Sunday, March 13, 2005
Story of "fake" Saddam capture starting to smell.
Having spent a little time bouncing around the net, I'm getting the impression that this recent claim of Saddam's "fake" capture is pretty much a crock. While there are literally thousands of sites that are reporting the story, the wordings are so similar that one suspects they all derive from the same source, so just the sheer number of reportings really means nothing.
I'm seeing arguments on both sides, but there's one argument that, while it sounds trivial, really hit home. The story at the link above referred to the source as an "ex-Marine" and "Ex-Sgt." and, from what I've heard, you're never an "ex-Marine". Once a Marine, always a Marine, or so the saying goes.
So, until I hear some compelling evidence to make this story more believable, I think I'm just going to file it under "Probable Nonsense". At least for now.
AFTERTHOUGHTS: Given that I haven't seen any more corroboration for this story, and if we assume that it really was just a hoax, one has to ask the obvious question: What was the point? It's not as if there was any benefit to the hoaxer (at least not that I can see). So, what reason would someone have for fabricating a story like this? Thoughts?