The Shia's bloodthirsty demonstrations at the time of Saddam's execution made it nothing more than another excuse for sectarian hatred and violence, sure to escalate in the coming days ahead.

How many Americans watched that and shook their heads in dismay, wondering, "Is this sickening display really what it's all about? Is this what more than 3000 Americans have given their lives for??"

The mock trial and the sickening execution as a demonstration of sheer revenge and hatred represents the culmination, the "shining moment" by which Americans could view what billions of dollars and thousands of American lives were spent for, not to mention the hundred of thousands of Iraqi lives.
And yet the neocons, no doubt, gloated over the twisted figure of Saddam Hussein, as if it meant so much.

I guess now they must feel justified that 3002 Americans have not died for Halliburton and Bechtel after all!

The following articles are supported by the historical record of the relationship of U.S. interests and Saddam's regime. They explain what the Bush administration would prefer that the American people not know about.

Remember, the same criminals who whitewashed and covered up the Iran-Contra-CIA-Cocaine network, all through the complicity of Democrats and the corporate media, still run the White House, the Pentagon and the C.I.A. They're covering themselves through the hasty execution of Saddam, as well as planning for the next strike against Iran.

Timing is everything. They only need a pretext to expand the war, and war is the imperative for their political survival. Just like in Orwell's 1984, they thrive on a state of permanent war because war demands propaganda to manufacture consent among the "democratic" masses. Consent then legitimizes and insures their political power to undermine Constitutional rights at home while they expand the Empire abroad.

The state of permanent war against a ubiquitous enemy is the perfect formula for consolidating and insuring permanent political power.

And what will the newly elected Democrats do? Will they demand accountability and authentic investigations of criminal conduct within the Bush administration? No, of course not. They do what they did during Iran-Contra-CIA-Cocaine. They gloss over criminal actions in high places and gush to demonstrate "bipartisan" whoredom, chanting, "Let's put all this behind us now so that it will be guaranteed to return again."

December 31, 2006
Saddam Killed in the Nick of Time for U.S. Interests
By Kevin Zeese

Saddam's death paves the way for U.S. troop escalation and ensures there will be no exposure of U.S. complicity in Saddam's crimes

The death of Saddam Hussein came at the right time for his once long-term ally, the United States. It will lead to an increase in U.S. troops and provides cover for past ties between Saddam and Washington.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...led_in_the.htm

George W. Bush may have felt a thrill of vindication as he went to bed with visions of Saddam Hussein dangling at the end of a rope, but Bush achieved something more important for the Bush Family legacy.

He silenced a unique witness who, if given the opportunity, could have testified about the roles of George H.W. Bush and other top U.S. officials in aiding and abetting Hussein's crimes against humanity.

By making sure that Hussein never appeared before an international tribunal, Bush kept those Bush Family secrets safely tucked away, doing his family’s legacy a great service while also protecting secrets that could have embarrassed other senior U.S. government officials.

He has silenced a unique witness to crucial chapters of the secret history that stretched from Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979 to the alleged American-Saudi “green light” for Hussein to attack Iran in 1980, through the eight years of the Iran-Iraq War during which high-ranking U.S. intermediaries, such as Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, allegedly helped broker supplies of war materiel for Hussein.

Hussein now won’t be around to give troublesome testimony about how he obtained the chemical and biological agents that his scientists used to produce the unconventional weapons that were deployed against Iranian forces and Iraqi civilians. He can’t give his perspective on who got the money and who facilitated the deals.

Nor will Hussein be available to give his account of the mixed messages delivered by George H.W. Bush’s ambassador April Glaspie before Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Was there another American “green light” or did Hussein just hear what he wanted to hear?

For the full story of the troublesome testimony that Hussein might have delivered if not sent to the gallows, go to Consortiumnews.com at http://www.consortiumnews.com .

For once, I almost agree with something you've written. Almost.

I do think Saddam's execution was performed very poorly. To have a gang of Shia thugs chanting and taunting him, praising al Sadr, seems contrary to everything we're trying to do over there. The footage of the execution is eerily similar to the footage we've seen before of Islamic militants executing their hostages.

Where we differ is that you don't seem to credit this performance to the Iraqis themselves. If this execution would have been some kind of Bush conspiracy for political gain (among the many you've accused him of), it would have occurred much differently. There was little political gain for Bush in the way this went off.

Similarly, your accusation that prolonging the war is "imperative for their political survival" makes no sense at all. Right or wrong, this war has cost the administration nearly all of its political capital and has lost the Republicans both houses of Congress...if this was about maintaining political clout, we would have been out of Iraq long ago.

And the fact that the US (not just the Bush administrations, but pretty much all US presidents) have backed dictators in the past is nothing new. Supporting the lesser of two evils has been foreign policy for quite a while. It's nothing to be proud of, but it's certainly not some new late-breaking indictment of a particular administration.

I will agree, though, that the servicemen and civilians who have died in this war deserved better than what the Iraqi justice system produced this past weekend.

__________________
Hook 'em
Bear


Texas Longhorns
2005 College World Series Champs
2005 NCAA Football Champs

The performance was Shia. Not much doubt about that.

However, Bush did want Saddam to be executed before he could testify about the greater atrocities he committed, which would also reveal U.S. complicity. That's also why the U.S. did not want Saddam tried at the Hague. He would have been tried for all crimes, and everything would've been revealed. Instead, he was tried in Iraq for only the crimes that did not involve U.S. complicity and then after his swift execution, all charges against his greater crimes were dropped. Not much use in prosecuting a dead man. This is not "conspiracy theory." It's fact.

Regardless of the "political capital" that Bush has supposedly lost, Bush doesn't care. He's a deluded reactionary ideologue who is willing to "double up" and gamble other people's lives to save his political face. Besides that, the long-term geopolitical strategy involves the whole region of OIL in which BIG MONEY pursues its own interest. U.S. soldier's lives are just cannon fodder that is easily spent to protect those interests. The Big Dogs are not all that much affected by what the majority of Americans think about the war. They have their own agenda and interests to protect.

That's what it's all about, yet a good number of Americans are still in denial about this and about their government in general. It's not about the brutal dictator, Saddam, and it's not about spreading democracy in the Middle East, and we all know now about the fictitious WMD's and supposed prior Iraqi connections to al qaeda, etc.

Those are all examples of how ideology is used to make you believe in the "cause" because if you didn't believe in a cause, then you wouldn't want to invade a sovereign country and kill people, would you? You have to be given a moral reason to kill, so ideology and propaganda is the real "lesser of two evils," Bear.

No one would go to Iraq to kill people and risk being killed if you were told that you're going there to fight for the interests of the big OIL companies. No one would be willing to give blood for oil straight up. NO, you need to be told a BIG LIE, and of course, the American government is well versed in lying. That's what it does best. Lying is the necessary "ends-justifies-the-means" evil that rationalizes murder for the sake of higher interests.

I'm sure that you, Bear, are a decent person. There's no way you'd commit murder so that the OIL companies could get richer. But if you were told a lie, if you were made to believe that your cause is righteous, that you're there to protect your country, that you're doing something "good" in the end, why, ... hmmm .... well, ... that's something to consider.