Iranian Broadcasting: Bush Met With Saddam On November 27

[Syrinx]

I'm not endorsing Iranian broadcasting, or Pakistani newspapers, but merely putting this out there, for what it's worth.

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=194533


Islamabad, Dec 16 - A Pakistani newspaper on Tuesday published a report, claiming a meeting had taken place between US President George Bush and former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein on November 27.

The Urdu language newspaper, Khabrain, quoting some reports said that during his unexpected sojourn to Baghdad, Bush met deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein on November 27.

The daily further said that Saddam had tried to commit suicide on November 23, while he was arrested with the help of Kurd leader Jalal Talabani and his own guards, three days before the attempt to kill himself.

The local press, like in all the other countries, gave front page extensive coverage to the stories about Saddam's arrest and the circumstances which led to his capture.

[cirej2000]

1. Well yes, maybe that's where the real turkey went

it was used to negotiate with Saddam!

For whatever it's worth...it's BS

[frylock]

2. in a vacuum, i wouldn't put much stock in this story..

considering the source. However, coupled with these remarks, it certainly looks suspicious.


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.


<more>

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

[BJ]

3. In a drug case the cops often know...

...where the suspect's hiding long before the arrest. Why would be any different with Saddam Hussein?

[arcane1]

6. good question...

I've posted the above link several times on DU as well, not so much because I believe one way or the other, but as an FYI.

Since every other pro-Bush PR event has been covered in lies, aka "color", to make the stories more interesting, one must at least accept the possibility of that being the case here.

However, we will probably never know what really happened. All I know is that the more detail you get from the White House, the less reliable it becomes..

[frylock]

7. because these people leave very little to chance..

for fear of it coming back to haunt them. When LaHood says he knows something that others don't in regard to the whereabouts of Saddam, that tells me they had him, and were waiting for a reason to release to the public that he indeed was captured. Just one man's opinion, but at this stage of the game, I simply don't believe ANYTHING this administration offers up.

[devinsgram]

9. Was he the one that said he knew they were close to getting him?

[frylock]

10. held his thumb and forefinger an inch apart..

we're that close.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. kick

[Jax]

5. Thanks for reminding me

of the LaHood remarks frylock. I had forgotten about them.

Everything about the appointed deserter and his ilk is at the very least suspicious.

Jax

[Dhalgren]

8. To be honest, I would be as likely to believe an Iranian

source as I would an American one. We have long ago gone through the looking glass and we no longer have any way to tell truth from fiction. The main reason I would say this story is false is that Bush is too big a coward to meet with anyone outside his bubble of total safety. Anyway, IMHO.