Saddam's Trial: Bush's October Surprise?
Saddam is claiming that he did not authorize the gassing of the Kurds. Just like Rumsfeld and Bush are claiming ignorance of Iraqi and Afghanistan prisoner torture. Is Saddam's trial just a ploy for Bush's election year? Is the idea to distract us from his mess of a record?
Saddam's Trial: Bush's October Surprise?
By Kirsten Anderberg (www.kirstenanderberg.com)
The American government is famous for its insulation and ability to pass the buck when in hot water. Who is at fault for those Iraqi prisoner tortures? The president, Rumsfeld, military officers, some contracted labor, or solely the soldiers themselves? The debate trying to pass that hot potato continues to date. And here come some more American prisoner scandals out of Afghanistan! Saddam is now trying this passing of the buck defense regarding the gassing of the Kurds in the American made and controlled "Iraqi" courts. And this will be the very type of thing that establishes the "Iraqi" courts as mere puppets of American control.
One of the criminal charges made against Saddam in court last week was based on the gassing of the Kurds. And just like Bush and Rumsfeld's cries regarding their lack of involvement in the Iraqi prisoner scandals, Saddam is saying he was not there, he did not do it personally, and he did not personally authorize that action. Saddam is also saying that American Intelligence and military was supporting Iraq military and Saddam at that point, and the American Intelligence was well aware of the gassing of the Kurds, if not silent partners in those events. Now, if that is true, American control over the "Iraqi" courts will be essential for "American Security." Here is a powerful man claiming he is still the president of Iraq, saying he knows a lot of America's dirtiest little secrets and has no motivation whatsoever to keep those secrets under wraps, while on trial in a world arena, with millions listening to his every word. My guess is American Intelligence has made damned sure that Saddam will NOT have freedom of speech in the "Iraqi" courts as he tries to present his defense. I even foresee a Bobby Seales-ish trial, where Saddam is not allowed to talk, and perhaps will continue to have his attorneys blocked from the courtroom to speak on his behalf! Ollie North took the 5th to *not* have to talk about his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. But Saddam *wants* to tell the U.S. military's secrets to the world. Will the "Iraqi" courts let him? I seriously doubt that.
Hanford Nuclear Plant in Washington state is a horrifying mess. We have huge vats of radioactive waste that have to be burped or will explode, but we do not know what is actually in the vats. They know it is a bunch of nuclear waste, and different kinds thrown together, but there are not proper records saying what, how much and when those vats were filled. We only know they will explode if we do not burp them. It is amazing to me that something so poisonous and dangerous would be treated in such haphazard ways. But during investigations, the U.S. government wiped its hands clean of all responsibility for what happened at Hanford by saying they contracted third party "specialists" to run the plants. (Just like they supposedly contracted someone else to oversee the Iraqi prisons, or whatever that claim has been... ) Several companies came and went as contracted management at Hanford. The records are lacking continuity and all parties blame one another, yet still, no one is taking proper responsibility for that mess and cleaning it up. Nuke sites all over America have been run so carelessly that an American television sit-com has made fun of it, and Americans *get* that joke, too. Homer Simpson and his buddies are portrayed as mindless idiots who work carelessly at the local nuclear plant in the cartoon series, "The Simpsons." That cartoon scenario is based in real life, which is why it is so funny, so tragic, and so political in statement, which is part of what I attribute "The Simpsons'" great success to. Much like "All in the Family," "The Simpsons" is pure political satire, and America knows the nuke plants are run by underpaid workers and mismanaged by moneymongers and government who do not give a damn. Karen Silkwood's life was made into an award-winning movie that every child in high school should have to see. She was murdered for trying to get the message out to the public about the health and environmental hazards the mismanagement of American nuclear plants was causing to nuke plant laborers and the public at large.
The 9/11 Commission hearings exemplify another passing of the buck within American government. Whose fault was 9/11? Where was American Intelligence that we pay so much money to, and give up so many civil liberties for, to have around duringnational emergencies? Why were hijacked planes in the air for long periods without military escorts? Why do we pay for those military escort planes and crews if we never use them? Surely 4 planes hijacked in the air, and some after the WTC crashes, would be the time, if any, to launch those military escort jets, you would think. And where was the president while these planes continued to be hijacked? What action did he take as the Commander in Chief? And do we not have tracking radar in America to see where planes are in our skies? How did these planes become "lost?" Is American Intelligence and military really trying to say that 9/11 was allowed to play out of its own devices because the U.S. military and the airport radar systems were not compatible? As we hear Condi Rice, who sorely testified after resisting testimony tooth and nail, and Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, among others, trying to pass the buck for 9/11, things just look shadier and shadier.
So, American government has successfully handed the nuclear waste disaster in America off to unknown third parties thus far. American government has muddied the waters of 9/11 enough to stir up an investigative commission. President Bush and Rumsfeld both claim ignorance in the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. So how far fetched *is* it for Saddam to say he did not authorize the gassing of the Kurds, he was not there, and he did not gas them personally, just like Bush and Rumsfeld did not torture prisoners themselves.
Another weird thing is "Iraqi" courts are charging Iraq's (ex?)president for Iraq invading Kuwait. It seems Kuwait and America would charge Iraq with that, not Iraq itself. Much like the way American domestic violence laws have been rewritten so the state can prosecute the defendant, regardless of the victim's cooperation with the prosecution, it seems like this is America using "Iraqi" courts to try Saddam *on behalf of* Kuwait? Surely Saddam can implicate forces larger than just himself to justify Kuwait's invasion. Just as George Bush, Sr., has all kinds of justifications to insulate him personally from the responsibility for untimely deaths of American sons and daughters for his inexplicable American oil war in Kuwait. And remember, George Bush, Sr., was the head of the CIA while it supported Saddam. Saddam and the Bush family go way back. They also share the oil industry connection. Even more reason Saddam will not be allowed open testimony in courts, is my guess.
Saddam's attorneys were not allowed to accompany him into the courtroom last week according to the American press. That is a very big red flag, folks. That's some freedom and justice there. My guess is this trial of Saddam is meant to be a Bush campaign strategy. And remember the Reagan/Bush ticket's connection to the Iran hostages, and them being released the day and even the HOUR of Reagan's inauguration? The Bush family is not above using the Middle East as scapegoats for election ratings. Which makes one wonder, is Saddam's trial George Bush, jr.'s "October Surprise?" Are Americans dumb enough to buy it? Certainly Iraqis with dead and missing family members, and children missing limbs from American- made bombs dropped from American-made planes, do not buy it. They will resent Bush for using their country's political setting as a way to boost his American election ratings.
I had an Iraqi woman in Sweden write me recently and thank me for an article I wrote on Saddam's trial. She said this is not a trial of flag-waving Americans versus Saddam. Yet Americans think they own the world, even if they can barely locate any of the world on a map outside the places the TV show "Survivor" has been, and thus, this really is a trial between flag-waving Americans and Saddam. An Iraqi court would not hide America's dirty laundry, and I guarantee you that America's dirty laundry, and Saddam wanting to expose it, will present huge stumbling blocks for the "Iraqi" courts. That may be why Saddam's lawyers were not allowed to be present in the courtroom with him initially. To be able to silence him more easily. What fair and just trial begins by banning the defendant's attorneys in the courtroom?
Watch Saddam's trial to see questionable twisting of legal and logical standards to let Saddam take the fall for America's dirty secrets with Iraq in the past. If you can only win a trial through deceit and manipulation, even at the starting gate, one has to wonder what the purpose of the trial actually is. If Bush thinks Saddam's trial will boost his election ratings, he is an idiot. The world can clearly see what is going on in "Iraqi" courtrooms with Saddam seems to be staged by the U.S. government to help Bush with his election crisis. To take focus off of the unraveling of his government and all these ugly 9/11 and Iraq war questions. "Who cares about the missing WMD, we GOT Saddam!," Idiot Bush proclaims to the media! Saddam's trial right now, just before elections, is no coincidence, is my belief. We have had him in custody for how long now, and we parade him out for the press now? Four months before elections? And any fool who believes justice begins by banning a defendant's attorneys in the courtroom has got to be kidding. Yet that is what America is celebrating! Hooray! A corrupt trial for Saddam! We are the Champions... of... THE WORLD!
address: seattle, Wa
add a comment on this article