War in Iraq begins with assassination attempt on Saddam.

An explosion blooms on Baghdad's horizon Thursday morning as air and missile strikes hit the Iraqi capital. (AP)

War coverage and commentary by Salvador Astucia

March 19, 2003 (around 11:30 PM EST)

The larger media outlets have already covered America’s "first strike" against Iraq, (see articles below) and I don’t have much to add to the facts as they have presented them. Basically, there were a few loud explosions in Baghdad, a few flashing lights, then a timid looking George Bush addressed the nation. The following is a transcript of Bush’s speech:

(from Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56914-2003Mar19.html

Cached at:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/cache/baghdad_strike/bush_speech_text.htm

Reporters were quick to point out that Bush and his aides would not be making public statements for several days, the Pentagon will handle it from now on. That’s interesting. The president starts a war then goes on vacation. No one can accuse him of being a micro-manager.

I really hate to seem skeptical so early on, but is this Bush’s idea of a war? If so, why did I waste my time protesting against it? After all the tough talk, all the threats, the ultimatums and so on., all we get are a few loud explosions, some flashing lights, and a fearful looking president who makes a quick speech then goes into hiding.

America was expecting a war. The public must feel like a virgin bride whose sexually inexperienced husband finished his business in ten seconds on the wedding night. What a disappointment. Well at least Bush can say, "I didn’t back down." Based on the facts so far, there was no tangible war, only talk of a war. George Bush painted himself into a corner with his tough talk, so he had to produce a war, and this was apparently it: a few loud explosions, some flashing lights, and a mealy-mouthed speech.

We are hearing about something called a "target of opportunity." Translated to English from Pentagon ease, this means we were not planning to attack Iraq for a few days, but one of our spies apparently saw Saddam Hussein sneak into a bunker or safe house, so we leveled the place. I noticed Andrea Mitchell (NBC) pointed out, shortly after the "attack" began, that we do not have any way of identifying Hussein. Mitchell more or less said that if we find a dead body that looks like Hussein, there’s no way we can prove it. She specifically stated that we have no DNA on Hussein. Why would she tell us that? Are we to believe that the CIA has DNA samples of most world leaders? Using Talmudic logic, Mitchell subtly introduced the possibility that if Hussein turns up dead, the public will have to trust its leaders regarding the authenticity of the corpse.

(NOTE: Mitchell is one of NBC’s top Jewess reporters/correspondents who happens to be married to Alan Greenspan, the Jew who controls America’s central bank—the Federal Reserve)

Just before Mitchell made her "we don’t have his DNA" comment, Tom Brokaw gave what sounded like an obituary of Hussein. He told where he was born, his rise to power, how he became America’s enemy. It was a bit confusing. From Brokaw’s description, Saddam seemed like a decent chap, but somehow he went bad and turned into a monster in the last dozen years of his life. Brokaw’s description of Saddam evoked memories of the Wizard of Oz, "I’m a very good man, just a very bad dictator." Why was Brokaw presenting what sounded like Saddam’s death notice?

Something seems awfully fishy. Maybe the carnage will pick up in a few days. Next to football, nothing holds American’s interest like a bloody war. We’re frustrated now, but hopefully we’ll feel better once the death and destruction begins. ª

"Anti-Aircraft Batteries Open Up in Baghdad"

By David Sanger and John Burns, March 19, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/international/19CND-IRAQ.html

Cached at:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/cache/baghdad_strike/nytimes.htm

"U.S. Begins Striking Targets in Iraq"

By Dan Balz, Mike Allen, Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Thomas E. Ricks

March 19, 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56689-2003Mar19.html

Cached at:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/cache/baghdad_strike/washingtonpost.htm

"Bush Says War Against Iraq Has Begun"

By James Gerstenzang

(may require registration)

Cached at:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/cache/baghdad_strike/latimes.htm

"Attack on Baghdad begins"

Mark Tran and agencies

Thursday March 20, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918027,00.html

Cached at:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/cache/baghdad_strike/guardian.htm

Salvador Astucia, March 20, 2003 (around 9:00 AM EST)

American-British forces apparently attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein hours earlier during the mysterious first strike on Baghdad. Hussein later emerged on Iraqi television making a defiant speech. Details of the fighting are covered below in the Washington Post. ª

"U.S. Opens War With Strikes On Baghdad Aimed at Hussein: Iraqi Leader Defiant in TV Address After Attack"

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Foreign Service, Thursday, March 20, 2003; 7:47 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59505-2003Mar20.html

Cached at:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/cache/baghdad_strike/washingtonpost32003.htm