at least according to Ray LaHood, Republican Congressman from Central Illinois and member of the Intelligence Committee. Now, if he's correct, why say this and give warning to Saddam. If he's correct, is he making public classified info? Or perhaps he's just blowing smoke or really wishing this were true so as to enhance GOP prospects next year? Whatever's going on here is a bit wierd. From a Central Illinois Pantagraph's (never heard of a newspaper called that!) site... ____________ 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. LaHood spent an hour at the newspaper Monday, discussing the war on terror, the 2004 elections, Central Illinois' regional economic development and his less-than-enthusiastic appraisal of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's performance. The comment about the deposed Iraqi president came while LaHood discussed next year's elections. The congressman said he's been disappointed with U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald and believes the Republican senator isn't seeking a second term because "he can't get the votes." LaHood hopes his party can hold the Senate seat because, he said, "President Bush is popular south of I-80, and that will help our Republican Senate candidate." The economy -- barring a cataclysmic event like the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- will be central to the presidential race, he said. "People working, making money, taking care of their families, health-care costs" -- those are the key issues, LaHood said. He said the war is a major issue, but not as important as the economy. LaHood said polls still show most Americans support the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Then he added, "Once we get Saddam ... and we're this close." He said members of Congress who return from trips to the war zone all say the Iraqi people are very thankful to the United States and added, "You don't hear about that too often."
Hey, don't knock that paper. I've actually had an article written in there (a kid's contest when I was in grade school). However, you have to know this isn't true. He won't be captured until about 2 weeks before the election. Duh!
Now, come on, people. We all know they secretly have Saddam in custody and will "capture" him when it will best benefit Dubya's poll numbers. One of these:
First liberating Iraq from Baath party rule would end the resistance to our occupation and begin a new era in the country. Then it was killing Saddam’s sons Qusay and Uday that would break the will of the insurgents. Now the goal is killing or capturing Izzat Ibrahim which will without a doubt end all of our problems in the country. The icing on the cake of course is Saddam himself, but IMO this will do nothing to deter those who want the US out of Iraq and the Middle East. I suspect killing these men will merely add more fuel to the fire of the Iraqi resistance. Creating a martyr out of Saddam to his loyalists could very well be our biggest mistake in Iraq. We've all heard comments before that we're just about to capture/ kill Saddam, Ray LaHood & co. should wait until it actually happens before embarrassing themselves again with false promises.
It'd be great if we killed all the leading bad guys but that's not a replacement for a long term strategic policy that is based in reality and not the fantasy world of a bunch of conservative chicken hawks. IIRC they said Arabs respect a winner, and would kotow before us after we demonstrated our mighty weapons, and autocratic governments would tumble like dominoes. Instead we've encountered stiffening resistance with little to no leadership, and regional autocratic governments have entrenched their hold on power, and our hands are tied because we shot our wad on a two bit dictator and no one is willing to back us (after we cried wolf) much on Iran or North Korea.
I'm glad to hear Saddam might finally be captured. But there's no way in hell we should know about it.
It is nice to see that some of the conservatives in here can recognize a moronic statement made by a member of their party.
I don't understand why he would reveal such information if he had it. Maybe he was just stating a belief that Soddom will be captured soon, possibly? But if he had knowledge that it was going down, it was a dunderheaded move in the least. But for this being some kind of poll-boosting, "October Surprise" liberal, pull-it-out-of-our-ass conspiracy theory, the GOP doesn't need to do that facing Howard Dean. Dean is doubtless going to be the nominee and he couldn't find the center if it was right in front of his face. Real libs who are liberal and proud like Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern and Dean, fortunately for our economy, get their butts handed to them come election time.
And you make it partisan even though the precursor was "All partisanship aside..." I don't care WHO said it... it was dumb. Not quite as dumb as Geraldo Rivera, but dumb.
I suggest you do a little research about Dean rather than digesting what his opponents and the RNC would love to have you believe about him.
I am not simply digesting what his opponents and the RNC (which has said little or nothing about him) have said, but I take from his own website. I've already done this twice and this is the last time I prove my point: that I did actually research his positions before dismissing him. Classic liberalism at its finest. Don't judge an individual by their individual talents, but by the color of their skin or who they go to bed with at night. Let's give gays the ultimate seal of normality by making them no different than heterosexual couples. Bias from our immigration laws? The only bias is that we aren't defending our borders and preventing a flood of illegals from flouting our laws in what constitutes an invasion of our sovereign soil. The only reason that Dean and the other Democrats want to give those poor felons back their right to vote is because it would swell their voting rolls. If you commit a felony, you should never own a gun legally or vote ever again in my eyes. Every action has consequences and those who committed felonies should feel the consequences long after their "debt" is paid. In other words, we the Federal govt. know better what to do with your money that you earned through your labor than you do. So we are going to raise taxes and piss more money down the entitlements morass. More kowtowing to the enviro-whacko wing within the Democratic Party. Destroy our economy to enact a Kyoto Treaty that allows many Turd World polluters to get away with pollution while our industries are hamstrung to solve a problem that scientists are not for sure that man is causing. This guy is a classic Mondalian/Dukakis liberal. I know many of you brought up things he did as governor of Vermont that were not of the liberal persuasion. But I tell you, for someone to get nominated by the Democrats, they have to tow the liberal line on every issue from taxes to gun control to social programs. That's just a fact of life.
Why don't you read something about Dean before you accuse him of being as liberal as Mondale or Dukakis, much less McGovern?
I didn't make it partisan, I tried to give you a compliment. And there is very little in this world quite as dumb as Geraldo.
