Remember a few weeks back when this story ran about Ray LaHood predicting Saddam's capture? http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/120203/new_20031202014.shtml Then there's this analysis from a Jerusalem group of investigative reporters that suggests Saddam may have been captured and kept hidden while his "kidnappers" were negotiating over the $25 million or whatever it is they wanted. http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=743 From the article, here are the seven reasons these guys think Saddam was a prisoner in the hole... ______________ 1. The length and state of his hair indicated he had not seen a barber or even had a shampoo for several weeks. 2. The wild state of his beard indicated he had not shaved for the same period 3. The hole dug in the floor of a cellar in a farm compound near Tikrit was primitive indeed – 6ft across and 8ft across with minimal sanitary arrangements - a far cry from his opulent palaces. 4. Saddam looked beaten and hungry. 5. Detained trying to escape were two unidentified men. Left with him were two AK-47 assault guns and a pistol, none of which were used. 6. The hole had only one opening. It was not only camouflaged with mud and bricks – it was blocked. He could not have climbed out without someone on the outside removing the covering. 7. And most important, $750,000 in 100-dollar notes were found with him (a pittance for his captors who expected a $25m reward)– but no communications equipment of any kind, whether cell phone or even a carrier pigeon for contacting the outside world. ____________ Of these, only Number 6, in my mind, argues for the captive theory while Number 7 argues very much against it. I don't care if you are expecting $25 million, you don't leave $750k laying around. The article also goes on to talk about how the US wanted to capture him and not have him turned over (betrayed) by Iraqis as wellas some Israel-specific stuff and warnings of further violence. Still, it's interesting that LaHood made the comments he did when he did and it's interesting that the idea is floating around out there that Saddam was a captive before capture. Thoughts?
I have suspected that Saddam's hiding place might have been known for awhile, but whatever the truth, it all becomes moot.
This is most important to prove he was not a captive IMO $750,000 in Iraq is beyond a fortune. Why any additional risk when you already have cash on hand to make several generations of your family/ associates rich?
Number 6 seems like something to investigate. But it could be explained away by saying that whoever was in the farmhouse would automatically let him out when the searches passed.
Don't let the "relieved look" fool you. He was just glad that now he'll get "three hots and a cot." Any hungry man with no bed would be relieved to get food and a mattress. He was only a prisoner to his own pride.
After watching the news last night, I've come to the conclusion that the Israeli article I cited is completely bogus. He was trapped by a big ol' styrofoam block which could be pushed out easily, so number 6 no longer applies. I still want to know how LaHood knew, but I guess it will come out eventually.
