CIA Had Fix on Hussein: Intelligence Revealed 'Target of Opportunity'

Washington Post ^ | March 20, 2003 | Barton Gellman and Dana Priest

[The Raven]

aNDREW sULLIVAN'S TAKE:

MISSED HIM: The one reason I think the footage of Saddam is not a taped-in-advance fake is that if you wanted to ensure people still believed you were posthumously alive, you'd look a little better prepared than Saddam looked. He had that KSM "I-Just-Woke-Up" look and those grandma glasses and bizarre notepad did not exactly inspire fear. If the intelligence was half-way reliable, a good gamble. Too bad it does'nt seem to have paid off.

[nopardons]

The newsies have repeatedly said, FOR HOURS, that we have had Saddam +4, in our sights for five days. They watched & waited until the 48 hours were up. Whether or NOT we " got 'em ", it doesn't matter that WE know it immediately. Frankly, this is all part of psyops and well done too.

Neither you, nor me, nor the entire world, has any RIGHT, to know what's what and it's far better, that we don't.

Look up the FR's Guide to FR-speak, quickly, since your grasp of the meaning of tinfoil, isn't quite good enough. ; ^ )

[Travis McGee]

Too bad it does'nt seem to have paid off.

There are many ways in which it can "pay off" even if Saddam is still breathing. This forces him to prove he is still in charge, besides the videotaped TV appearance, he will have to call his generals to assure them he is still in charge.

Each time he calls, our ELINT teams draw another bead on him.

[Mitchell]

The newsies have repeatedly said, FOR HOURS, that we have had Saddam +4, in our sights for five days. They watched & waited until the 48 hours were up. Whether or NOT we " got 'em ", it doesn't matter that WE know it immediately. Frankly, this is all part of psyops and well done too.

I'm sure this is, at least in part, psyops. The question remains: What is the purpose of the operation?

Neither you, nor me, nor the entire world, has any RIGHT, to know what's what and it's far better, that we don't.

Of course. But it's interesting to talk about it (as long we don't have inside information, of course -- loose lips sink ships, and all that). There's nothing wrong with discussing things to try to figure out what's happening.

Look up the FR's Guide to FR-speak, quickly, since your grasp of the meaning of tinfoil, isn't quite good enough. ; ^ )

I'm quite familiar with tinfoil, thank you very much! Don't forget that the first casualty of war is the truth.

[Mitchell]

From another thread:

[A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that] China, "in a very short time," would be talking to other countries about what to do next.

China is hinting at something. What do the Chinese know that we don't?

[nopardons]

Yes, YOU certainly ARE " familiar " with tinfoil, dear. LOL

No, it is childish , NOT " interesting " at all, to speculate about events one knows less than nothing about. It's what primatives did, when they attempted to explain things they didn't understand. That's the way myths and VERY early religions started. That is more understandable, than " modern " people, on a Conservative forum, wasting time and bandwidth, ruminating about this war and what's " actually " happening , right now, in Iraq.

The winners write the history. Truth ? Whose " truth " and what does it matter ? Think about that ! :-)

[The Great Satan]

Don't tell me you've figured out a scenario where we get another 6 months to prepare for an anthrax attack?

No. I conclude that the administration has decided to force a showdown now. Possible factors in that decision:

1. Assessment that a technological fix for the WMD threat is too far away -- perhaps 18 months or more -- for it to be worth risking the unknown developments that may crop up in that interval.

2. Specific intelligence that Saddam or other actors, such as North Korea, intend to exploit the window of vulnerability militarily or politically.

3. Specific intelligence on the nature of the anthrax plot gleaned from the capture of KSM (which probably took place last September), Moussouai or other terrorists which provides them with some confidence that the retaliation can be blunted or intercepted, owing to crudity in the command and control structure, smashing of sleeper cells, etc.

4. Specific intelligence on the psychological status of the regime, perhaps gleaned via Putin, that suggests they can be persuaded to cut a deal or run.

However, if they have decided we are ready to act, that doesn't mean that the WMD threat is no longer a factor in determining the nature of that action. If it is a factor, than that still suggests a cautious, boil-the-frog slowly strategy, leaving Saddam with something to play for as long as possible. So, if you want to figure out if that is the case, you need to watch closely to see if actions accord with rhetoric, because it's very likely that we won't advertise that our actions are conditioned by the possibility of massive retaliation -- that we are treating this more like a hostage situation than a head-on confrontation. We were told that that the war would start with a massive blitzkrieg on Baghdad. Hasn't happened. Now we are told that our first action was to target Saddam personally, and yet there are a number of reasons to doubt that is the case:

1. The political inadvisability of setting the expectation levels for a near-bloodless conflict so high at the outset of hostilities.

2. The implausibility that Saddam would make himself accessible for assassination at the very hour of the expiration of the 48-hour deadline, after surviving multiple assassination attempts during the Gulf War.

3. The fact that the alleged attempt failed.

4. The fact that we are talking about it after it failed, when there is every reason to suppose we will not get a chance to repeat the experiment.

So, maybe today's surprising turn of events is not quite what it seems. I am personally quite curious to see who, if anyone, was killed. That may shed more light on the true purpose of the raid. It may just be that this is another Abu Nidal-style rubout masquarading as a full-scale military attack.

[The Great Satan]

Uday and Qusay will go after each other at some point; that's what brothers in that situation always do.

"Now Eteocles hurls his long-shadowing spear, and the lordly son of Agenor, seeing it approaching, avoided black Death, and the bronze spear flew over him. And the godlike Polynices, swiftly drawing his gold-studded sword, rushed upon his adversary, and they clashed together like two savage lions, brothers and siblings of one blood. And as he hastened, by his golden belt........... darkness. And he pressed upon him, relying on his heavy hand. At once black blood began to flow from the wound. And at the same time the keen sword of Polynices, king of men, drove through breastplate and breast of Eteocles. And they both fell to the ground, and darkness covered their eyes. They lay there, brother having slain brother with long-bladed bronze. So perished the race of noble Oedipus."

[Mitchell]

That is more understandable, than " modern " people, on a Conservative forum, wasting time and bandwidth, ruminating about this war and what's " actually " happening , right now, in Iraq.

So what are you doing on a discussion forum? Read the articles in the newspaper, and let the reporters do your analysis for you. But you're misleading yourself if you think that you're not getting somebody's interpretation whenever you read about a conflict.

The winners write the history.

Sometimes it's the other way around: the side that has the opportunity to write the news becomes the winner, since that side controls the accepted truth.

Truth ? Whose " truth " and what does it matter ? Think about that ! :-)

I agree with this point, as I indicated in the previous paragraph. But the truth does matter, unless you want to live in 1984.

[The Great Satan]

The real miracle is that the confusion created leads to further and actual "miracles". And this is more than possible. Seems they try nearly free bets (random optimizations) within an bulky asserted strategy (algorithm).

Agree. But note that is more of a hostage-situation strategy than a conventional war-fighting strategy. When we see "shock and awe," that will be a conventional war-fighting strategy. But until we see it, we haven't seen it.

[nopardons]

Oh please, can't you even attempt to make a cogent rebutal, without using lefty tactics ? You're really quite remarkably funny ! :-)

I can make far better assessments, after reading and hearing " news ", than most. I read the articles here, as well, and don't assume, nor specualte about things I haven't a glimmer of an idea about; unlike far too many, like you, who imagine that they're trenchant, clever, perceptive editorialists. LOL, LOL, LOL !

And NO, the WINNERS, immediately write the history. Today, historical revisionist TRY to " write history ", well AFTER the fact. Since so many people are still alive, who know better, they can and should refute the garbage. That is quite different from your tinfoil musings about current events, when few, if any actual facts have been devuldged, dear. :-)

[Mitchell]

Attila the Hun is a very interesting person to read about in connection with modern events. His interaction with the Roman Empire should seem familiar to anybody following current affairs today.

As for brothers and power not mixing.... Attila killed his brother Bleda when the two were co-leaders of the Huns. Attila then consolidated his power and expanded the Hunnish Empire to its maximum extent.

After Attila's death, his sons fought, giving the Goths the chance to revolt, and the Hunnish Empire disintegrated.

It's the way of the world.

[justa-hairyape]

Even Ted Koppel stated that the descision to take this target of opportunity would be a 'no brainer'. Not a GAMBLE like the rest of the leftist anti-bush media was trying to liberally paint it as.

[Claire Voyant]

I was feeling optimistic before I saw that it was GEORGE TENET who gave Bush the intellegence info......George Tenet and Mueller ARE the weakest links.

[Mitchell]

Lefty tactics? Nothing I said had anything to do with position on the political spectrum (anyway, I am a strong supporter of Pres. Bush in the war, and I am far from liberal).

As for the rest of it, come on... Haven't you ever engaged in late-night speculation? Nothing is being proposed as fact, as you well know.

In any case, it is not unreasonable to ask why the U.S. would announce an apparently failed assassination attempt. It doesn't obviously help our cause to say that we tried and failed, yet the U.S. must have a reason for having announced it. What do you think the reason is?

If the U.S. government weren't comfortable with people speculating about this, then the assassination attempt wouldn't have been announced.

And NO, the WINNERS, immediately write the history. Today, historical revisionist TRY to " write history ", well AFTER the fact. Since so many people are still alive, who know better, they can and should refute the garbage.

You've missed the point completely. Of course the eventual winners write the history. But the people who control the flow of information while the events are happening are more likely to be the winners.

Do we know what really happened, for example, with the supposed assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein today? Or with the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Of course not. Does one side or the other have the opportunity to determine what will be accepted as fact? Yes, the U.S. has that opportunity. Does that give us an advantage? Yes.

That is quite different from your tinfoil musings about current events, when few, if any actual facts have been devuldged, dear. :-)

No facts have been divulged at all, except that missiles were fired on Baghdad. Everything else is either interpretation or disinformation, and we have no way of telling which. Should we simply accept the interpretation we hear, without commenting on it or discussing it?

[justa-hairyape]

The political inadvisability of setting the expectation levels for a near-bloodless conflict so high at the outset of hostilities.

This is war. Its not about the expectation levels of Mr and Mrs Couch Potato. We have been here before. We are all aware of the capabilities that Saddam has concerning chemical and biological. To not take a crack at him now when the chance was there, would be Clintonisque.

The implausibility that Saddam would make himself accessible for assassination at the very hour of the expiration of the 48-hour deadline, after surviving multiple assassination attempts during the Gulf War.

3 Dozen Cruise missles and Bunker Busters from Stealth Planes, as reported, is not what I would call accessable. A single sniper shot on Saddam as he stood on a podium rallying his troops, now that is implaussable.

The fact that the alleged attempt failed.

That was a fake Saddam. Look at the pictures posted here on other threads. Different Chin. Different Eyes. Mustache color not matching eyebrows. No 'proof of life' yet.

The fact that we are talking about it after it failed, when there is every reason to suppose we will not get a chance to repeat the experiment.

Again, we dont know who exactly was targeted yet. We dont know who exactly was killed yet.

[The Great Satan]

That was a fake Saddam.

No, it was the real thing alright.

[justa-hairyape]

Prove it.