Saddam's sons are dead

From CNN

Caveats:

a.) They are not Saddam

b.) By the admission of the military officials (and the extremists themselves), the Ba'athists are not behind the wave of lethal violence against US troops.

Edit: New details:

* Bodies found after 4 hour firefight

* Bodies "not in the best shape."

Edit 2: That's it; they're dead, along with Qusay's teenage son.

Dead man bumping.

Good news.

Good riddance; the sons were just as bad as their father.

Yeah, hip-hip-hooray!

This should help...

...help what?

Like I said, some of the militants are operating independent of the Ba''ath Party, and his sons don''t have the same terror-inducing power as their father. Sure, there have been some celebrating over their deaths, but about all this will do in the long term will just have a small PR victory for the Administration.

I''d have rather have them been captured alive. They could have gone on trial for their many crimes against humanity, told the US where their father is, showed us where the WMDs are, and elaborated on their connections to organized terrorism (yes, I said terrorism, just not al-Qaeda; there are other terrorists out there). Dead, though, they are nothing more than a gory photo-op.

Rat Boy, I''m sure they would have rather taken them alive but they didn''t.

Anyway, it should at least re-affirm the grip the US has on ''emerging Iraq'' (god I hate that term).

How were the bodies confirmed to be them? Has anyone heard that?

DNA recognization? I dunno, what means are usually employed to identify bodies, dental records right?

DNA couldn''t have been done that fast. Neither could dental. Reports say that the bodies were shot up pretty decently, so maybe there was enough of their faces left for ID.

Maybe they carried wallets.

Methinks Ratboy is afraid Bush may get some good press out of this. Lord knows Bush could use it.

Like I said, it''s a short-term PR gain. Uday and Qusay can only die once; inquiries and revelations about uranium seem to be happening every other day.

Like I said, it''s a short-term PR gain. Uday and Qusay can only die once; inquiries and revelations about uranium seem to be happening every other day.

Or to put it more accurately: Uday and Qusay can only die once, but you can repeat a lie every other day...

And you can deny it and sell out your loyal subordinates just as fast.

Who is Tony Blair selling out?

Welcome to today, Captain Changes the Subject.

So, where''s the call by Republicans to have this guy kicked out along with George Tenet? Oh wait, he''s actually a conservative, you can''t fire him.

No, as a conservative, he''s classy enough to offer to quit...

"ralcydan" wrote:

No, as a conservative, he''s classy enough to offer to quit...

Good, I expect Dick Cheney''s offer by next week for what he''s done outside of the Iraq situation alone...

Right. Thought not. The important people either don''t know or don''t have the decency to quit unless they have the metaphorical gun to their head.

At the very least, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby should go. I mean, they''ve obssessed about Iraq for the last dozen years, it''s not like they have anything else to look forward to.

From the article:

Hadley expressed his regret to Bush in a private session on Monday, offering what amounted to his resignation. Bush did not accept it, said aides speaking on condition of anonymity.

That''s kind of open to interpretation. Plus, as you would no doubt put it, you shouldn''t trust anonymous sources.

Hadley is claiming that he was the one who didn''t forward on CIA objections. Other than a fascination with Oliver Stone, what reason do you have to imply he is lying? You say you want the story to come out. Well, it''s coming out, with names revealed and the actual people involved going on the record.

And guess what - every new statement from someone involved in the SOTU flap supports what the administration has been saying all along. It was decided on by lower level officials who didn''t pass on full information to their superiors. You have tons of unnanmed sources who blow this story wide open, but I guarantee you no ""anonymous US official"" will dispute Hadley, because no such person exists.

So what grounds do you have to imply that a public servant who actually contributes to the well-being of this nation is a liar? It''s easy to slander from the cheap seats. Offer some proof that his story is false, or quit presenting it, like everything else you say, with a manufactured ""Ah-ha!""

Hadley has offered to quit. Again, a classy move by a public servant who claims he made a mistake. His resignation probably won''t be accepted because WHAT WAS SAID IN THE SOTU WASN''T FALSE. At worst, he made a procedural error. But if he goes for it, so be it.

By the way, what should Cheney or Wolfowitz resign for? Have they commited the crime of not agreeing with your liberal politics? When Congress calls for their resignation, I''ll perk up my ears to find out why. Until then, if you want them gone, you can wait until 2009 like the rest of us...

From the Washington Post

I think we can now safely say that Condie Rice was covering for Hadley, since she had said that no one at the White House knew of these objections. Well guess what, somebody did and it turned out to be her own deputy. Now how can you claim that the White House has been completely foreward on this matter?

Edit: Or was Hadley taking a hit for Rice? Again, his confession when taken with Rice''s old claim that no one in the White House knew is definitely suspicious.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

DNA couldn''t have been done that fast. Neither could dental. Reports say that the bodies were shot up pretty decently, so maybe there was enough of their faces left for ID.

Shot up pretty decently? With MISSILES??