Congressman says capture may have been staged to help Bush!!

CBS Radio is reporting that Congressman McDermott (D-Wash)
has told them that he believes that the capture may have
been a setup like Jessica Lynch. He feels Saddam may have
been held for awhile waiting for the right moment for Bush's benefit.

and if he forces the truth about that, that would be amazing. I think they did it to get the Halliburton looting off the front pages.

'Tis just a matter of time. Just like that idiot Rush Limbaugh is doing DU a big big deed, junior will be doing a big big deed to help bring his own down fall.

Will we hear more lies now from this administration? Ck. it out!

http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html

He has been testifying against his own genocidal dictator. He won that war and caught that guy.

What an interesting confluence of events.

McDermott in Hot Water for Saddam Quip

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press Writer

December 15, 2003, 9:07 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who earned headlines across the globe last year for criticizing President Bush while in Baghdad, is enmeshed in a new controversy over remarks he made about the capture of Saddam Hussein.

In an interview Monday with a Seattle radio station, McDermott said the U.S. military could have found the former Iraqi dictator "a long time ago if they wanted."

Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said, "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

McDermott went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

snip

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-saddam-mcdermott,0,2235697,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

How is it that Saddam was jammed in a hole he couldn't get out of even if he wanted to?

And of course, it certainly was another "lucky trfecta" (about the 20th since Bunnypants* seized power)at just the right time to deflect a troublesome war profiteering scandal off the front pqages.

It is to laugh at just how untrustowrthy and Soviet the nation has become since undergoing an Attempted Coup, a Bloodless Coup, a LIHOP, a "mysterious" anthrax attack on Democrats and the newspaper that printed the pictures of drunken Imperial Daughters, the sequential murder of two Democratic Senatorial candidates in hotly ocntested Bushveik-trending "battleground states"...

Go figure, eh?

Hole=cave=ToraBora=AlQaeda ergo
Saddam = Osama.

I haven't been watching the stinking news or been going to any news sites lately because I don't want to see that piece of shit squatter BULLshyt on my tv or computer.

So did Sadaam have MX missiles in that hole in the ground or what?

What does the asshole war criminal BULLshyt have to say about the so-called WMD's?

overcharges may have been because of an "antiquated" accounting system. He goes on to say that "From the Department of Defense, they have my sympathies because I've got a rather antiquated accounting system and they are moving very expeditiously to rectify this."

Well, knock me over with a feather, it looks like the Pentagon is going to find nothing here. I bet Arther Anderson was their accountant and remember Cheney was on record praising them for their creativity.

Fuzzy math is a Republican creed.

Borrow from your great-great-grandchildren to pay for your whooping it up in the present. Genius has nothing on these folks :crazy:

next thing they're gonna pull bin Laden out of a hat, or maybe that's what they found when they did the surgery on Powell?

nothing up his sleeve presto!

As soon as I turned on the news, I said "oh guess that Haliburton story was getting too hot".

Well not that Bush liked McDermott to begin with
but he certainly won't like him now!

McDermott again in hot water over Saddam comments

<snip>

Democrat Jim McDermott told a Seattle radio station (K-I-R-O) today that the military could have found Saddam "a long time ago" if it wanted.

McDermott said he didn't know for sure if the operation had been planned for this past weekend -- but he says he does know there were people "all along who knew basically" where Saddam was.

When asked if he thought the capture was timed out to help Bush, McDermott laughed and said -- quote -- "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

<snip>

State Republicans immediately condemned McDermott's remarks, and Democrats are distancing themselves.

McDermott gained notoriety last year while in Baghdad for saying Bush would mislead the American people -- but that Saddam could be trusted.

<snip>

http://home.abc28.com/Global/story.asp?S=1565722

On December 2, he said he knew something...

behold:

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/120203/new_20031202014.shtml

Tuesday, December 2, 2003
LaHood: Hussein's capture imminent

Pantagraph Staff

BLOOMINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood held his thumb and forefinger slightly apart and said, "We're this close" to catching Saddam Hussein.
Once that's accomplished, Iraqi resistance will fall apart, said the five-term Republican congressman from Peoria who serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

A member of The Pantagraph editorial board -- not really expecting an answer -- asked LaHood for more details, saying, "Do you know something we don't?"

"Yes I do," replied LaHood

on edit-

of course he's full of shit about the resistance falling apart I'm sure..

remember, they don't just lie, this bunch. They make up all kinds of little satellite lies to give "color" to the story from the press. Mission Accomplished, Lynch, Thanksgiving, 9/11, etc etc

They got Saddam, that is about the only fact I'm willing to trust in this entire story. The more detail they give you, the more bullshit it is. It's their m.o.

but they dare not go there....no media in this country anymore. And it costs us dearly.

Case and point is medicare reform...instead of educating the people..they choose to tell "who's winning/losing"...it's all about framing the debate.

Saddam within two months? Yes, something was definitely in the wind about Saddam and his location. Who's fooling who?

If you have one general who says, "We'll have him in two months" and a diplomat who says, "It's gonna take a long time" and a cabinet under-secretary who says, "We know his whereabouts within a certain area" and a senate committee staffer who says, "We are relying on local intelligence to determine his location" you've got ALL the bases covered.

In that case, it doesn't matter what happens, SOMEONE was right about it.

Those, I think, are the known unknowns Rummy was talking about, with his usual evil, warped, disgusting pseudo-brilliance.



Tansy Gold

The White House said it on Nov. 1.

"Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, still at large after he was ousted from power by US-led forces, is likely to be found and arrested soon, the White House said today ."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/01/1067597189911.html

It's like predicting an earthquake. If you keep on doing it, eventually you will be right.

caught next October.

.

That just cracked me up! Thanks!:kick:

GOP criticizes McDermott over Saddam comments

By MATTHEW DALY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


<snip>

Asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.

"It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

State Republicans immediately condemned McDermott's remarks, saying the Seattle Democrat again was engaging in "crazy talk" about the Iraq war.

"Once again McDermott has embarrassed this state with his irresponsible ranting," GOP state Chairman Chris Vance said in a news release. "Calling on him to apologize is useless, but I call on other Democrats to let the public know if they agree with McDermott."

<snip>

On Monday, criticism of McDermott was bipartisan.

<snip / Dem criticizing quote>

Asked again if he thought Bush timed the capture for political benefit, McDermott said, "All I know is people have got to be skeptical about what is happening here, because these (American) kids are still dying, and as long as that is happening we're in a world of hurt."

<snip>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Saddam%20McDermott

Good idea. This sounds a little cranky to me.

republicans were saying the same thing, before the capture

care to elaborate on why it sounds cranky?

For those that know McDermott, his backbone isn't shocking.
For those who don't know him, you're missing out.
He's the best.

representing me!

Edited to add: McDermott has so much spine he could be a donor.

As McDermott admits here.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=17&u=/ap/20031216/ap_on_go_co/saddam_mcdermott_3

to consider any speculation baseless.

This little five minute video would make anyone cranky, especially this administration.

http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html

Check it out freethought23!

It gives you an idea of how hard Bush & Co. pushed the WMD argument for war.

then creeps like the Bushco cabal would never have gotten to power in the first place. Think about that.

what? Aren't you one of us?

afraid for the sake of the world and what America is doing to it.

Consistently.
I love that man.

If it were only that easy (finding Hussein). McDermott is trivializing the hard work of our armed forces who have been scouring the desert in the hot sun and cold nights to find the dictatorial human rights violator.

had decent facilities to eat and sleep in and enough water to drink and bathe in dependably, which they don't thanks to the Halliburton fucks!

Actually, if we'd wanted Hussein badly, why did Bush* say several months ago that he was of little interest?

And if we'd really wanted him, Dan Rather could have killed him for us without any war at all!

The Bush* fucks have trivialized this war by making it a cash-in opportunity for all their buds!

I don't recall any mention of demanding he turn himself in...


the "hunt" for Saddam was not why we went in there

And you cannot site a time he has spoken against them. That spin will not fly with this man.

He put troops' minds back together when they returned from Vietnam. He is solid strong on armed services and veterans issues. And if you think bush is above staging political ops, you haven't been paying attention.

Jim took flack for saying bush would mislead us into war- he was right. If he's saying this now, it deserves plenty of weight. If he's learned something in committee or in the halls, you can depend on him not to keep the people in the dark.

you might want to read up a bit on McDermott's consistent support to the troops.
Most recent
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr031120.html
"When the Administration was asked why so many do not have life-saving Kevlar in their jackets, the response was that front-line troops got Kevlar and others did not, " McDermott explained. "This logic fails to acknowledge is that we are in a guerilla war in Iraq and every American there is on the front line."

It will be a Bush Administration FIRST

If I got caught stealing silverware 6 times while visiting your house, and after 7th visit, you find silverware missing, you would suspect me, no?

maybe it was somebody else this time, but chanches are it's not


face it, they lie to some degree about everything... that alone invites suspicion. It is 10000 times less likely that in this one exceptional case they told the 100% truth

McDermott needs to tell us just what the lie was and how he know it was a lie. Otherwise, there is just suspicion, not proof.

Like the WMD? Like Saddam's al Qaeda connection? Like the identity of the hijackers? (and OBL's complicity?) like the economic "recovery"?

shall I go on?

if you want to believe everything the Bushes tell you, be my guest

"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"

remember that? How many times does someone have to lie to you, before you get the hint??

Give me some facts about Saddam's capture that substantiate McDermott's claims.

And let's see if you can do it without saying something insulting, e.g., accusing me of 'believing everything the Bushes say.'

Think you can manage that?

Suspicion is enough to start a war and kill thousands of people. It's enough to suspend a US citizen's rights and hold them indefinitely. It is NOT enough to justify criticising our illustrious President. Until Jim has undeniable proof, he should just keep his mouth shut.

(I hope the \sarcasm tag isn't necessary here)

...esp given the DEBKA files (however unreliable debka is) and the fact that on Dec. 2nd, Rep LaHood said SH's capture was imminent...and that he knew something others didn't

edit: I posted both of these articles and this sentiment earlier today but it was pretty much not believed by other DUers - not that there's still any truth to it - but it does make one wonder...

Just to clear the record, LaHood actually made the comments on December 1st, and the article was published on December 2nd.

I know, I know, tiny detail, but I just want us all to be on the same page, so to speak. :)

:hi:
Caught hell for it in a few threads as I disseminated your LaHood comment all over the place because it gave additional creedence to Devka's analysis as I patiently tried to explain to some of our more conservative members why Devkas'a analysis made total sense and how you couldn't believe any of the swill coming from the White House. Thank you Triana for not letting yourself be swayed by the nay-sayers or those who would tell us "Mission accomplished, it all went well, let's celebrate".

Thank Goodness for people like you with open minds!

Peace

...when two stories corroborate, (even if one is from an unreliable souce) and it involves Bu$h and lies, it oughtta be questioned, I think. It's just astounding how when I posted about this earlier people were lukewarm to the possibility that once again 'Bu$h knew'. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But with Bu$h, it can also be a - pretzel! HA!

;)

Love you for it! Especially remembering that you were kindly reminded (by someone I have nothing against) that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. ;) You rock Triana!

My perception is that the guy's just another high-powered politician with a cushy job and little real concern for protecting the public, public education or democracy. It's relatively safe for him to say these kinds of things, because he has a very liberal constituency. In fact, saying these sorts of things gives McDermott a sort of celebrity status, which I think he enjoys.

Nevertheless, he deserves credit for speaking the truth about Iraq, and this latest statement may be his best yet. If I was a public official, I would rally behind McDermott.

In fact, I might start liking McDermott one of these days. After all, I don't think he's related to Rep. Joe McDermott, who's a pig.

Fearless.

I can understand why some Dems are distancing themselves from these comments. I suspect he's right but if he can't back it up he will be crucified. As will anyone who sides with him. We need evidence.

with people speculating about Bush's actions. Give all the dirty tricks that bastard has pulled, it would be ludicrous to NOT suspect foul play. Moreover, merely asking the question plants a doubt in the public's mind.

This is precisely the tactic all the Democrats should be using. NEVER give George W. Bush a free ride.

I don't care if he can't back it up. Most everything the repugs say can't be backed up, much less believed. I say fight fire with fire.
They'll crucify us anyway, so what do have to lose? Get the idea out there. Let it sit in the back of everybody's brain. Keep hammering this stuff home.

Truly I do. I don't think any of us have a thing to lose anymore. Dems have been reluctant to give them ammunition; I have come to realize they don't NEED any.

I'm glad he had the guts to say what he really thought. Now, lets get him some hard facts to back it up with. He's relying on us to get his back so let's do it.

e.g. doing a DNA match takes about 7 days, given current technology. So how did they match Saddam's DNA so fast? Either they're lying about the match, or they had him for at least 7 days.

Then there's the multiple, conflicting versions of his "capture"... The Bu$h gang have such contempt for our intelligence that they don't even bother to get their story straight before they start peddling it.

Q: How do you know the Bush gang are lying? A: Their lips are moving.

there is something up with those photos - they are not taken within the timeframe we are led to believe they were taken.


Mark my words, this will become another 'Mission Accomplished' banner - totally unusable during the campaign... then they will have to march out OBL.

BTW, I noticed today that Baker has begun making the rounds - isn't that another 'happy coincidence'? With Saddam in cuffs, France and Germany will look pitiful and greedy to not forgive debt - won't they?

Tut-tut

edit: to add photos

Noone can grow a beard that fast. I have no idea how long it takes, and reminded him that it's almost been a year. He stands by his claim that beards don't grow that fast.

When was the last time we saw SH w/o beard?

Q: How do we Know Saddam HAD wmd?

A: We kept the receipts.

"New York City's DNA lab has done such speedy tests for very rare high-priority cases, said Robert Shaler, director of the department of forensic biology in the office of the city's chief medical examiner.

"'If you have a single sample and you stop everything else you're doing, you can get it done,' he said. That would occur, for example, if police have arrested a suspect and can hold him only temporarily unless DNA matches him to a serious crime, he said.

"'I'm not surprised' by reports that Saddam had been identified through DNA less than 24 hours after his capture, Shaler said Sunday."

After all, they dragged us into this war in the first place using fraudulent evidence...

I believe! It's just all too convenient.

I believe it. But I think he should reveal some kind of evidence, simply because otherwise it's too easy for the right-wing media to rip him to shreds, as is bound to happen.

Not that they'd be interested in listening to any evidence anyway.

...it's just too convienient, plus the circumstances and Saddam's condition. And it's been demonstrated time and again that this administration believes manufactured "events" make for good photo ops. My guess is that Chalabi or some other tool was given custody of Saddam for a "softening up" period, to have a capture staged at a later, convienient time. The conditions are quite consistent with psychological "pressure" (torture), and the actions and statements prior to the capture lend the theory more weight.

We're not made any safer by his "capture".

If this is the deal, bet those bastards are cracking up over that line (ace in the hole).

Timing:

quagmire and death
dollar nearing some crazy freefall
Dean and Gore
Clark and Milosevic
campaign finance and the Supremes
Cheney amd Supremes on horizon
Haliburton overcharge
Poppa sends Baker
Wolfy acking like free agent
Colin with cancer
Congress headed out
end of the third year

and on and on (didn't even mention the fake turkey). Not hard to imagine why they thought the timing was right to play that card. I'm sold.

One of my Pet Theories is that the Regime never announces a triumph without it being done to direct attention AWAY from something(s) that look less than great for them. You've just boiled down what we're not supposed to be noticing-- now that "We got him."

Nicely done!

:toast:
dbt

:beer:

I think one can make a strong argument that we were at the low point of the admin (at least in the media, and in their own eyes--whole thing has been a low point) before Saddam. And at a clear milestone of the end of 3rd year. I left much off my first list, like the dead Afghan kids, China trade imbalance, jobs, reversal on steel, sneak Patriot 2, and, in general, the dem candidates dominating political news.

For sure it's not as simple as just wanting to distract from any one thing like Halliburton.

I agree maybe Saddam alive was not the plan. But don't think it would have been realistic to hold him for months, whomever had him, until we were deeper in the election cycle. No doubt they have other plans for a national distraction by then, such as Syria (sanctions started today).

to believe anything the bushies* tell us is true. Why should I believe this Saddam story. This administration is known for its secrecy, yet we are subjected to every detail about Saddam's capture, including pictures of the "hole". This administration is full of liars.

Why would they do this now?

Why not wait til after the New Year when everyone is going to be focusing more on the primaries.

Why not wait til after us Dems get a nominee. If they think we are going nominate Dean, seems to me like the prime time to stage this would be after the convention.

Of course they probably have something else staged for then, so who knows. I don't put anything past these bunch of jerks.

The short answer is: they had to.

The circumstances of the game suddenly became desperate enough to force them into early deployment of their high card. Snazzy has a nice, pocket-size list of reasons for this behavior just a couple of posts back.

Wooooops! What to do next? Got enough troops to go "get" Osama, Georgie? Or ain't there enough profit in Afghanistan?


:evilgrin:
dbt

much was coming out. Also, with the "courts" set up in Iraq and Shrubs statement about letting the Iraqis try him, this will keep the focus on what an evil guy SH was, exactly what is needed to draw attention away from all the lies they used to go to war.

This may seem way out there, but think about this....

Reverse the before and after pictures. There is something fishy about those pictures, certainly were not taken with the same camera, look at the difference in resolutions, not to mention all the other differences noted here on DU.

The video of SH, it was like someone just coming around after a drunken stooper or long drug trip. He was feeling his beard as if to be saying to himself "where the hell did this come from".

I'd say we had him for a while. We had him drugged and running around the country with special ops under cover. Safely within our custody and under our watchful eye, only SH didn't know it.

Ya, ya I know, I watch too many movies.

I have no doubt that these crooks have a near endless supply of these "triumphs" to feed to the press as the politically ailing monkey king, and this country, continue their downward spiral.

just the right time. And that may be around October 20th of 04 - When junior can shut down the county and the dem candidate for five days of mourning. Only junior will have access to the air waves.

Why would they do this now?

Why now? Well, the press corps will be on Christmas break next week. So, the whole country can be abuzz with the news for a week. And then the puppy press can go home before anybody asks any questions. After that, should anything suspicious come out, the sheeple will be too busy shopping and partying to pay any attention, if the story even gets out at all.

And, I found the day of the week and the time to be most interesting. Early Sunday morning, so that the fundies can all go to church to praise Jesus for their great leader. :puke:

<snip from the same article>
McDermott, in a Monday telephone interview with The Associated Press, called the timing of Saddam's capture suspicious, but said he did not mean it had been intentionally delayed.

"Everything was going wrong, and they got a real Christmas gift, if you will, in that the troops did a magnificent job and found" Saddam, McDermott said.

Asked again if he thought Bush timed the capture for political benefit, McDermott said, "All I know is people have got to be skeptical about what is happening here, because these (American) kids are still dying, and as long as that is happening we're in a world of hurt."

His earlier statements referred to the 12-hour gap between the time Bush learned of the successful raid and the announcement by the military the following day, McDermott said. The delay kept the news about Saddam out of the Sunday papers.

"It sounded like he knew about it on Saturday, but didn't release it until Sunday. That had, apparently, to do with news cycles. That's all I was talking about," he said.

</snip>

McDermott is my Congressman and I think he's great. I think it's obvious that the news cycle was manipulated. Does anyone really doubt that?
But his earlier words are probably true...the Bushies needed some good news right now. And they are in the position to manufacture it on demand. This is not the time to suspend disbelief. This is the time to embrace disbelief, for our sanity and for our democracy.

This is not a movie, but it's being directed as if it were. I for one do not want a ticket to this travesty. I'm saying "no thanks," along with McDermott.

s_m

that's what the Republicons will paint thas as. Another "traitor" and "whacko" that is out of touch with the "American people". I personally think he's correct in his assumption, but proving it to the American people is almost impossible. He'll be targeted as a traitor and dragged through the right wing talk show circuit as such. He's in for a lot of heat on this.

McDermott relishes these confrontations. He knows he is right and will be proved right, as he has in the past.

The emperor has no clothes, and McD knows it, and says it.

His critics last year who excoriated him for saying that Bush would deceive the American public in order to wage war in Iraq looked pretty stupid in retrospect.

McD is just fine.

s_m

....in U.S. history. Anything is possible from these slugs!!

Haven't heard diddly about that this week.....

If Saddam is being held at the airport, perhaps Bush* got a chance to see his "prize". Then old Rummy took an unplanned visit there not even a couple of days later. It all seemed a little suspicious at the time, but now it makes perfect sense.

:wow:






(It makes sense to me too)

I love it here. Every time I come here it is confirmed that this is the sanest analysis of the GOP spin on the net. This may not be the best thread to say that necessarily, but I wouldn't put it past that weak-minded buffoon in the White House to orchestrate a gloating session over his arch-nemesis!

There were 600 GIs involved in the capture. Numerous interrogators. The whole world press corp asking questions.

GIs talk. Staff talk. Reporters love scandals (at least those from outside the US).

And what did those GIs do? They most probably followed a map to a given coordinate where they uncovered the captive "prize". This is an extremely orchestrable scenario.

Georgie was going to "smoke them out of their holes".

When I ran across that quote today, I couldn't help but laugh.

George isn't just "president", he's Miss Cleo in drag!

...under 24 hour surveilance for quite some time. Possibly months. His hinding place sure did have that "lived-in" look. My guess is that Saddam settled there long ago and hasn't moved sinced then. Coalition forces, under the orders of the WH, we're told to watch him 24/7, and then capture him only:

A) When the White House thought it politically expedient to do so (to knock anything embarassing off the front pages - like the Halliburton scandal) and...
B) When the ground forces could be certain he could be taken alive, so thy could parade him around and humiliate him in front of the whole world.

I'd be willing to bet that they decided to go in and grab Saddam when he was sound asleep. They gassed the hole and pulled him out, jammies and all...

This adminstration has played every fucking angle of this war FOR POLITICAL GAIN! The Lynch "rescue," the carrier landing (how much did THAT photo op cost the taxpayers???), Shrub's two-day trip to Iraq (in which he spent 2 1/2 hours actually IN Baghdad)... Why would this be any different?

but the public bought it then, too.

Or these people just have the best damn luck in the world. Every time things look like they are in the toilet for Bush, something happens to divert attention. 9/11 diverted attention from Bush's ineptitude and knocked Enron and related scandals off the front page and suddenly criticizing Bushco was verboten. I am NOT saying he had anything to do with 9/11 but it does make me wonder just a little.

For the Republicans who are criticizing McDermott- When Clinton lobbed those missiles at the purported factories after the embassy bombings, the Rethugs were saying he was doing it to boost ratings. Now we are not allowed to say the same thing about Bush?? Wait.. these are Republicans- they are the very image of hypocrisy.

...we are told to believe that saddam and his regime had multiple sophisticated underground facilities to store massive amonts of WMDs and bio-labs housing chemical and bio weapons labs and hundreds of underground bunkers and which were built to house and hide saddam and his men...remember these fairy tales told to us right after 911 and during the buitd-up to the war???....what happen to these fabricated facilites???......funny that we found him in a primative rat hole :shrug:

this is gonna backfire on bush and provide further prove of his lies to the american people and the the world :puke:

Like he was yesterday at the press conference, then you know he's telling a LIE!

If U.S. officials insist on retaining control over
Hussein’s case, what are they going to charge
him with — “misleading President Bush into
mistakenly believing that he still possessed
the weapons of mass destruction that the
president’s father gave him”?

As U.S. officials begin to reflect upon the legal
quandary that Hussein’s capture has put them
in, they will undoubtedly come to rue the day that
U.S. soldiers treated his capture differently than
the way they treated the capture of his two sons.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0312f.asp

Reason (According to David EnsorCNN),
because we tortured them to get the
information!

We're in RedQueen territory here.

an end to the Halliburton mess that was beginning to build steam. I wouldn't put anything past our regime, everything they say is a lie and their media minions gladly parrot without question. I am SO sick of all this.

7 reasons
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=743

if I were them(the MisLeader,etc), I would stop
declaring victory periodically and instead wait
until they find out just who in fuck keeps moving
the finish line.
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2003_1214_1220.html#121403

Whatever is done with Hussein will be a case of
victors’ justice. The Iraqi Governing Council and
the new tribunal are both creations of Washington
and have no legitimacy. The US occupation authority
has no basis under international law to carry out any
trial of former Iraqi officials.

In any case, if war crimes charges are to be brought
in relation to Iraq, the most serious one of all would
be leveled against the Bush administration itself for
plotting and prosecuting an unprovoked war of aggression.
wsws

The news cycle was set up to show how the US was "teaching democracy" to Iraqi's in Hilla. There were a number of little teaser pieces about it. How the Iraqi's were having a hard time understanding this difficult concept. The Iraqi's apparently either didn't need much teaching or they were quick studies because instead of that happening there was a mass uprising that unseated the US appointed governor and mass protests calling for "Free elections now!".

Instead of that you get Saddam 24/7 and I haven't heard a damn thing about the US losing control of a major area to democracy supporters unless that report I heard on NPR about the US gunning down "demonstrating Saddam supporters" was them.

If it wasn't a fix Bush is the luckiest bastard on the planet.

W/ pop. of 250K, these places aren't hamlets.
Iraqi police have to wear baklavas to hide under.

And you can't police a town w/ tanks, bradleys,
and strykers.
Eventually the soldiers have to get out.

Baker's appointed Sec of Everything last week
Wolfiwitz posts that France&Others
can't have Contracts
Condi looks really pissed at Bush'sHalliburton
Overcharge/ FranceOthersForgive Debts
Cabinet meeting.
Saddam Captured
France says we'll reduce debts.

Someone's getting Blackmailed/ArmTwisted/
Hung out to Dry.

www.buzzflash.com Good article from debkafiles that says Saddam was held captive since Approximately Nov 16th when he released his last audio tape. It is a must read. Also a caller this morning on c-span said a military wife of a soldier in Iraq was told last week that something big was going to go down over the weekend. If a military wife knew what was going on why didnt the administration? HMMMM

Since he lied, or to be socially gracious, so incompetantly led us into war, EVERTHING he does after should be questioned and doubted.

The worst- by far the worst- damage done by dems who voted for ANY admin policy was to feed the MYTH about his "leadership" qualities. *That* is what the election will be about.

In fact, this is my gut feeling. The more I see, the more I believe it.

He's been crawling in an out of a hole in his hometown for the past eight months? I didn't believe that for a second. And with support for the war sinking, Dean's legitimacy rising, and Halliburton overcharging, this was indeed "the right moment for Bush's benefit." Nobody likes and I-told-you-so, but I TOLD you Bush still had an opportunity to screw this up!


rocknation

he is taking a lot of abuse from other, either scared or stupid, democrats.

Get behind him if you want, but he's is marginalizing himself.
I'm all for standing up for what you believe (and this party does NOT do that enough), but a lot of us think this is wacko stuff.

have been here very long, Ben.

Over the many years I have been on these boards I have found that DU is consistantly ahead of the news curve by months on most of the big stories.

ESPECIALLY the ones that appear to be "wacko" stuff.

Stick around and you'll have your hair curled by some of the stuff that is reported here and then found to be true later.

I have no doubt that Saddams "capture" will turn out to be as manufactured as Jessica Lynch's.

goddamn thing they do is staged/fabricated/gussied up/timed lying horseshit to impress the moron set. Ol Ben Franklin needs a clue.

and address his core audience. Timed so that people could here the news when they woke up on Sunday, still have time to go to Church if they do so, and get back to here Chimp the Military Hero. Made sure to interrupt the NFL pregrame shows, witch have a large audience, but not to piss people off too much by interrupting the games. A morning orgy of nationalist gloating, capped off by some good old American corporate entertainment.

I didn't watch much television Sunday, but enough to see the endless loop of Saddam being probed. It's amazing that the networks didn't play it side by side with the World Trade Center collapsing over and over.

Most disgusting thing I saw last night was ABC's reporter cheerfully crawling down Saddam's hole. What are they going to do next, sniff his dirty underwear on air and let us know what it smells like?

All Americans should feel so proud today. We are such an advanced society, not like those dirty Arabs.

...just like his li'l Thanksgiving Day surprise. They announced his visit just before the start of the early NFL game (as no less than a "breaking news" story on Faux btw) for maximum media coverage on Thanksgiving as well. All stagecraft, no statecraft.

If this fortuitous Saddam discovery was staged, I'm willing to bet Emperor Punchy has no idea. Seems like they're playing junior as much as they're playing us. They give him his lines and he recites whatever he can remember.

and in an unrelated thought, this is what trips us up by making Bush the object of our fury. He's a puppet. It is obvious he hasn't the faculties to play the insidious tradecraft thats going on.

The only sincerity he manages is by his ignorance of most of the manipulations.

:yourock:

But that period of time was only a few days.

Will be funny if they find WMDs and Osama in a timely fasion before election day as well, eh?

What McDermott is really saying is that, when the bull gets this thick, who knows what to believe. Who would have guessed that the leader of this country, entrusted with the lives of the kids called upon to defend it, would send them out to kill and die knowing the reasons he was evoking were seriously in doubt. You don't let people die for a lie.

This capture was not supposed to go down this way. Bu$hCo wanted Saddam but they wanted a dead Saddam, not a walking, talking, living Saddam.

The Iraqis who turned Saddam over to the US double crossed us. Saddam was supposed to be killed either by the grenade that the soldier was getting ready to throw down in his hidey hole or in the firefight that the US assumed would occur when Saddam tried to defend himself.

First of all, this was a very large operation, with 600 troops plus a fair number of Iraqis and Kurds along for the ride. I truly believe that the soldier with the grenade had every intention of killing Saddam but no one ever expected Saddam to pop out and surrender peacefully. Once Saddam popped out and gave himself up in front of a large audience, we (the US) were stuck with him. That is why the US delayed the news for as long as they could. Keep in mind, the news of Saddam's capture came out of Iran, not the Pentagon. On Sunday AM, FAUX had no clue what was going on, which to me indicts that the US was still trying to keep the situation under wraps until they could figure out what to do about this new 'problem'. Once the news starting coming out of Iran, the cat was out to the bad and the Pentagon had to make the best of it.

Another indication that this capture had not gone according to the plan was how ill prepared W was for this turn of events. Despite the fact that he knew on Saturday, he still had to cancel church on Sunday and wasn't ready until after noon to make his announcement where he looked like he was in shock or very hung over. Then on Monday, at his press conference his performance was one of the worst ever. W was not a victorious fighter cock who had just won a major victory. He was a confused and tired mumble mouth who didn't know what to say.

So even if it is true that Saddam had been captured weeks ago, he was captured by his own people who held him for the right moment. Then they got the US to launch a huge operation to go after him and at the crucial moment switched the game plan and set us up so that we would be in a situation where we couldn't get away with killing him. Then they made sure word got out to Iran as quickly as possible, thereby saving Saddam's life in the process and sticking Georgie Boy with a big albatrose around his neck. There are probably a few Iraqis and Kurds laughing their butts off right now.

Yes, the timing helped knock a few events off the front page for a few days. However, with the scandal a day misadministration in charge there is always major news that they want to make go away. I think under the circumstances Rove is very busy trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear now that they are stuck with Saddam.

I doubt Bushco wanted to deal with an alive Saddam Hussein. Sure seems fishy, the whole thing, but your theory is pretty interesting.

I'm sure they don't want him tried at the world court, could lead to embarassing revelations about U.S. and chemical weapons, etc.

of a quickie trial in Baghdad run by the Iraqis, excuse me the Americans in control of the Iraqis, and then a very public execution. Fortunately, the UN, the Red Cross and a bunch of others might raise holy hell if we try that but we'll see. W has already gotten away with much worse already.

Somehow they will manage to have him "commit suicide" or maybe he will have a convenient heart attack.

not because SH would fight his way out but because BushCo did not want him alive. What do they gain by having SH around?

Also, now that you mention it is strange that SH would effectively trap himself in hole. I mean with all that cash and connections if he was still actually on the run he wouldn't hide in a hole. It does seem like someone already captured him then set up the photo op for the US military.

With this admin. nothing can be taken a face value.

The grand conspiracy theories are fun for Oliver Stone flicks.. but they enable the republicans to paint the democrats as fringe tin hat wearing paranoid schizo's...certainly incapable of running a country.. and the moderates will scramble away like road side deer.

If he was waiting, why not wait until a few months before the election? Theres a year to go.. and this will be a memory.

I wouldnt be suprised if Prez Bush helps push this theory just to help make the dem candidates look bad.

Lets focus on the real issues and not off the wall black helicopter type conspiracys.

consiracy theory this, tin foil hat that, urban legend this, playing politics that.

Yeah, it's all just broad coincidence. And please, don't pretend to speak for us, or give us advice when all you are saying seems to be exactly what the Repube mouthpieces are saying. We should take your advice? Whatthefuckever.

Yeah thats it, They captured sadam months ago, sealed him in a hole and were waiting for "just the right moment"... which actually wasnt just the right moment, better would have been later. I think you give the repb competence in these matters way to much credit. But if you think Bush has such overwhelming control over such matters.. when he cant even serve a turkey or rescue a POW without error.. well I guess thats on you.

don't say I said things that I didn't say. This and everything else is positioned for effectiveness. Whether it be that Saddam was held for days, weeks, months or whatever doesn't matter. They mold everything.

And in case you didn't notice, most of dipshit America does think he is a hero for serving a turkey in Iraq on Thanksgiving. They don't even know that it was a prop. Did the Norman Rockwell turkey photo-op work, you're goddamn right it did. So you're wrong about that. Did the Jessica Lynch story do what they intended, help the moron set rally around an illegal war? Yep, sure enough. Most of the nose-pickers don't have any idea that there are questions about the rescue. So you're wrong about that too.

Wake up pal, these lies and innuendos and props and rah-rah aren't aimed a us, or should I say most of us. They are designed for the idiots and they work.

It is a good thing when at least someone in Congress calls them on their bullshit.

I'm sure that Bush is getting political benefit from the capture.. i'm not sure how long that will last. I'm also sure the clips of the capture that were released were the ones for maximum effect. The issue I am addressing is the "we've had sadam on ice" conspiracy's and then choose to release that info yesterday... as if the Military secreted him away and hid him in a hole for months - which is a laughable theory.

I am positive bush will play this up for maximum benefit.. if thats all you are saying, we are in agreement. They are definately "rah rah" opportunities... and yep, you are right, they will work.

And from a very predictable source. See also: Leftward, Frodo, et al....the "don't criticise or we'll look bad" faction of this board.

Once they had him in safe-keeping such as rat hole where he couldn't get out unless someone let him out then they could keep him on ice till the appropriate time.

Prolly some ops team found him long time ago and kept him in that hole except to feed/potty him. Once the time was right the put him in the hole then left while the word was given to the troops as to where to find him. Might convenient that the one supposedly Iraqi (Israeli?) nodded to the soldiers as to where to find him.

That probably explains why he was not coherent, etc. They probably kept him drugged. Too bad they didn't do a piss test to see what drugs were in his system!

fake reason to go to war...
fake mob to topple the statue of Saddam...
fake landing on an aircraft carrier...
fake turkey to serve the troops...
fake sighting by British pilot...



and we should believe every word we are being fed about the capture because?????

http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=217

<snip>
Comments of Ron Paul, Congressman for Texas on HR 2417 :

It appears we are witnessing a stealth enactment of the enormously unpopular "Patriot II" legislation that was first leaked several months ago. Perhaps the national outcry when a draft of the Patriot II act was leaked has led its supporters to enact it one piece at a time in secret. Whatever the case, this is outrageous and unacceptable. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill and its incredibly dangerous expansion of Federal police powers.
<snip>

<snip>
The changes were included in a bill authorizing 2004 intelligence programs. Most of the details of the bill are secret, including the total cost of the programs, which are estimated to be about $40 billion. That would be slightly more than Bush had requested.

Bush signed the bill Saturday, the White House announced.
<snip>

Well, well, well...interesting..QUITE!

at least the distraction wasn't anthrax this time.

places here on DU. Was difficult at the time to find much news or info on it. The main one I found was how it opened up privacy regarding all manners and types of accounts, safe deposit boxes, etc.

Thanks for posting this.

with McD. As them to start their stump speeches with this news and hammer home that the whole was was about joining with Israel to control the Middle East and its oil. Once the American people understand these facts they will abandon bush in droves.

Again, every Dem leader needs to hammer these facts home!

This is a classic Republican strategic move during the Clinton admin, but done by a Democrat for once.

He is putting ideas out there for people to think about. He is also making the Republicans go on the defensive.

Even if no other Democrats publicly agree with him, the idea is out there and people are going to wonder.

Hopefully he is in a safe district. :)

Here's his contact info:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newmemberbio.cgi?lang=&member=WA07&site=ctc&address=&city=&state=WA&zipcode=&plusfour=

The Honorable Jim McDermott
United States House of Representatives
1035 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4707
DC Phone: 202-225-3106
DC Fax: 202-225-6197
Email Address: http://www.house.gov/
mcdermott/contact2.html

I vote for him every time he's up for election. Just sent him a "thank you" fax.

or high buildings for a while.

,...but, wouldn't it be absolutely thrilling if we did!!! I wonder how shocked people would be if the truth was that the Saddam capture was as staged as all the other stuff generated by the Bush administration.

It sounds completely logical...for about 6 hours I was working under the suspision that this wasn't even really Sadaam...but I'm glad someone had spoken out about it. I have so man theories to try and prove it make my head spin.

McDermott has no credibility.

I'll discount anything he says... :eyes:


do you have anything to actually back this up with? Or is this a drive-by flame?

constitute drive-by tin foil hat hysteria. It is he who needs to provide some foundation for his positions.

let us know when you have a comparable history of working for this country like McDermott does.

of his service, then I believe his district can do better.

You dimiss his "blatherings" but have nothing to back it up?

your comments are not showing any factual roots, they almost appear to be "blatherings" themselves

on the part of a believer (i.e., you) would require that such factual evidence be sought from the source of the comment (i.e., McDermott). Don't you agree?

to a disbeliever? ie: you?

his comments are much more plausible than yours. All you have is "he's loony, discredited"

who discredited him?

I think you are really Osama. I'm a pink rabbit with a walkie-talkie

wow, this can be fun!! Just make it up and it's fact!!

a study of logic. Start with Aristotle, and derive the propositional calculus. In real life, for A to imply B, one must have a solid foundation for A.

I'm not convinced that Saddam was already in the pocket of the U.S., but I tend to be a person who is a little more stubborn, or willfully naive, whatever you want to call it vis a vis the Bush junta.

However, here is your logic formula:

A= the Jessica Lynch Story, which was covered by The Guardian, and a month later picked up by the BBC. Before the story was picked up by the BBC, people on this forum had already posted the Guardian story, stories from other news sites, and had many, many people on this forum who were telling them they were wacko fringe elements to even say that Lynch was a propaganda story for the Bush junta at a time when the war was stalled by logistics problems and people in the U.S. were questioning the planning behind the invasion. Nevertheless, the American media failed to do its job and merely served as a propaganda mouthpiece to make Lynch out to be a Rambo, and her saviors to be storming a hospital...which had tried to contact them to return Lynch before..

A= The Chavez coup in April 2002. Palast wrote to expect a coup attempt four months before it happened. This was covered on this forum. When the coup attempt happened, the NYTimes and every other so-called "liberal" media was spouting Ari's lines about this being "the will of the people" ---until the people surrounded the coup plotters in the prez palace and forced them out. The NYtimes then had to publish a retraction...which it buried, btw.

On this site, people knew about the events going down way before there was any acknowledgement in the American media...of course, there was also a poster here who was in Chile who wasn't in Exxon's pocket, so that made it easier to get some truth.

A= the lies which led to this illegal invasion. As a recent study showed, those who watch Fox news are the most poorly informed citizens of the this country...because they're watching the propaganda arm of the Bush junta, bascially. Tokyo Scarborough, you know... anyway, on this board, there were ample links to mainstream sources from this nation and around the world to dispute the Bush lies which led to the invasion of Iraq.

Now, even Bush admits there was no connection between Saddam and Al Q, and it has been shown that the uranium claims were lies, and there are no WMD--at least none which could match the tons which were reported by Powell and Cheney and Bush...and we've yet to find anything else, unless some botox in a refrige counts, in which case all the rich women in this country better start digging their hidey-holes.

Just from these three examples, you can imply some sort of "B" lie behind any Bush photo op moment.

And, yes, it is curious that the Pentagon has just reported that Halliburton is basically soaking the American taxpayer for billions, while creating filthy nasty conditions for our troops, and Bechtel's supposed "rebuilding of schools" turns out to mean a lot less than the "good news" Bush wanted the media to report.

So, before you dismiss everything people say about these subjects, maybe you should spend some time here. Let some time pass between the initial event and the eventual admission of what happened.

Maybe this event did happen exactly as claimed. However, since Bush has made it a trademark to stage nearly every moment of his public presence, and since Bush/Rove basically made sure this war was their ace in the hole for the mid-term elections, evidence be damned, then I don't think it's in any way unreasonable to question the "received wisdom" from the Bush junta.

Sorry, but I agree with Senator Lieberman that the invasion was legal and necessary. It could, quite possibly, have been avoided if the UN were either a bit more competent or a bit less anti-American.

I take it you don't like Bush either. Join the club. Take a number. There are lots of us out here. However, you do a disservice to our chances of unseating him by latching on to the gossamer-weight Roswell-like stories that you list in your post. Opposing Bush does not mean that you must believe all of the conspiracy theory stories.

Don't let your (just) dislike of Bush cloud your perspective by adopting all of the looney Internet political spam as Gospel truth. Focus on the message, find the right messenger, get it out. We're not doing that yet.

We'd better hurry. As things stand now, we're on course to have Bush in office until January 2009.

none of the stories I mentioned are "Roswell-like" stories. these are all real stories which have since been shown to have been misrepresented by the bush administration and were not properly investigated or reported by our media at the time.

you do not know what you are talking about, in other words.

sorry, but your post demonstrates that you have not been paying attention, so you do yourself no favors to call my list of ACTUAL events which are OUT THERE FOR YOU TO FIND OUT ABOUT "roswell stories."

And, yes, the invasion was illegal because it was a pre-emptive war, which, under the nuremberg conventions which we helped to write, would seem to me to be considered a war of aggression, to me and John Dean, and in fact, quite a few people before and after the invasion. Tommy Franks, in fact, was mentioned as someone who could be tried because of his actions.

And, maybe you aren't aware of the many, many people in this nation who ARE aware that Bush lied about the war. Whether they care enough or not may also have something to do with the way the freaking dem leadership fails to call him on this.

And frankly, I am sick of people who cry "conspiracy theory" whenever they hear about the total moral vacuum that lies at the heart of our govt at this time.

John Kerry was also called a "conspiracy theorist" when he investigated BCCI, which turned out to be the largest bank fraud in WORLD history, which has also subsequently been shown to have been a source for North and his gang of crooks to illegal and treasonously deal drugs and trade arms with Iran to pull a "Kissinger in Paris."

In addition, major players in BCCI include the brother-in-law of bin Laden, Khalid bin Mahfouz, who the UN listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, and who, btw, funded Bush with an 11% stake in Bush's failing Harken energy, and who, btw, was chummy with Ghaith Pharon, who used Bush buddy James Bath to try to buy a stake in a Houston airport in the 90s...

So, you know, maybe if the dems had had the balls to impeach Reagan and Bush Sr. for their crimes regarding Iran/Contra, and for Bush Sr.'s illegal arming of both Saddam and Iran, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. (btw, you can read all about this last bit from an award-winning reporter from The Financial Times of London...not exactly a left wing source, in his book "Spider's Web : The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq." (Bantam, 1993) Alan Friedman, the author, also did investigative work with Ted Koppel on this very issue.

Your illogical perspective will cause Democrats in the very near future to look back on '72, '84, and '88 as the "Good Old Days" when we at least got close in the presidential elections.

One last question: A memo has recently surfaced linking Mohammed Atta with Saddam. It has as much credibility (so far) as the McDermott story. Do you believe it, too?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and say that you are trying to use a very tired tactic, which is to deny the truth of things like the lies that got us into Iraq, the lies about Jessica Lynch, the lies about BCCI, not to mention all the cover ups, and to equate them with an illogical perspective when I said, all along,

that I didn't know if McDermott's statement was valid or not, but I had every reason to maintain more than a little skepticism about any actions the Bush administration takes.

Twice you fail to address any of the actual issues I raised about corruption and criminal activities which provide the logical reason to doubt anything that occurs relating to the Bush administration.

So I do not understand why you would ask the last question, since the Czechs have repeatedly denied that the meeting took place when Cheney continued to claim it happened, even after the evidence that it did not.

On the other hand, the issue of the lies about the Niger uranium claims were discounted by last March in an article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker...yet Cheney and Perle, ad nauseum, continued to insist those claims were true...yet another reason to maintain a wait and see attitude toward any claim by the Bushoviks.

If it's good enough for Robert Baer and Gore Vidal and Michael Moore, each an author who appeals to various segments of American society, to note the strange coziness between the Bush and the bin Laden families, and to wonder if that might in some way negatively effect Bush's ability to work in this nation's best interest, well, maybe you're the one who needs to take some time to educate yourself about this administration.

Maybe then you would not be so ready to believe anything they said.

How this has anything to do with democrats winning or losing is strange to me...so you're saying that dems can only win if they lie about Bush's record and actions and cover up for the propaganda and the criminal acts?

gee, now THAT sounds like a winning strategy.

I'm not saying that Bush timed the discovery of Saddam to take the heat off Halliburton and jr.'s sinking poll numbers...but I wouldn't put it past mr. mission (not) accomplished.

for the rational on this board to review and critique. I'll be working to prevent a '72 in '04. What about you? Don't allow your judgment to be clouded by your hatred.

you should know that Segretti and his student Rove dirty-tricked their way in Watergate to smear Muskie and McGovern, just like Rove is smearing Dean.

So you better fight Rove now. You must, therefore, fight his lies, smears and media manipulation. But of course, you don't believe he is capable of that. So you go along with smearing McDermott. Great job. Karl Rove must be proud of you. Mission Accomplished.

You are in the Democratic Underground. You cannot fool us.

You can't make a comment like "you cannot fool us" in the same post in which you cite other conspiracy theories without necessitating a black helicopter alert. McGovern lost because most of the country opposed his policies.

It'll happen again if we don't start articulating a message as opposed to making tiresome public demonstrations of disgruntled handwringing.

The truth of 'A implies B' is unrelated to the truth of A.

That's why I said that for A to imply B IN THE REAL WORLD (or words to that effect), A must have a more substantial factual grounding. If logic is to be used to model real world reasoning, then we must select only those rows of the truth table that make physical sense.

McDermott is choosing the wrong rows.

You shouldn't be trying to apply propositional logic. Instead, you should use probability theory.

In many past situations, there is a high liklihood that Bush staged events to help him politically. This increases the liklihood (in my opinion, though apparently not yours) that in this situation Bush staged the event to help him politically.

From what I've seen, Jim McDermott didn't state anything as fact but as his opinion. Given Bush's past behavior (or perceived behavior by many many people), Jim's opinion is reasonable and I happen to agree with it.

McDermott didn't nestle his comments snugly within a confidence interval. He was not using probability. He was relying on people to assume that his conclusions followed logically. Logic is, therefore, the operative model.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

than yours makes one a troll? Come now, we're more inclusive than that. We're not sheep, are we?

except ad hominem attacks with nothing of substance.

replying to a post by sayg nothing except that it's wrong, is trolling IMHO

do you have anything to contribute to this? Like, who/what/where this has been discredited, besides in your mind?

you cannot seriously believe that this Admin doesn't make everything a PR event. What hole have YOU lived in all this time?

wild speculation. If you buy McDermott's position, logically, then, you must also accept with unwavering gullability the proclamations of the Bush administration. They are equally unsupportable. It is incumbent upon McDermott to support his assertions. IMHO, he can't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

placing one's trust in an unsubstantiated claim. That's why I don't BELIEVE him. His claim is UNSUBSTANTIATED. I don't want to believe, I want to be logically persuaded by a cogent argument supported with facts.

McDermott has no facts. He wants people to believe.

That won't win national elections.

but you said earlier he has NO credibility. On anything? Please substantiate your own claims...or don't you hold yourself to the same high threshhold?

And if he has compelling evidence, then yes. I really don't know if he does or doesn't. Now, about those credibility issues...you were saying?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Neither one of us knows what evidence he has. IT may be compelling.

If there's no evidence, file it away, then recall it later. Banging the black helicopter drum serves to drive VOTERS away.

Clinton and Gore seemed to lose Republicans both houses and the preseidency. Right?

we need to make unfounded accusations against the present administration so they will lose? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Your original point was that McDermott had NO credibility. I challenged you to back that up. You didn't. This claim may or may not be true but if it is borne out, you have been the one to have jumped to conclusions, not me since I haven't.

You then changed the subject since youcould not demonstrate your original point...now you ask me to make a moral judgement when that was not the point of my post which is quite clear.

Now, about that credibility issue...care to address it or shall I just assume you have conceded the point since you seem unable to credibly address it without changing the terms of the debate?

each time he makes specious accusations such as this. The record is available to the public. I encourage you to consult a source.

Now, about jumping to conclusions: keep in mind that I am the one who is NOT jumping. I choose to not BELIEVE (as defined in a previous post...no need to repeat here) the accusation, but prefer to be PERSUADED by cogent, plausible, provable EVIDENCE. Those who BELIEVE his statement are the ones who are jumping to conclusions. I presume that you number among them.

Lining up like mice behind a piper like McDermott (or whomever extracts the next conspiracy story from the aether) will subject all Democrats to ridicule. It's already happening. We are sure to lose in '04 unless we start acting rationally, and quit wearing our hatred of the administration out on our sleeves.

prove your point, not me.

I presume that you number among them.
No. You ASSumed and incorrectly so. Earlier I implied I wouldn't judge until further facts were available; an option that is, likewise, available to you except that you CHOSE to immediately discredit.

As to the rest of your points, irrational fear of losing can also be quite dangerous as it leads to calculated unprincipled acts and Republicans are much better at calculated unprincipled acts than are Democrats.

are inconsistent with others that you have made in this subthread. Please review, then get back if you so choose.

I just reviewed my comments and find no inherent contradictions in this subthread. Perhaps you are reading your own comments.

Taxi?

Bye.

If so check out this five minute video. And then let me know what you think, okay?

http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html

Never trust anything hosted on Angelfire.

Number two, it's more of the same. Kind of in the vein of "the Clintons killed Vince Foster". Do you believe that, too?

Only the freeper believe the Clintons killed Vince Foster which is the joke of the day, 'eh Mr westman?

You misunderstood my comparison. I said, in effect, that the two were equally believable based on the paucity of facts. You don't believe the Foster claim, do you?

Nothing phoney or fixed about it. I don't believe you viewed it.

You don't believe Bush lied? You don't believe Cheney lied? You don't Powell lied? Those dead soldiers don't care anymore do they? It has all been based on Goerge Bush's lies, hasn't it?

You brought up that Foster issue, I didn't. Show me a link, if you believe the Clintons killed Foster. But the truth has nothing to do with the Foster case or the Clintons, does it?

And as far as Angel fire producing the video, it has nothing to do with the authenticity of it does it? Would you give credit if the freepers put it out?

I understand that you still have a few questions regarding my post. While I have not the time to address them all, let me at least tackle the Foster issue. OK?

Here goes!

As I pointed out earlier, I used the Foster comment as an expository device, although I didn't use those exact words. You see, the video to which you referred me was heavily edited and, coupled with the angelfire hosting location, suffered a severe diminution in credibility.

Now, no one seriously believes that the Clintons killed Foster. You don't, do you? Therefore, to call your attention to the lack of veracity of the video, I used the Foster issue as a comparison, a metaphor, if you will, or perhaps more accurately a semiotic construction. In so doing, I said that the video was at least as believable as the Foster comment.

Now, here comes the intended conclusion! Since NO ONE believes the Foster comment, we should not place such a premium on the professed accuracy of the video! See? It follows! All three (that is, the video, the Foster comment, and the McDermott comment) all suffer from the same lack of factual foundation.

QED, to misuse a fine Latin abbreviation.

If you still have questions, please check with another DU member. I'm not sure that I can present my intended meaning in terms any more clear than those contained herein.

Best regards!

"Westman" is fine. "Mr. Westman" is my father.

Where does he support McDermott?

1)The people who conduct those personal safety seminars always say trust your gut instincts or the hair rising on the back of the neck. These two things are supposedly good indications that you are probably in some kind of danger. I think the same should be said of the Bush Administration. If your gut gets in the least bit twingy, you are about to be manipulated, if you say to yourself "gee, that is convenient for the Bush Administration", they already have been actively manipulating the situation.
2)My sister has been saying since the beginning of this war that SH would be found at the precise moment that it was convenient for the Bush Administration. She now says that this capture--that is too early for the elections--means the BA was desperate to get our minds off the growing Haliburton scandal. They didn't expect to have to use him this early. Which means they are beginning to scrape the bottom of their 'dirty tricks' barrel.
3)I think we should start a pool to predict when SH will be shot for trying to escape. What is the time-frame for SH becoming to big of a threat to the BA?

McDermott's statements jibe perfectly with KNOWN lies and misrepresentations that the Bush admin has REPEATEDLY done.

your unquestioning acceptace of everything Bush says is suspect. If you were half as informed as you are argumentative, you would have an entirely different attitude

sorry, but you lack credibility. All you want to do is agree with Bush. your posts are wilder speculation than McDermott because in order to take your position, you must disregard everything the Bushies have done for 3 years

we are smarter than that, and no longer trust this admin


If someone steals your lunch everyday for 5 days in a row, and on the 6th day your lunch is missing, it's quite possible someone stole it. Using your illogic, the idea of having it stolen on the 6th day would be a tinfoil hat fantasy..

under Bush, it is not, by any means, unreasonable to suggest or to suspect that this whole "capture" of Saddam, has been manufactured.

It is perfectly within normal limits to assume that, indeed, it has been manufactured, in much the same way as the Lynch story was or the Mission Accomplished was, or the urban legend manufactured in the GBush sneaking away with Rice, dressed in golf caps as an "normal couple" and flying away to Bahdhad to spend Thanksgiving with the "troops" for two hours--meanwhile risking their lives--and such embellishmenst as that a pilot of a British airways recognized AF1--come on--nothing is beyond the cheapness of Bush and his propaganda ministry under Rove.

Who can believe anything that comes out of this White HOuse, or the Pentagon or any one bit of anything this criminal administration puts forth? They have no credibility, and you know what? They do not care if we know it. They get away with it even if we do know it.

Catch all the guys before they watch their games!!!

This was brought out because Gore supporting Dean was causing toooo
much momentum and unity before the primaries!!!

Something Bush and Rove would loathe!!!

A good honest man!

Found it interesting she is saying the same things as at some of the DU threads.

"The rumors have been endless ever since yesterday- and they all seem to be filtering in from Tikrit. Some of the rumors include people claiming that Saddam was actually caught a week ago, but the whole thing was kept quiet. Another rumor is that some sort of nerve gas was used in a limited sort of way on the area he was hiding in. Another rumor goes on about how he was 'drugged'- something was added to his food… Others say he's being interrogated in Qatar… and on and on."
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.identigene.com/SWIMX/products/paternity.asp



"All test results are delivered in an average of just 3-5 calendar days, and RUSH services of Next-Day and 2-Day are also available"


If Next Day delivery of the results is available, then
it seems the test can be completed in less than 24
hours.

I don't see any need in defending congress people. Informed citizens should find out for them self’s anyway. I don't think the Congressman is off base though, try this opp ed (surly this story has been posted in other places). I just posted this to give the original post a :kick:

http://www.opednews.com/kall1203_Saddam_capture_fraud.htm

Saddam Military Capture A Fraud? Israelis Suggest Saddam was Already a Prisoner of $25 Million Reward Seekers

If It Doesn't Work with Jessica Lynch, Try it With Saddam.

OpEdNews.Com

The Israeli news site, Debka file, often the first with inside Mideast news, reputed to have access to Mossad (Israeli version of CIA) info, says, in an article, that there are seven clues that suggest Saddam was already a prisoner when the US military took him.

The clues, or anomalies, as DEBKA file describes them, include--

-Saddam couldn't escape from the hole without help. He was effectively trapped inside.

-Saddam's hair hadn't seen a barber in weeks.

-his beard was untrimmed and un trimmed in weeks

-Saddam looked like a prisoner-- beaten, hungry, relieved to be captured

-he had three quarters of a million dollars in $100 dollar bills with him, to help prove it was him, since his captors expected to claim a vast amount more-- $25 million. it is highly likely that whoever captured Saddam held on to a lot more money than that. Surely Saddam was traveling with millions.

-He had NO communications equipment with him



But, DEBKA speculates, the US military jumped the gun and "took advantage of the negotiations with Saddam’s abductors to move in close and capture him on their own account."

They give three reasons for the US military grabbing Saddam before his imprisoners handed him over:

"A. His capture had become a matter of national pride for the Americans. No kudos would have been attached to his handover by a local gang of bounty-seekers or criminals. The country (Iraq) would have been swept anew with rumors that the big hero Saddam was again betrayed by the people he trusted, just as in the war."

This sure looks like the Jessica Lynch syndrome. Grab someone already nicely, neatly safe and packaged and make it look like the work of the military, when, in this case, it's the work of the $25 million reward, except the US grabbed Saddam while negotiations were still going on. I can't blame them for getting him as soon as they figured out where he was. DEBKA File's second reason makes good sense.
(snip)

"But, DEBKA speculates, the US military jumped the gun and 'took advantage of the negotiations with Saddam’s abductors to move in close and capture him on their own account.'"

The US might have jumped the gun, that wouldn't be a surprise but they had no intention of taking Saddam alive. It was Saddam's captures who pulled a fast one on us. They made sure there were too many cooperative Iraqis standing around for the US to get away with killing him. I'll even go so far to surmise that Saddam was a willing participant. We all knows he loves the spot light and a big international trial would be just the thing. He's probably nuts enough to think he could get off.

still alive and able to sing songs does not bode well for some. He was at first just a middle man or conduit, when he started getting into thier pocket book and was no longer of use for other things, he was set up for Gulf War 1 (a bumbled fiasco by both sides). Now we have Gulf War 2 and it does not seem to be going so well either.

As for Saddam his days as a leader of Iraq are gone, but I wouldn't be to supprised if other things pop into the picture because of him, he seems to have that luck of the draw

I found this link today it has a lot of back ground on Saddam and the CIA and how they were in bed together

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power, 1963
http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/wereldcrisis/2002-October/003148.html

I know there has got to tons of info on it, I just liked that one because it gave a good overview in a thumbnail.

Not his term (neofascist), but mine. Jim doesn't use that term, to my knowledge. Nevertheless, neoconservatives are more properly identified as neofascists by the actual positions that they hold to, not those carefully crafted for public consumption.

Mr. McDermott gave a clear and eloquent explanation of his remarks Monday evening at 22:00 on the Mike Webb show on 710 KIRO AM news radio.

Unlike the mass media portrayal and Pennsylvania Ave. propaganda, this alleged capture was hardly a success. The fact that the military could not capture their own stooge before now just points out to me how hapless their leadership really is. Of course, any serious analysis has to consider the desired propaganda effects of having a "villain" to play the foil for the Texas Ranger image of the putrescent poltroon.

(Check out Mike's comments at www.mikewebb.org.)

<snip>
For the record, he was captured by members of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), not by US forces.
<snip>



http://electroniciraq.net/news/1254.shtml


Note: Dahr Jamail is a freelance journalist and political activist from Anchorage, Alaska. He has come to Iraq to bear witness and write about how the US occupation is effecting the people of Iraq, since the media in the US has in large part, he believes, failed to do so.


EDIT: Debka backs this up as well...


<snip>
DEBKA file says "the negotiations were mediated by Jalal Talabani’s Kurdish PUK militia."

But, DEBKA speculates, the US military jumped the gun and "took advantage of the negotiations with Saddam’s abductors to move in close and capture him on their own account."

They give three reasons for the US military grabbing Saddam before his imprisoners handed him over:
<snip>

http://www.opednews.com/kall1203_Saddam_capture_fraud.htm


That is two sources backing up WHO found Saddam who know nothing of each other.

I had to guess I would say they set it up with out a doubt. What better under the radar way to get back at both sides that have screwed them so many times before. They US didn't get to snuff him out and keep it quiet, now it looks like it might get to be some spectacle.

First, there was Ray Lahood with his big secret about the imminent capture of Saddam Hussein that only he and the other 'cool kids' were privy to. Then, about a week later, a tribunal was established in Iraq to prosecute war criminals and other loyalist to the deposed dictator.

And lastly, but not leastly (yeah, I know), American troops pull big papa himself out of a spider hole with guns and detailed plans identifying a number of terrorist cells (but no communication equipment of any kind can be found), looking extremely disoriented and, most likely, stinking to high heaven. Since we’re on the topic of things stinking to high heaven, can we include this so-called capture?

Sure we can!

The only thing missing from this staged event was the banner. . .

TYY

the first thing that came to mind was the jessica lynch "rescue" and how staged it was. i wonder how much the hollywood war mongers learned from their mistakes in that little episode and how much of this "capture" is real.

i don't believe a damned thing AWOL says. it must be confirmed by a realiable source before I'll believe it. he's such a freakin' liar!