Was Saddam's speech taped before the first attack?

[Philip]

I watched Saddam's address to Iraq as it was broadcast on MSNBC about 2 CST Monday morning.

It can be viewed here along with an article about the speech:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/889289.asp

The two Middle East analysts who commented immediately after the address felt certain that it was taped before the attack on his bunker.

The broadcast was full of jump cuts from one view to another. The viewing angle changed from straight on to right front and back some time within a few seconds. In reviewing it, I counted 74 jump cuts in the 22 minute speech which comes out to an average of about one jump cut every 18 seconds. If Saddam were alive and well, why would Iraqi TV need to so heavily edit his speech?

In praising units and commanders for their valor, Saddam mentioned the commander of the 11th Iraqi Brigade in Basra, who had already surrendered early in the invasion. He also praises units that haven't been involved in combat yet.

He did mention Basra and Umm Qasr, but any invasion from Kuwait would necessarily have involved battles there and Saddam could have included mention of them in tapes made before the attack.

However, the BBC correspondent here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2880561.stm) says that Saddam's mention of Umm Qasr is proof that he is alive and well. The correspondent doesn't mention anything about the editing and dismisses US and UK claims that Saddam was killed or injured as propaganda.

Also, a analyst in this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18953-2003Mar24&notFound=true) says that Saddam is alive and well and suggests that the claim that Saddam is dead or injured is part of coalition psy-ops.

Here are a couple of other articles:
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2438039
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81962,00.html

What do you think?



Edited for spelling and to add that the analysts on MSNBC pointed out that Saddam's address remarkably did not mention the battle of An Nasiriyah.

[Philip]

Come on!

At this posting, only three people, including me have voted.

Aren't a few more people willing to voice their opinions about what is an important factor in the war?

I know the military said it won't affect how they carry out the war, but I think that Saddam's speech along with the display of POWs on Iraqi TV must have been the reason the coalition attacked the Iraqi television transmitters.

All the news reports I'm seeing now assume Saddam is alive.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Philip
Come on!

At this posting, only three people, including me have voted.

Aren't a few more people willing to voice their opinions about what is an important factor in the war?

I know the military said it won't affect how they carry out the war, but I think that Saddam's speech along with the display of POWs on Iraqi TV must have been the reason the coalition attacked the Iraqi television transmitters.

All the news reports I'm seeing now assume Saddam is alive.

I can only assume that Saddam is dead, or wounded beyond any hope of being put in front of a camera. Probably dead, since he would have recorded an address for the radio in that case.

First off, the edits were many and obvious. This was a piece of tape that had seen segments removed (though probably not added), making it sound like a laundry list of references designed to be as vague as a horoscope.

Secondly, there is no true anger in his voice. He's a very impassioned speaker, from what I've seen, and having the cursed western devils on his doorstep ought to raise his blood pressure a little more than I've seen.

Lastly, the references to the southern cities are no-brainers. The troops were massing in Kuwait; where else were they going to go?

At a time where he should be dominating the airwaves, Saddam is silent. The tapes are inconclusive, but if he were alive there would be no question at all.

The son of a bitch is dead.

[no one in particular]

I have not yet gathered enough information on which to base a reasonable hypothesis.

However, I voted for #1 ‘cause, well, I think he is pushin’ ‘em up. It would be so easy in his speeches for him to say something specific (gloat over downed Apaches, pows or shooting into the river), yet everything is extremely general. Contrast Saddam’s speeches with the Ministor of Information goon (Sahhaf?), this guy gloats about and mentions everything. At this point, I think the burden of proof in on Saddam; prove to everyone that you survived the 40 Tomahawk assault!

Unfortunately it matters not what I or we think, only what his troops think. Also, Ramadan is supposedly as feared as Saddam, so it may not matter until they are all dead.