy. I'm not trying to compel anyone to my opinion. I don't think I'm alone in coming up with my views, however. So maybe you and other Bush supporters might want to give him some advice on improving his public persona .

<edit - bleh, fixed my quote tags/>

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Toby
Still, '93 is hardly an immediate threat that needed to be stopped in '03, is it?

Keep in mind, this was brought up simply to illustrate that there is plenty other than WMD in Iraq that people are concerned about.

Iraq might've needed to import oil, but with their potential oil reserves, they might just need some expertise to help them develop their oil fields.

This would be more convincing if they had some remarkable oil reserves, if more accessible places didn't, and if there were not plenty of non-oil reasons already on the table.

No reasoning. I don't need reasoning to think that he may be trigger-happy.

From my point of view, on issues where so many lives and so much suffering hang in the balance, it's objectionable to choose a position, let alone strongly hold it, based on whim.

So maybe you and other Bush supporters might want to give him some advice on improving his public persona

I'm not a Bush supporter; and since he's probably going to win the next election, my advice is likely not needed either way.

[Toby]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Keep in mind, this was brought up simply to illustrate that there is plenty other than WMD in Iraq that people are concerned about.

Fair point.

This would be more convincing if they had some remarkable oil reserves, if more accessible places didn't, and if there were not plenty of non-oil reasons already on the table.

Really? Stats I've read say Iraq has 10-11% of worldwide oil reserves. Oil which is highly accessible, being relatively shallow. As to non-oil reasons, I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that Dubya would wage war on Saddam out of the goodness of his heart. I'm more inclined to believe stuff like oil, family vendetta, strategic importance, results of 9/11, etc.

From my point of view, on issues where so many lives and so much suffering hang in the balance, it's objectionable to choose a position, let alone strongly hold it, based on whim.

I don't need to justify my opinion. It's just as difficult for you to prove he's not insane as it is for me to prove he is. I would never be able to create a bulletproof case, and neither would you.

As to the oppression in Iraq, I am certainly not a fan of what Saddam did. However, I don't think it was up to the U.S. (and us, and the U.K.) to play world vigilante and step in and supervise. Not our business, and if it were, not as a pre-emptive attack. That is a shaky justification at best, IMO.

I'm not a Bush supporter; and since he's probably going to win the next election, my advice is likely not needed either way.

Sorry, your posts implied you were. I hope he doesn't win. But that's just my political leanings.

Anyway, I've had enough internet arguing for one day. Maybe I'll check in tomorrow. Thanks for the discussion.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Toby
As to non-oil reasons, I'm sorry...

My "plenty of non-oil reasons" didn't mean to rest on Dubya's goodness of heart. Among the conspiratorial, nefarious reasons, oil doesn't rank particularly high.

I find it hard to believe that Dubya would wage war on Saddam out of the goodness of his heart.

If you mean, you find it hard to believe that he would wage war to liberate the Iraqi people - why? I'm wary that perhaps there is circular reasoning going on here (he wouldn't because he is evil, and he is evil because he wouldn't).

It's just as difficult for you to prove he's not insane

This isn't true. If no argument can be given for sanity nor insanity, it's not a toss-up: the default goes to sanity. This is both by definition and by statistical probability.

As to the oppression in Iraq, I am certainly not a fan of what Saddam did. However, I don't think it was up to the U.S. to play world vigilante

Unlike the oil and WMD issues, this is a criticism I'd find coherent. Although I'd disagree with it: I don't think it's morally acceptable to allow such things to occur, unless the cost of intervention would be higher than the original cost of the "oppression."

Sorry, your posts implied you were.

The world's not black and white. I can think someone isn't the biggest threat to world peace without being their avid supporter. I can oppose something for reasons other than those popularized by partisan media. And I can support one thing someone has done yet oppose other things.

I hope he doesn't win.

Same here.

Thanks for the discussion.

You too. Take care.

[Toby]

Couldn't resist . Even though I should be leaving work 10 min ago.

Originally posted by Christopher M
If you mean, you find it hard to believe that he would wage war to liberate the Iraqi people - why? I'm wary that perhaps there is circular reasoning going on here (he wouldn't because he is evil, and he is evil because he wouldn't).

Don't worry, no circular reasoning. I think he's mad, insane, crazy, but not evil. Just dumb.

This isn't true. If no argument can be given for sanity nor insanity, it's not a toss-up: the default goes to sanity. This is both by definition and by statistical probability.

In your sane world, maybe.

Unlike the oil and WMD issues, this is a criticism I'd find coherent. Although I'd disagree with it: I don't think it's morally acceptable to allow such things to occur, unless the cost of intervention would be higher than the original cost of the "oppression."

I'd have to take that on a case-by-case basis. I'm not advocating apathy, but I don't think it was our problem to solve, and if so, not in that way.

The world's not black and white. I can think someone isn't the biggest threat to world peace without being their avid supporter. I can oppose something for reasons other than those popularized by partisan media. And I can support one thing someone has done yet oppose other things.

Sure. Like I used to support John Howard. Thought he was a good leader. Agreed with his policies. However, he's done some questionable things as well. Now I don't know how I'll vote. The new opposition leader is more my style, provided he has some good policies. He's got some "interesting" views on Dubya, too . If you're interested, his name is Mark Latham. Popularity's on the rise.

Seeya.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Toby
Don't worry, no circular reasoning. I think he's mad, insane, crazy, but not evil. Just dumb.

Well... same difference.

I'd have to take that on a case-by-case basis.

Absolutely. And this particular case has some very compelling reasons for intervention.

[Kristoffer]

A gentlemen discussion so far. I'm impressed

[Repulsive Monkey]

I don't wanna start anything xenophobic I don't think America should rejoice too loudly about their latest catch, as I'm sure other Saddamites are a bit concerned that the net may now be closing in on them, but the person who should be shaking in his boots the most, apart from Saddam, should be Donald Rumsfeld who sold armaments to Sadam back in the 80's to aid his military actions. I'm sure as he knows it will blow up in face, that he will be feeling rather edhy at this time too with this special relationship he had with Saddam back then!?

[Souljah]

Just found a good chronology of events of Saddams uprisal and Demise.....Enjoy!


A glance at the life of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein:



April 28, 1937 -- Born in village near desert town of Tikrit, north of Baghdad.



1957 -- Joins underground Baath Socialist Party.



1958 -- Arrested for killing his brother-in-law, a Communist, spends six months in prison.



Oct. 7, 1959 -- On Baath assassination team that ambushes Iraqi strongman Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem in Baghdad, wounding him. Saddam, wounded in leg, flees to Syria then Egypt.



[This was not the only attempt to assassinate Kassem. In April 1960, the CIA approved using a poisoned handkerchief to kill Kassem. The "handkerchief was duly dispatched to Kassem, but whether or not it ever reached him, it certainly did not kill him." (Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 130.)]



Feb. 8, 1963 -- Returns from Egypt after Baath takes part in coup that overthrows and kills Kassem. Baath ousted by military in November.



[The coup was backed by the CIA.



"As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein....



"According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures." (Roger Morris, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," New York Times, March 14, 2003, p. A29.)]



July 17, 1968 -- Baathists and army officers overthrow regime.



["Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960's, I often heard C.I.A. officers -- including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at the time -- speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi Baathists." (Morris, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," p. A29.)]



July 30, 1968 -- Takes charge of internal security after Baath ousts erstwhile allies and authority passes to Revolutionary Command Council under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam's cousin.



[From 1973-75, the United States, Iran, and Israel supported a Kurdish insurgency in Iraq. Documents examined by the U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence "clearly show that the President, Dr. Kissinger and the [Shah] hoped that our clients [the Kurds] would not prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap [Iraqi] resourcesY. This policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise." Then, in 1975, the Shah and Saddam Hussein of Iraq signed an agreement giving Iran territorial concessions in return for Iran's closing its border to Kurdish guerrillas. Teheran and Washington promptly cut off their aid to the Kurds and, while Iraq massacred the rebels, the United States refused them asylum. Kissinger justified this U.S. policy in closed testimony: "covert action should not be confused with missionary work." (U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 [Pike Report] in Village Voice, 16 Feb. 1976, pp. 85, 87n465, 88n471. The Pike Report attributes the last quote only to a "senior official"; William Safire, Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333, identifies the official as Kissinger.)]



July 16, 1979 -- Takes over as president from al-Bakr, launches massive purge of Baath.



[In the late 1970s, Saddam also purged the Iraqi Communist Party and other oppositionists. (Marion Farouk-Sluglett and Peter Sluglett, Iraq Since 1958, London: I. B. Tauris, 1990, pp. 182-87) "We see no fundamental incompatibility of interests between the United States and Iraq," declared U.S. National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in April 1980. (Quoted in Barry Rubin, "The United States and Iraq: From Appeasement to War," in Iraq's Road to War, ed. Amatzia Baram and Barry Rubin, New York: St. Martin's 1993, p. 256.)]



Sept. 22, 1980 -- Sends forces into Iran; war last eight years.



[When Iraq invaded Iran, the United Nations Security Council waited four days before holding a meeting. On September 28, it passed Resolution 479 calling for an end to the fighting, but which significantly did not condemn (nor even mention) the Iraqi aggression and did not demand a return to internationally recognized boundaries. As Ralph King, who has studied the UN response in detail, concluded, "The Council more or less deliberately ignored Iraq's actions in September 1980." The U.S. delegate noted that Iran, which had itself violated Security Council resolutions on the U.S. embassy hostages, could hardly complain about the Council's lackluster response. (R.P.H. King, "The United Nations and the Iran‑Iraq War, 1980‑1986," in The United Nations and the Iran‑Iraq War, ed. Brian Urquhart and Gary Sick, New York: Ford Foundation, August 1987.)



Despite the fact that Iraq had been the aggressor in this war and that Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons, the first to launch air attacks on cities, and the initiator of the tanker war, the United States tilted toward Iraq. The U.S. removed Iraq from its list of terrorist states in 1982, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad as Reagan's envoy to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1983 and 1984 to discuss economic cooperation, re-established diplomatic relations in November 1984, made available extensive loans and subsidies, provided intelligence information, encouraged its allies to arm Iraq, and engaged in military actions in the Persian Gulf against Iran. The United States also provided dual-use equipment that it knew Iraq was using for military purposes. (See Joyce Battle, ed., "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984," National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, Feb. 25, 2003, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/.)]



March 28, 1988 -- Uses chemical weapons against Kurdish town of Halabja, killing estimated 5,000 civilians.



[From Iraq's first use of chemical weapons in 1983, the U.S. took a very restrained view. When the evidence of Iraqi use of these weapons could no longer be denied, the U.S. issued a mild condemnation, but made clear that this would have no effect on commercial or diplomatic relations between the United States and Iraq. Iran asked the Security Council to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use, but the U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to try to prevent a resolution from coming to a vote, or else to abstain. An Iraqi official told the U.S. that Iraq strongly preferred a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution and did not want any specific country identified as responsible for chemical weapons use. On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq as the offending party. (Battle, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/.)



At the same time that the U.S. government had knowledge of that the Iraqi military was using chemical weapons, it was providing intelligence and planning assistance to the Iraqi armed forces. (Patrick Tyler, "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq In War Despite Use Of Gas," New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002, p. 1.)



When Iraq used chemical weapons in March 1988 against Halabja, there was no condemnation from Washington. (Dilip Hiro, "When US turned a blind eye to poison gas," The Observer, September 1, 2002, p. 17.) "In September 1988, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 16 in favor of economic sanctions against Iraq, but the White House succeeded in having the Senate water down the proposal. In exchange for Export-Import Bank credits, Iraq merely had to promise not to use chemical weapons again, with agricultural credits exempted even from this limited requirement." (Rubin, "The United States and Iraq: From Appeasement to War," p. 261.)]

[Souljah]

Aug. 2, 1990 -- Invades Kuwait.



[The chronology omits one of Saddam Hussein's most egregious atrocities, his Anfal campaign against the Kurds from 1987-89, in which at least 50,000 and possibly 100,000 Kurds were systematically slaughtered. (Middle East Watch, Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds, New York: Human Rights Watch, 1993.)



The response of the new Bush administration was to increase Iraq's commodity credits from half a billion to a billion dollars, making it the second largest user of the credit program in the world. As late as April 1990, the administration was opposing sanctions against Iraq ("They would hurt U.S. exporters and worsen our trade deficit," said the State Department). (Guy Gugliotta, Charles R. Bab****, and Benjamin Weiser, "At War, Iraq Courted U.S. Into Economic Embrace," Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1990, p. A1.) The administration also blocked efforts to cut back high-tech exports to Iraq with obvious military applications. (Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas, "Bush insisted on aiding Iraq until war's onset," Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 23, 1992, p. 17.) And the United States was providing intelligence data to Iraq until three months before the invasion. (Murray Waas, Douglas Frantz, "U.S. shared intelligence with Iraq until 3 months before invasion of Kuwait," Houston Chronicle, March 10, 1992, p. A6.)]



Jan. 17, 1991 -- Attacked by U.S.-led coalition; Kuwait liberated in a month.



[As part of the U.S.-led attack, the civilian infrastructure of Iraq was intentionally targeted (Barton Gellman, "Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets," Washington Post, 23 June 1991, p. A1; Thomas J. Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions," Progressive, Sept. 2001), which together with more than a decade of economic sanctions would lead to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. (See Richard Garfield, "Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children From 1990 through 1998: Assessing the Impact of the Gulf War and Economic Sanctions," March 1999, http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-s...rf-index.hinc.)]



March, 1991 -- Crushes Shiite revolt in south and Kurd revolt in north.



[After urging Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, the U.S. denied the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and allowed Saddam Hussein to use his helicopters to slaughter the insurgents as U.S. aircraft circled overhead. (Andrew ****burn and Patrick ****burn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: Harperperennial. 1999, chap. 1)]



April 17, 1991 -- Complying with U.N. Resolution 687, starts providing information on weapons of mass destruction, but accused of cheating.



Feb. 20, 1996 -- Orders killing of two sons-in-law who in 1995 defected to Jordan and had just returned to Baghdad after receiving guarantees of safety.



Dec. 16, 1998 -- Weapons inspectors withdrawn from Iraq. Hours later, four days of U.S.-British air and missile strikes begin as punishment for lack of cooperation.



[The bombing was conducted without Security Council approval and without consultations with allies. The withdrawal of the inspectors was ordered by Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM. "France was also annoyed with Washington for getting Mr. Butler to pull out his inspectors from Iraq without discussion with the Security Council." U.S. Secretary of State "Albright did not speak with Secretary General Kofi Annan at the United Nations, officials said. Mr. Annan issued a personal statement, calling this 'a sad day' for the world and 'me personally,' because of his failure to avert the use of force." (Steven Erlanger, "U.S. Decision to Act Fast, and Then Search for Support, Angers Some Allies," New York Times, Dec. 17, 1998, p. A14.)]



Nov. 8, 2002 -- Threatened with "serious consequences" if he does not disarm in U.N. Security Council resolution.



Nov. 27, 2002 -- Allows U.N. experts to begin work in Iraq for first time since 1998.



Dec. 7, 2002 -- Delivers to United Nations declaration denying Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; later, United States says declaration is untruthful and United Nations says it is incomplete.



March 1, 2003 -- United Arab Emirates, at an Arab League summit, becomes first Arab nation to propose publicly that Saddam step down.



March 7 -- United States, Britain and Spain propose ordering Saddam to give up banned weapons by March 17 or face war; other nations led by France on polarized U.N. Security Council oppose any new resolution that would authorize military action.



March 17 -- United States, Britain and Spain declare time for diplomacy over, withdraw proposed resolution. President Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq.



[Actually, U.S. officials made clear that U.S. troops would enter Iraq whether or not Saddam and his sons left the country. (Michael R. Gordon, "Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out," New York Times, March 18, 2003, p. A16.)]



March 18 -- Iraq's leadership rejects Bush's ultimatum.



["On the eve of war, Iraq publicly offered unlimited access for American and British weapons hunters." (David Rennie, "Saddam 'offered Bush a huge oil deal to avert war'," Daily Telegraph [London], Nov. 7, 2003, p. 17) And privately Iraq went well beyond this. In several back-channel contacts with U.S. officials, Iraq offered the U.S. "direct U.S. involvement on the ground in disarming Iraq," oil concessions, the turn-over of a wanted terrorist, cooperation on the Israeli-Palestinian peace-process, and even internationally-supervised elections within two years. (James Risen, "Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War," New York Times, Nov. 6, 2003, p. A1) One doesn't know where these offers may have led, since they were rejected by the U.S.: "A US intelligence source insisted that the decision not to negotiate came from the White House, which was demanding complete surrender. According to an Arab source, [a U.S. intermediary] sent a Saudi official a set of requirements he believed Iraq would have to fulfill. Those demands included Saddam's abdication and departure, first to a US military base for interrogation and then into supervised exile, a surrender of Iraqi troops, and the admission that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (Julian Borger, Brian Whitaker, and Vikram Dodd "Saddam's desperate offers to stave off war," Guardian, Nov. 7, 2003, p. 3.)]



March 20 -- U.S. forces open war with military strike on Dora Farms, a target south of Baghdad where Saddam and his sons are said to be. Saddam appears on Iraqi television later in the day.



April 4 -- Iraqi television shows video of Saddam walking a Baghdad street.



April 7 -- U.S. warplanes bomb a section of the Mansour district in Baghdad where Saddam and his sons were said to be meeting.



April 9 -- Jubilant crowds greet U.S. troops in Baghdad, go on looting rampages, topple 40-foot statue of Saddam.



July 22 -- Saddam's sons, Qusai and Odai, killed in gunbattle with U.S. troops. American forces then raid the northern city of Mosul and later say they missed Saddam "by a matter of hours."



July 27 -- U.S. troops raid three farms in Tikrit. Again, officials later say they missed Saddam by 24 hours.



July 31 -- Two of Saddam's daughters, Raghad and Rana, and their nine children are given asylum by Jordan's King Abdullah II.



[That they would need asylum follows from the U.S. policy of detaining family members of those they are seeking, in violation of elementary standards of justice. ("The arrest of close relatives of fugitive regime members has been used by US forces in the past both as a way to gather intelligence - through interrogation - and to put emotional pressure on the hunted men to surrender." Colin Nickerson, "US Troops Detain Wife, Daughter Of Key Hussein Aide Ex-Deputy Suspected Of Plotting Attacks In Iraqi Insurgency," Boston Globe, Nov. 27, 2003, p. A40.)]



Sept. 5 -- Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno of the 4th Infantry Division says his troops have captured several of Saddam's former bodyguards in the Tikrit area in the past month and may be closing in on the deposed Iraqi dictator.



Nov. 16 -- The last of nine tapes attributed to Saddam Hussein since he was removed from power is released. It tells Iraqis to step up their resistance to the U.S.-led occupation, saying the United States and its allies misjudged the difficulty of occupying Iraq.



[It didn't take a genius to note that "the United States and its allies misjudged the difficulty of occupying Iraq."]



Dec. 13 -- Saddam is captured at 8:30 p.m. in the town of Adwar, 10 miles south of Tikrit. He is hiding in a specially prepared "spider hole."

[Volcano Admim]

american public = tools

america is the greatest nation
of tools

[Black Jack]

Valcano you are the living testament to the fact that human beings can actually breed with rubber *****es.