Seems "we" didn't get him after all. Or so says the Sunday Express.

[gouda]

Cite

Saddam Hussein was captured by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British tabloid newspaper reported Sunday.

Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al- Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam’s son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an senior British military intelligence officer.

I’m taking this with a pinch of salt, seeing as the Sunday Express has been described as a tabloid. All the same, if this report did turn out to be true, I wouldn’t be too surprised. The following is not in the online report, but has been printed in the newspaper itself; I’m only copying a small part of it, so there should be no copyright issues.

The news that SH was a prisoner and not in hiding would explain his dishevelled state, when he was found by the Kurdish special forces from the Patriotic Front and the US soldiers.
He was unable to climb out of the hole on his own because the lid that covered it was also sealed down with a carpet and some rubble. A former Iraqi intelligence official now living in Qatar said he believed SH was betrayed shortly after his last audio message was released to the world via Arab television on Novermber 16.

More lies? Can any of the Brit dopers tell us how reliable the Sunday Express is?

[bare]

You probably missed this thread on the same topic because it dropped to the second page. There are a couple more interesting links there.

Drudge added this one this afternoon.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[tomndebb]

I’m not sure what the claim is. Every story I saw noted that Hussein had probably been set up by a disaffected member of his own party. Beyond that, the military were at pains to withhold the information regarding the informer to protect that person from reprisals.

So, while I am quite willing to believe the the U.S. has spun the story (à la Pvt. Lynch), I have not seen any claims that it was “brilliant” intelligence work that brought Hussein down, since everyone agreed up front that the information was volunteered by an informer.

[gouda]

:smack:

[ElvisL1ves]

There was a shitpile of money there, too, something like $750K. The Kurds just left it with him?

Sounds like Debka’s he-was-a-hostage scenario.

[Rashak_Mani]

This sounds like bunk… why would Saddam even be close to Kurds too…

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by gouda *
Can any of the Brit dopers tell us how reliable the Sunday Express is?

Not very. As this particular story demonstrates.

Trust a Sunday even less than you would a weekday, imho.

[HPL]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**There was a shitpile of money there, too, something like $750K. The Kurds just left it with him?

Sounds like Debka’s he-was-a-hostage scenario. **

You forgot the loaded gun, which further complicates things.

[Wesley_Clark]

*Originally posted by HPL *
**You forgot the loaded gun, which further complicates things. **

yup. There are several things that are hard to understand about this.

1. Saddam was supposedly spotted back in April driving a taxi and sporting a beard. he was discovered in December sporting a beard with a taxi parked nearby. (itll take me a while to dig up the original story, but i read it in either newsweek or Time) Here are 2 stories that kindof says the same thing

http://www.command-post.org/archives/004316.html

The dictator who used to being ferried around in a vast fleet of heavily armoured Mercedes left by way of anonymous taxis and battered pick up trucks in a convoy which would have looked like any other group of fleeing Iraqis.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/02/1070351582881.html

“When I got there, I was surprised to see the president there. He was in good health and good spirits and had grown his beard. He was wearing the traditional Arab garb and driving a small Toyota pick-up truck,”
2. Why bury him with a gun
3. Why bury him with $750k
4. The middle east’s understanding of world events is laced with untrue conspiracy theories, why is this one any different.
5. Why was it that the mud hut above the ground (which wasn’t guarded or had the ability to keep anyone inside against their will as far as i could tell) had signs someone had been living in it?
6. Why would the kurds not kill or torture him instead of bury him
7. I dont see anyone collecting that $25 million

[Wesley_Clark]

8. Why hide him in Tikrit, 10 miles from his birthplace?

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2003/April/focusoniraq_April97.xml&section=focusoniraq

Three things from that article which was gleaned from info from Saddam’s former Chief of Protocol turned out to be true.

1. he had a taxi
2. he had a beard
3. he was in Tikrit

[Lemur866]

I really can’t see any Kurdish group handing over Saddam to the US without their hands out for the $25 million. Let alone leaving behind $750,000 in cash. You’re going to plant almost a million dollars in cash with Saddam, then hide and call the US? I can understand the conspiratorial viewpoint that the US would pretend to have captured Saddam by themselves if they could get away with not sharing credit. But what conspiratorial motive would the Kurds have? Capturing Saddam would have been a huge propaganda coup for the Kurds and a giant financial gain, as well as an opportunity to put a bullet in Saddam’s brain. Turning him over to the US in secret makes no sense.

[YourOldBuddy]

I guess were coming closer to a time where NewsPaper articles just dont cut it as a source.