the Greater Nomadic Council

I won't be suprised either if this turns out to be true. But I can't buy the story until more mainstream sources (like the German "Mirror", which is frequently reporting stuff that never makes it to the US) stake their credibility on it.

The story of Saddam being drugged is widely believed in the Arab world and has been a story since the first images of Saddam were broadcast worldwide. According to one woman interviewed by the BBC shortly afterwards, she couldn't believe that Saddam would be so meek unless he was drugged.

Of course I don't know whether this is true, but one explanation would be the natural disbelief in seeing one whose power was so enormous and destructive be so completely humbled (in the words of the Vatican: like a cow). The only counter opinion I have read was the biography of the US (major?) that captured Saddam, and whose story seemed credible.

As for American intelligence, the story has been from day one that it was a local tip that led to his capture. Nobody has ever claimed that American intelligence produced the information other than from the human network that soldiers establish daily in their patrol zones. A large part of their job is to connect with prominent local leaders to collect information and facilitate the military presence in their city or region.

Lastly, you say that this administration has a history of obscuring details to improve its image. Because you often fluctuate between centrism and leftism, your comment isn't surprising. Nonetheless, I wonder if you are implying either that a) other administrations didn't do this, b) that only republican administrations do this, or even c) that this administration does it more than others (I'm thinking particularly of Eisenhower, FDR, Kennedy, Nixon, etc.)

The point was not that it wasn't American intelligence that captured him, but that the whole story may not have been told.

As for the comment about obscuring details, I was not comparing the current administration's truthfulness in reference to any other administration. Since I'm not well versed in presidential history, I cannot say whether other administrations were more guilty of this or less, but I can say that the current one does it regularly and with impunity.

Finally, that I "often fluctuate between centrism and leftism" may be your perception, but it remains only that. I have never tried to hide the fact that I lean left, but attempt to moderate my views as much as possible. In spite of your attempted ad hominem attack my observation remains valid.

Allow me to quote myself: "the story has been from day one that it was a local tip that led to his capture." That is the story. Your impression that the whole story has not been told stems from your misperception that the Bush administration has claimed that credit lies solely with American intelligence.

As for the personal attack, I believe the shoe fits.

You're right. The administration *did* claim that the Kurds captured him first, drugged him, them pointed him out to the US troops. I guess I just forgot about that part.

Fine. By at least Scott's recognition, the drugging story has yet to be verified by a credible source. Like I said, that has been a story from day one, at least in the Arab press as reported on the Beeb. Because it is so easily dismissed as myth and would be difficult to prove, I am not surprised that it has not been covered much by American media (although Brokaw did mention it several nights ago).

You tend to believe that the reason that it has not been much covered is that it would be damaging to the administration. I don't believe it would be all that damaging although certainly the better story is that a God-fearing white soldier from Kansas caught him and cordially extended the regards of his president. Fabrications like that (although, as I said earlier, I think this is likely to be pretty close to the truth) would not be entirely unprecedented in American politics.

So by way of recap, I believe the story that it was a local tip, and not American intelligence, that found Saddam, has been fully reported. The rumor that Saddam was first captured by Kurds and drugged for delivery to American soldiers, followed by a cover-up, has not been greatly covered by the media (only somewhat), but I believe the coverage is warranted by the lack of credibility and you believe the coverage is lacking because of a government cover-up, or at least a bias in the media. Right?

I think I can answer this with a quote from my original post:

"Of course, there only seems to be one source for this story so far, so I'm waiting to see if there is further evidence."

I certainly don't think that the news media would fail to report something simply because it would be damaging to the adminstration. Apparently you have mistaken me for a conspiracy theorist.

Then what's the problem? What story hasn't been told? Suddenly I'm confused.

I think this has already been covered. To clarify, some quotes from Bush's speech covering Saddam Hussein's capture:

"Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m. Baghdad time, United States military forces captured Saddam Hussein alive. He was found near a farmhouse outside the city of Tikrit, in a swift raid conducted without casualties."

"The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force."

And the report of how he was captured on CNN makes absolutely no mention of Kurdish involvement. Another quote:

"Saddam's capture was based not on a direct tip, but a collection of intelligence gathered from the hostile questioning of Saddam's former bodyguards and family members, U.S. officials said."

And the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.saddam.operation/index.html

Note, I am *not* saying the story linked to in my original post is true, simply that it differs from the official account.

"I have yet to see any mainstream, domestic media mention it."

Drudge, who is often accused of being some Conservative propagandist, linked to it since at least yesterday.

A quick Westlaw search reveals 51 mentions of "Saddam" and "drugged" in the same sentence. (I searched all news sources, transcripts, magazines, journals, etc.) Of course, most of these are foreign, and most of them are little more than a mention, but I did find one from the Startlegram (through Knight-Ridder, of course) on the seventeenth.

Following is a story from Agence France Presse. I would link to it, but its only available by subscription. (It's long)

Saturday, December 20, 2003

Cousin of Saddam seeks fair trial for ex-leader who killed his brothers.
By Rouba Kabbara.

Jamal Kamel Hassan al-Majid, a cousin of Saddam Hussein, has called for a fair
trial for the captured Iraqi leader even though the former tyrant killed his
two brothers along with nine members of his family. "I wish that he be tried
by an international tribunal. I don't want him to be tried by Iraqi judges in
order to avoid the risk of any personal revenge," Jamal Kamel told AFP.

In 1996, Saddam ordered the execution of Jamal Kamel's brothers, General
Hussein Kamel Hassan al-Majid and Colonel Saddam Kamel, who were married to
Saddam's daughters, Raghad and Rana, respectively.

Nine other members of the family, including their father and sister, perished
in the massacre after Saddam lured them back from exile in Jordan with a
promise of an amnesty.

Jamal Kamel wants Saddam to pay for these crimes but he refuses to say whether
he would like the former Iraqi president to face the death sentence, which many
Iraqis are now demanding for the ousted leader.

Members of the US-backed interim Iraqi Government Council insist that Saddam
but be judged by an Iraqi tribunal inside Iraq.

"All the Governing Council members agree that Saddam must be tried in Iraq by
Iraqi judges," Hamid al-Kifai, spokesman for the body appointed in July by the
US occupation forces, told AFP Friday.

And Paul Bremer, the US civil administrator in Iraq, said on Friday that the
deposed dictator "will be tried by the Iraqi courts when the Iraqi courts are
ready."

Jamal Kamel does not care where Saddam is tried "as long as he is heard by an
international tribunal. It could be in Iraq or outside the country.

"I want the tribunal that will judge Saddam to be hate-free," he said.

He also believes that Saddam, who was captured on December 13 near his hometown
of Tikrit in northern Iraq, "surrendered to the Americans after contacting them
through one of his personal bodyguards".

A senior US military intelligence officer, Major Stan Murphy, told reporters
Friday in Tikrit that the Iraqi man who fingered Saddam was his top aide.

He described the man as Saddam's "right arm" who hailed from one of five major
tribes in a 20-kilometre (12-mile) stretch around Tikrit and said he is
currently in detention. But he refused to name him.

Rife speculation that Saddam was betrayed by someone close to him does not hold
well with Jamal Kamel.

"If he had been betrayed by one of his relatives, he would have fought to the
last bullet," said Jamal Kamel, who said his life was spared from the wrath of
Saddam thanks to the protection of powerful Sunni Muslim tribes in northern
Iraq.

He believes Saddam gave himself up because he had no alternative.

"Saddam is over 65. He was tired and could be easily recognised by any Iraqi.
He could not slip unnoticed in the population," he said.

Jamal Kamel also rules out reports suggesting that Saddam was drugged.

"Unlike some people, I don't think he was drugged," he said.

Saddam's eldest daughter, Raghad, and his sister, Nawal Ibrahim al-Hasan, have
said in separate interviews following his capture that he must have been
drugged.

Nevertheless, Jamal Kamel says he was "moved" by the pictures of a dissheveled
and meek Saddam that were distributed by the US army after his capture.

"Despite all the wrong he has caused me I could not but feel moved. He
symbolised Iraq for entire decades," he said.

"I would have preferred to see him dead," he added.

Mark, I don't consider Drudge to be part of the mainstream news media. I should have clarified; I meant newspapers, television news networks, etc. However, I didn't do an exhaustive search, so it's quite possible this story has, in fact, been picked up. Regardless, my point about the foreign press coverage of the story was meant more as an indictment of their readiness to print any story that might undermine the United States than to imply, as David has suggested, that I believe there to be some conspiracy to keep the truth from us. I felt that my clearly stated skepticism of the story precluded any need of this elaboration.

Again (not fighting, just reiterating), Brokaw mentioned it a few nights ago--at least the assertions of Saddam's sister. (Maybe Jennings and Rather did also, dunno), and the search I indicated above has at least mentions in a vareity of international and domestic sources.

Also, what did you think of the AFP story?

Well, I had read the AFP story you linked before, so it wasn't anything new. As I pointed out earlier, the suspicion of Saddam's drugging was not the point of my post. It was the fact that he was captured first by Kurdish forces. This is the fact that I have not seen mentioned in the mainstream domestic media yet. So, really, a search for "Saddam" and "drugged" is a bit meaningless. Perhaps a search for "Saddam" and "Kurdish" would be more fruitful.

Sorry to bore you with the AFP story.

So, the sentence "There are claims now that Saddam Hussein was not captured thanks to American intelligence" was NOT your point. (Comment 3, sentence 1) (As we have said, that is plenty covered in the media.)

The portion of the sentence noting claims that he was "drugged, then left for United States troops" was also not (entirely) your point (despite emphasis in the original post, and comments 3 and 5). (Also, plenty covered.)

The important part, then, is the title "Saddam Captured First by Kurds." I should have known. So, per your suggestion, the results of a Westlaw search for "saddam /s captu! /s kurd!" in the allnews database (which will find any mention of saddam in the same sentence as any word beginning w/ "captu" and any word beginning w/ "kurd") and limited to 30 days:

I found more than four hundred sources, so I limited the search in various ways to come up with thirty. Of those, I must admit than none of them seemed to mention the possibility that Kurdish forces were the real capturers. (Most of them mentioned the Kurdish capture of Saddam's VP and something called "Saddam's Knuckles.")

Because the search includes newspapers, magazines, journals, newsletters, government press releases, and transcripts of television and radio shows and congressional testimony from over 6000 sources worldwide, I think the dearth of reporting on this topic further evidences the speculative nature of the Kurdish capture, or at the very least, that American media is just as blind to it as international media.

Yes, the title was the main point. The others were merely extra bits. :) However, though I knew that the American intelligence bit had been downplayed in later tellings of the capture, the Bush transcript and the CNN report that I linked to earlier in this thread clearly stated that the capture was a result of American intelligence, specifically, "hostile questioning of Saddam's former bodyguards and family members" and was not from a "direct tip." The "drugged, then left for United States troops" is, however, part of the main point, since it relates directly to the narrative of how they found Hussein after the alleged Kurdish capture.