Saddam captured

in Tikrit, with 2 AK-47's and a pistol, none of which he used to resist. Gee, could they have possibly been out of ammo for some inexplicable reason?

Interesting tidbits taken from the Reuter's article (oh, there are hundreds of reports to choose from, take your pick):
"A tribunal system for Iraqis to try Saddam and fellow Baathist leaders was set up only last week." What absolutely serendipitous timing!

"After seven months of increasingly bloody attacks on U.S. forces and their allies following Saddam's ousting on April 9, the arrest is a major boon for U.S. President George W. Bush. His campaign for re-election next year has been overshadowed by mounting casualties and wrangling with key allies over Iraq."

Just musing out loud. Would the Secret Service _really_ have allowed the President to visit a war torn country if their leader was still at large? (They are charged with the President's safety and *can* (and DO) overrule his decisons if it places him in a precarious situation.)
Gee, which makes for more heroic and better political campaigning press - "President visits troops in occupied warzone, Evil Ruler still at large" - or - "Evil Ruler under house arrest, President visits troops in occupied mopup territory"

HINT to the man behind the curtain: Prestidigitation doesn't work too well when the hands are too full to palm off the items. Maybe you're confusing juggling with misdirection? (Just trying to be a good little helpful citizen.)

I'm not a Democrat or even a liberal*, but this sad old fabric is getting worn very thin...




(completely independent, mostly moderate political cynic who tends to have ecological but otherwise small 'l' libertarian with strong Jeffersonian Constitutionalist leanings - my candidate hasn't even run for office yet) Tweet