By Joseph P. Diaferia, Contributing Writer Online Journal
Dec. 16, 2003
"Could it be that the former Iraqi dictator has actually
been in U.S. custody (or under house arrest) for some time, and that the
administration waited until it needed this public relations boost to announce
Hussein's capture to the world?"
In the seven months since the fall of Baghdad, U.S. troops have clumsily
and fruitlessly searched for the dictator believed to pose the greatest
threat to world peace and security. A military that could not stop terrorist
attacks carried out by alleged suicidal hijackers armed only with box cutters
on 9/11 should have surprised no one with their abject incompetence in finding
and apprehending Saddam Hussein. However, suddenly Saturday, a US military
contingent 600 strong came upon a hole in the ground in southeast of Saddam's
hometown of Tikrit, and voila! There he was!
Both the timing and the circumstances of Hussein's capture are highly suspect.
In recent days, the Bush administration has faced intense international
condemnation over its policy of excluding "uncooperative" nations
from sharing in the spoils of the war with Iraq. In addition, Halliburton,
an energy company of which the current vice president is former CEO, now
faces a congressional investigation for its skullduggery in the price of
the oil it delivered to Iraq. Furthermore, there have been recent signs
that the Bush's election prospects have begun to erode, owing primarily
to his administration's atrocious and indeed criminal foreign policy and
his appalling inattention to domestic matters.
The appearance of a bearded Saddam Hussein on international television,
with several hundred thousand dollars in U.S. currency in his possession
should immediately instill doubt. Why would he be so well endowed financially
and yet appear so unkempt? If he were trying to elude U.S. occupation forces,
why would he not make himself completely unrecognizable? In fact, Saddam's
face is unmistakable despite the uncharacteristic beard. Could it be that
the former Iraqi dictator has actually been in U.S. custody (or under house
arrest) for some time, and that the administration waited until it needed
this public relations boost to announce Hussein's capture to the world?
Such a suggestion may at first seem preposterous, but it would not be the
first such psychological tactic ever employed. Other examples include the
spectacular lies and distortions relating to 9/11, the bogus "The War
on Terrorism" and the Jessica Lynch hoax.
Moreover, is it not a compelling coincidence that the formation of an Iraqi
war crimes tribunal preceded his capture by only a week? And, why an Iraqi
war crimes tribunal (comprised of U.S. puppets) and not an international
one? Perhaps the Bush administration knows that the United Nations and other
world bodies will not be duped by U.S. propaganda.
Finally, that Saddam Hussein will be charged with war crimes and genocide
is staggeringly disingenuous. While Hussein is undeniably a criminal, it
is the United States that has destroyed Iraq and killed 2 million of its
people with genocidal sanctions. It is the United States that has flagrantly
violated international law in pursuit of regime change in Iraq, and it is
the United States that bears full responsibility for bringing Hussein to
Since the United States brought Saddam Hussein to power after the assassination
of Abdul Karim Kasim, any charge of war crimes or genocide should be brought
not only against the former Iraqi leadership, but also against every U.S
president since and including John F. Kennedy (obviously deceased presidents
would be tried in absentia).
The U.S. boasts a long history of deposing and installing leaders as Washington's
and Wall Street's "interests" have required. In addition to the
American CIA's installation of Saddam Hussein, examples include: The Somozas
in Nicaragua, Battista in Cuba, the Shah of Iran, Salazar in Portugal, Marcos
in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, Stroessner in Paraguay, the Duvaliers
in Haiti, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Mobutu in The Congo, Suharto
in Indonesia, the government of South Africa during apartheid, and even
Pol Pot in Cambodia.
Seldom, if ever, did any of the aforementioned dictators elicit a word of
censure from their benefactors in the Oval Office.
Saddam Hussein is likely to face some form of justice, whether in a legitimate
international tribunal, or in some U.S. orchestrated kangaroo farce. To
the extent that he has dealt with his political adversaries violently and
that he has long been a willing accomplice in U.S. atrocities, he should
be brought to decisive and conclusive justice.
But, will the real war criminals and authors of genocide ever be brought
to justice? The final chapters of that book have yet to be written.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.