The Command Post - Iraq - Saddam 'Likely Survived' Airstrike

April 08, 2003

Saddam 'Likely Survived' Airstrike

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein likely survived a US airstrike aimed at killing him and his two sons, London newspapers said, quoting British intelligence sources.

"He was probably not in the building when it was bombed (on Monday)," The Guardian quoted a source as saying.

The Times said Britain's foreign intelligence service, MI6, told the US Central Intelligence Agency that it believed Saddam left the targeted building in Baghdad just before it was bombed.

"We think he left the same way he arrived in the area, either by a tunnel system or by car, we're not sure," the paper quoted a British intelligence source as saying.

(AFP)

(UPDATE: -- Here is The Guardian's report.)

Posted By Billy Beck at April 8, 2003 10:34 PM | TrackBack

Comments

So, a city block was destroyed for nothing.

Posted by: omega at April 8, 2003 10:49 PM

But was the block half empty or half full? Its all in how you look at it.

I wouldn't go putting my faith in a guardian report.

Posted by: FaaQ at April 8, 2003 11:01 PM

Bah.

If MI6 was involved, 007 should have taken Hussein out himself. This seems like the perfect job for Bond.

Posted by: jb at April 8, 2003 11:08 PM

I agree, the rags are a little to anxious to make this look like a royal screwup on our parts. Poor babies, all this time they couldn't capitalize on any Iraqi civilian casualty reports in order to prove just how brutal the evil coalition forces were until "now."

Posted by: Caleb at April 8, 2003 11:15 PM

First I heard of this story, somebody with the BBC reported it. Then later, I saw the Guardian and Sky News had picked it up, among others. Since all the references to sources are fairly vague, I wonder how many people have been passing this info out, and does it go back to the same source that the BBC used this morning?

My personal instinct is, wait and see. One way or the other, his days as leader are numbered.

Posted by: Knitting a Conundrum at April 8, 2003 11:23 PM

The strongest evidence that we didn't get him is from journalists who visited the site and observed a fairly "normal" rescue and recovery effort. If Saddam had really been there I have to believe there would be a very intense rescue effort on the part of the Iraqis with no reporters allowed anywhere near.

Posted by: Hunter McDaniel at April 8, 2003 11:26 PM

Let's say Saddam and sons lived. Does it necessarily mean, as omega claims, that this was for nothing?

Has anyone said the other high Baath officials weren't there?

And if Saddam got out by the skin of his teeth, then this will drive him further underground and reduce his ability to command and control.

Posted by: denise at April 8, 2003 11:30 PM

Here's an interesting thing (seen on Fox, and also mentioned on FreeRepublic.com last night):

http://home.san.rr.com/notime/bg.jpg

Right-hand picture: A guy at the bombing scene.

Left-hand picture: The same guy serving as Saddam's bodyguard during his walkabout.

Posted by: ScottM at April 8, 2003 11:39 PM

So, a city block was destroyed for nothing.

Now that is idiocy in the extreme. No, the destruction was an attempt to end the war fast and save more lives.

Do you count a golf game in which every swing which doesn't end up with a hole-in-one as a "nothing"? You must live an extremely dismal life, omega... no wonder you get your jollies from trolling.

Posted by: Troy at April 9, 2003 03:42 AM