"Evidence offered by a top CIA man could confirm the testimony given by Saddam Hussein at the opening of his trial in Baghdad Thursday that he knew of the Halabja massacre only from the newspapers... A report prepared by the top CIA official handling the matter says Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the massacre, and indicates that it was the work of Iranians. Further, the Scott inquiry on the role of the British government has gathered evidence that following the massacre the United States in fact armed Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranians chemicals for chemicals... But in this case the CIA boss has gone public with his evidence, and this evidence has been in the public domain for more than a year... [a] report in 1996 by Lord Justice Scott in what came to be known as the arms-to-Iraq affair gave dramatic pointers to what followed after Halabja... both the United States [under Reagan and Bush Sr.] and Britain began to supply Saddam Hussein with even more chemical weapons."

Marjorie Cohn writes: "In spite of the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal's mandate of public hearings, no one save the two dozen or so people present in the courtroom were supposed to hear Saddam's words. But an audiotape of the proceedings was smuggled out to the media... A team of U.S. military officers censored the media coverage of the proceeding. They destroyed the videotapes of Saddam in chains and deleted the legal record of the statements of the 11 senior members of Saddam's regime who appeared at the same hearing. One American journalist present in the courtroom revealed: 'We learned later that the judge didn't order us to turn off our sound. The Americans lied - it was they who wanted no sound. The judge wanted sound and pictures'... [The trial] will be interesting in light of the support [Reagan and Bush] furnished to Saddam [until 1991], including the provision of chemical weapons [,as embodied] in the photograph of Donald Rumsfeld's warm handshake with Saddam."

"The names of the prosecutors and judges who will try Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party inner circle will remain secret until pretrial questioning begins in an effort to protect them from supporters of the ousted leader, the tribunal's top official said Wednesday. One of the first Baath leaders to go on trial -- perhaps even before Saddam -- will be Ali Hassan al-Majid, a top Saddam deputy who earned the name 'Chemical Ali' for his campaign against the Kurds in 1980s in which chemical weapons were used and tens of thousands of Kurds were killed, said Salem Chalabi, the court's newly appointed top executive.' " Yes, this was during the period when Reagan-Bush provided Saddam with chemical and biological weapons. The Iraqgate deal was initiated by Donald Rumsfeld, who as Reagan's envoy in 1983 gave Saddam a letter from Reagan offering military support. Any chance Rumsfeld, Bush Sr., Caspar Weinberger, George Schultz or Robert Gates will be called as witnesses for the defense?

AP: "A team of 50 Justice Department prosecutors, investigators and support staff is going to Iraq beginning this weekend to assemble war crimes cases against former President Saddam Hussein and others in his former regime, a senior official said Saturday. The goal of the effort is to sift through thousands of pages of evidence and provide a roadmap for Iraqis to use when they eventually bring Saddam and others in his administration before war crimes tribunals. U.S. officials want the world to view the trials as an Iraqi process, not one run by Americans or other foreigners... Salem Chalabi said Iraqis want to avoid giving Saddam an international platform to try to justify his actions, as former Serbian leader and Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has done in his war crimes trial at The Hague, Netherlands." And Bush REALLY doesn't want Saddam to call his old partners-in-crime to the stand: Rumsfeld, Shultz, Weinberger, Baker AND George Bush Sr!

The Guardian reports: "Iraq's deposed dictator Saddam Hussein is unlikely to stand trial for at least another two years, the Guardian has learned. The Iraqi special tribunal for crimes against humanity is months away from hearing its first case, and when the trials begin in October or November the first defendants to appear will be high-ranking Ba'ath party officials... Iraqi officials want to prevent him politicising his trial in the way the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic has done by calling in former western government leaders to account for the support they showed Saddam before the first Gulf war in 1991. The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who visited Saddam in 1983 and 1984, is among those who could face unwelcome questioning." What about Bush Sr., James Baker, Robert Gates, George Shultz and Caspar Weinberger? They were also the main players in Iraqgate -- the arming and financing of Hussein during the '80s.

The denials are flying fast and furious as info found in documents from the Iraqi Oil Ministry is leaked to Iraq newspapers. It seem scores of Arabs and westerners were doing a brisk and illegal business with Saddam. About 270 former Cabinet officials, legislators, political activists and journalists from 46 countries are on a list being circulated by the Iraq media. Newsday reports: "The documents, as published in the Iraqi Al-Mada newspaper, showed people who allegedly received Saddam's graft came from 46 countries, including Arab states, Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America." We'd just love to know what those "North American" names are - and just how closely they might match names on the secret Cheney energy task force list!

"If Iraqis ever see Saddam Hussein on trial, they want his former American allies shackled beside him. 'Saddam should not be the only one who is put on trial. The Americans backed him when he was killing Iraqis so they should be prosecuted,' said Ali Mahdi... 'If the Americans escape justice they will face God's justice. They must be stoned in hell.' The United States continued to feel the backlash of its move to give Saddam prisoner of war status Tuesday as thousands of Iraqi protesters called for his execution. Washington's move has thrown some doubt over his fate after Iraq's U.S.-backed Governing Council had said Saddam would be tried in a special tribunal by Iraqi judges. His POW status means the former dictator, accused of sending thousands of Iraqis to mass graves, could have more rights than a war criminal... The United States backed Saddam in his war with Iran in the 1980s. During that time, he also gassed an estimated 5,000 Kurds to death in the village of Halabja.'"

"Daniel Joyner, an international law expert at Britain's Warwick University, told Aljazeera.net that he agreed the Iraq war was illegal. But he is not convinced there is any authority the Arab lawyers [representing Saddam] can appeal to. He said: 'It's a serious point that I understand, but who can they make this point to, the International Court of Justice? First of all, it would have to be the government of Iraq bringing the case. If Saddam Hussein from his jail cell were to write a letter to the Hague saying he wanted to bring a case then you would get an interesting legal battle.'"

Scotland's Sunday Herald reports: "According to one Israeli source who was in the company of Kurds at a meeting in Athens early on December 14, one of the Kurdish representatives burst into the conference room in tears and demanded an immediate halt to the discussions. 'Saddam Hussein has been captured,' he said, adding that he had received word from Kurdistan -- before any television reports. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the delegate also confirmed that most of the information leading to the deposed dictator's arrest had come from the Kurds and -- as our earlier Sunday Herald report revealed -- who had organised their own intelligence network which had been trying to uncover Saddam's tracks for months. The delegate further claimed that six months earlier the Kurds had discovered that Saddam's wife was in the Tikrit area."

With a soundtrack by Frank Sinatra, Flash videographer Eric Blumrich tells the 40-year story of US support for Saddam, starting around 1959 in Egypt. Every journalist in the US should study the history of Saddam's rise to power.

"Officials say they now doubt that Saddam had a significant role in directing guerrilla attacks. They say that while his interrogation has led to some arrests, basic information is still lacking about the guerrilla cells that are attacking U.S. and allied troops with sophistication and brutality. 'We don't think, as some have speculated, that he was the central figure managing the entire anti-coalition operation,' said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt... Saddam has begun cooperating with U.S. interrogators, but they said he claims he wasn't involved in directing the resistance and denies he had links to al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups who now appear to be joining the guerrillas... The pace of killing and maiming of American troops hasn't slowed since Saddam's Dec. 13 arrest. In the 14 days prior to Saddam's capture, 11 American soldiers were killed. In the 14 days that followed, that figure was 14."

Tom Flocco writes: "Members of the Bush 41 cabinet held sizeable and conflicting financial positions in Gulf War-related companies. And the results of a financial assets analysis by his Attorney General, Richard Thornburgh, forced the elder Bush to employ a 'conflict of interest waiver' -- kept secret from Congress -- to absolve his cabinet from future culpability or prosecution should Congress or surviving Gulf War military families ever question or litigate their private and/or undisclosed financial links to Iraq. Shockingly, Houston's Baker &Botts law firm -- owned by George Bush Sr.'s Secretary of State James Baker -- was mentioned in a billing statement (for legal services rendered) by a Florida chemical company headed by an Iraqi terrorist and bio-chemical engineer. The Iraqi -- Ihsan Barbouti -- had close ties to World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, but was also the main contractor for the Rabta chemical weapons plant in terrorist Libya."

"Newly declassified documents posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive show the British Embassy in Baghdad recommending Saddam Hussein to London in 1969 as a 'presentable young man' with an 'engaging smile,' 'with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business.' ... The newly declassified briefing notes for special envoy Donald Rumsfeld's second trip to Baghdad in March 1984 reveal Rumsfeld's instructions to reinforce the message of U.S. interest in improved relations 'at a pace of Iraq's own choosing,' and to emphasize that U.S. criticism of Saddam's chemical weapons use versus Iran was not meant as a pro-Iranian or anti-Iraq gesture."

Jackson Thoreau writes: "Two days before the Saddam story was released just in time to make the Sunday morning talk shows and dominate this week's news coverage, George W. Bush did something unusual for him - he took six 'impromptu' questions from the press after a short announcement of his nomination for the new HUD secretary. After stumbling through his answers, Bush's handlers, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Co. knew they had to divert attention fast. Bush's polling numbers have mostly declined since last spring so it was time to.....trot out their friend, Saddam. Saddam was suddenly 'found' just in time for the Sunday morning talk shows so the focus would not be on Halliburton and the declining dollar and other topics the Bushites don't want American voters to know."

"The last thing that the Wall St. Journal-and the ruling circles for which it speaks-wants is for the trial to raise uncomfortable issues, as is clear when the editors turn to their rationale for opposing an int'l tribunal. 'Exhibit No. 1,' the editorial states, 'is the trial of former Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, currently going on at the Hague... Giving Saddam Hussein a similar platform could be a disaster for Iraq's reconstruction, emboldening the Baathist remnants and suggesting to ordinary Iraqis that Saddam still might return to power.'... Nor are these sentiments unique to the WSJ. The New York Times voiced a similar view in a December 21 article by Jeffrey Rosen, entitled 'Pursuing Justice: Perils of the Past.' Also citing the example of Milosevic, Rosen writes: 'There is certainly a risk of embarrassment when the degree of American support for Iraq in its war with Iran in the 1980s is aired. The details revealed could even undermine Washington's credibility.'" GASP!

When Donald met Saddam... Watch Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greet Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

Joe Conason points out that besides Rumsfeld and GHWB, "Saddam could also subpoena Henry Kissinger, whose consulting firm's chief economist ventured to Baghdad in June 1989 to advise the Iraqi government on restructuring its debt. 'After my forces allegedly murdered thousands of Kurdish civilians in 1988,' he might inquire, 'why would you and other American businessmen want to help me refinance and rearm my government?' Indeed, Saddam could conceivably seek the testimony of dozens of men and women who once served in the Reagan and Bush administrations, starting with former Secretary of State George Shultz, and ask them to explain why they opposed every Congressional effort to place sanctions on his government, up until the moment his army invaded Kuwait during the summer of 1990. Pursuing the same general theme, he might call Vice President Dick Cheney, who sought to remove sanctions against Iraq when he served as the chief executive of Halliburton Corp."

"A top-secret report prepared for the American military command in Iraq just before Saddam Hussein was caught predicted that guerrilla attacks would increase after his arrest, as more anti-Saddam Iraqis joined the resistance. The report argued that seizing Saddam could provoke more attacks by making the insurgency more acceptable to Sunni Muslims who weren't members of Saddam's Baath Party elite, according to senior administration officials who've seen it. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the report is classified. The insurgency in Iraq has been strongest in the so-called Sunni Triangle, where most of Iraq's Sunni minority lives, and where Saddam drew his strongest political support. Hopes that Saddam's capture might end the resistance appeared premature Tuesday, as U.S. soldiers captured a senior Iraqi rebel leader and 78 others in a raid on a northeastern village a day after guerrillas ambushed an American patrol in a firefight that left 11 assailants dead."

Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, Ret. writes: "We are seeing an orchestrated media campaign by the administration and a psychological operation aimed at the insurgents in Iraq. The success of this campaign can be measured by recent articles in The Washington Post and The Christian Science Monitor. Looking at the nearly 100 other press reports in the five days since Saddam's capture, one theme is clear: Saddam Hussein was captured, and the United States is on the verge of breaking the Iraqi insurgency. But is it really? As a former instructor at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College, I am familiar with the pattern of using the press to conduct psychological operations against internal audiences in Iraq. The technique is straightforward: plant stories or persuade media outlets to slant the news in a way that debilitates your enemy. And so far, media reports on the intelligence significance of Saddam's capture have followed that pattern to the letter."

Craig Nelson writes, "'The trial will be the trial of the age. We will uncover a lot of secrets concerning heads of states, prime ministers and parliamentarians, intellectuals and others both from Arab states, regional states and Western countries,' Muwaffaq al-Rubaiye said... The trial of the 'Butcher of Baghdad' could prove equally embarrassing for an administration in the middle of a re-election campaign. WMD and human rights? Past U.S. governments embraced Saddam for oil and for their own strategic purposes even as his armies were using chemical weapons against Iranians and his own people. According to declassified U.S. documents, Donald Rumsfeld, a special envoy under President Ronald Reagan, visited Saddam in Baghdad in 1983 but made no mention of chemical weapons, despite his insistence to the contrary last year in a CNN interview. In 1990, Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) told Saddam that he sympathized with his complaints that the Western media were exaggerating his mass murders. "

In 1991, an investigation by Rep. Sam Gejdenson revealed, "From 1985 to 1990, the US Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application." Who spearheaded these efforts? "In 1985, Marshall Wiley, former U.S. ambassador to Oman, set up the Washington-based U.S.-Iraq Business Forum, which lobbied in Washington on behalf of Iraq to promote U.S. trade with that country." Did Wiley promote any of these 771 licenses? "If an item was in dispute, my attitude was if they were readily available from other markets, I didn't see why we should deprive American markets," explained Richard Murphy in 1990. Murphy was Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs from 1983 to 1989. Was Murphy the architect of US sales of WMD to Iraq?

Juan Cole writes, "Don Rumsfeld actually went to Iraq twice, once in 1983, and again in 1984. The work Rumsfeld did in 1983 of beginning a rapprochement between Reagan and Saddam was detracted from by a strong State Department condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. Schultz told Rumsfeld to explain to Saddam that the Reagan administration did not actually, really have any serious objections to, like, exterminating Iranian troops like cockroaches with poison gas. It was just a general, unspecific blanket condemnation of that sort of thing, you know, to keep up appearances... So, Saddam should feel comfortable about Reagan's desire to continually improve bilateral Reagan-Saddam relations at a pace of Saddam's choosing, and not be put off by the unfortunate but necessary pro forma condemnations of him as a war criminal issued at silly old Foggy Bottom."

When Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq for a second visit in 1984, he carried these instructions from Sec. of State George Schultz: "[Schultz] and Larry Eagleburger met with [Foreign] Under Secretary Ismet Kittani at the [State] Dept. on March 15. They clarified that our [chemical weapons] condemnation was [not aimed at Iraq]... They emphasized that our interests in (1) preventing an Iranian victory and (2) continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq... remain undiminished... Eagleburger conveyed to Kittani [VP George HW Bush's] invitation to Tariq Aziz to come to Washington." So Schultz, Rumsfeld and GHWB all openly accepted Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Will any of this be disclosed during Saddam's trial? We demand war crimes prosecution for everyone who let Saddam use WMD's in the 1980's!

AFP reports, "Saddam Hussein was captured by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British [tabloid] said. Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express (express.co.uk), which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer. The newspaper said the full story of events leading up to the ousted Iraqi president's capture on December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq, 'exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete'... An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East told the Express: 'Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time.'"

Cheryl Seal writes: "The Iraqi people deserve a FIRST CLASS real trial - not a hastily scraped-together tribunal with a cast of hand-picked attendees and 'experts,' organized by wanted criminal Ahmed Chalabi. They deserve to have their nation's suffering recognized on an international scale, which is what the Hague represents: the world community's highest court for the highest crimes. Even if some of the truly worst global criminals never get dragged to the Hague (Henry Kissinger and Ariel Sharon come readily to mind), the ideal of the court has been unflaggingly pursued, against the odds, and is recognized. To relegate the trial of Saddam to what amounts to an American military proceeding - worse, a scripted White House theatrical event, just like the 'Turkey in Baghdad' and 'Pretend Fighter Pilot Declares Major Conflict at an End' extravaganzas is a gross affront to Iraqis."

Swopa writes: "The first interesting question that occurs to me is, for how long did we know we were closing in on Hussein? Less than two weeks ago, Joshua Marshall reported that Ray LaHood, a congressman on the House Intelligence Committee, had predicted in talking to a local paper that Saddam would be caught soon. And within days, the Iraqi Governing Council suddenly moved to create a war crimes tribunal, which now will apparently be used to try Hussein." Was Saddam just found -- or was he captured some time ago? So was only a matter of when negotiations were finalized with his captors?

CBC News reports: "The Central Intelligence Agency is in charge of interrogating Saddam Hussein, according to the U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld says he has given CIA director [and Bush Family loyalist] George Tenet the authority to decide who will question the captured Iraqi leader , and what he will be questioned about." No doubt Tenet will pick members from the faction of the CIA that is still loyal to the Bush Crime Family -- the ring of covert operatives and moles that have been part of the Bush Family's illegal operations such as Iran-Contra and Iraqgate. They will be sure to keep a lid on anything Hussein says about his former business relationship with the Bush Crime Family. Tenet will be certain not to choose people from the rest of the Agency. There are far too many upright CIA employees that are righteously outraged by the way Bush and the NeoCons have abused the Agency -- by corrupting their intelligence on Iraq -- and outing the CIA's Valerie Plame.

Jim Lobe writes: "How much more of this intimate relationship Saddam will recall when he gets a public forum is undoubtedly a concern of many current and past administration figures. The situation echoes the worries of former US president George H W Bush over what Panamanian strongman General Manuel Antonio Noriega might say in open court about his long and intimate connections to US intelligence agencies when he surrendered to the US military after Washington's invasion of Panama in 1989. Of course, Noriega was recruited while he was still in the military academy, and his rise to power was facilitated tremendously by those ties. He was a paid agent from the beginning, and, while a rogue who did not hesitate to intimidate and occasionally knock off a few dissidents to keep things quiet, he was never the mass murderer and serial invader of his neighbors that Saddam has been. On the other hand, Saddam was also a beneficiary of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) help."

PentaPost 3-22-1992:"Almost every Monday for the past couple of months, Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez (D-Tex.), the feisty chairman of the House Banking Committee, has been setting the Bush administration's teeth on edge with fiery exposes about its courtship of Iraq before the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. So far, hardly anyone has been listening. Gonzalez's 'special orders' - as such uninterrupted speeches are called - are delivered to a virtually empty House floor. But they are full of excruciating detail - much of it classified 'secret' and 'confidential' - that could haunt the White House before this election year is over. Gonzalez's charges are simple and direct: Senior Bush administration officials went to great lengths to continue supporting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his unreliable regime long after it was prudent to do so." Read the details of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) scandal - and remember no one in the Bush I regime was prosecuted over Iraqgate.

"Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam 'a long time ago if they wanted...There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing...'I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him. It's funny,' McDermott added, 'when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something.'"

Brian Balta writes: "Joe Lieberman, the man in the Democratic party who is second only to Tom Daschle in earning my wrath, had this to say about Saddam's capture yesterday. If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place,' Lieberman said. 'I consistently supported Saddam's removal for the past decade, and am prepared to do what it takes to win the war on terrorism at home and abroad.' I may touch on the political aspects of that later. But here I want to deal with a more important part of his speech; why he's still wrong."

Doug Basham writes: "The time to be self righteous and holier than thou was not in the latter part of 2002 when this administration first started marketing this war like a half-off sale at J.C. Penney's; and it was not in 2003 when the neo-cons coerced this uncurious, ignorant deserter in the White House to send our boys to die in Iraq. Rather, the time to get your edible undies in a wad was when the last generation of Republican thugs - namely Reagan and Bush I - were giving Saddam the dope he needed to be an evil bastard. That's when you should have been concerned about the Kurds, or 'his own people', as they are now disingenuously referred to." Of course, loyal little Republicans will say that it was OK for Reagan-Bush to support Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, since Iran was the greater enemy. Hey, Reagan-Bush ALSO armed Iran -- remember Iran-Contra? For the Bush gang and their cronies, Iran-Contra and Iraqgate were all about illicit profits from arm sales.

W. David Jenkins III writes: "While we should be proud of the accomplishment by the troops involved in Hussein's capture, it is imperative to remember that Saddam Hussein is little more than a bit player in the grand scheme, that is the Iraq Invasion. His capture should be more than a chance for political grandstanding and more than the reason George W. is being allowed to sit next to his Daddy at the dinner table again... but on the other hand, Hussein's capture changes nothing concerning where we are, and how we got there. And the thing that bothers me the most, as someone who loves this country, is the fact that the only reason Hussein was captured in the first place, is that the president lied to the country in order to invade Iraq . And the only thing worse than that, is that there are self-proclaimed 'patriots' who think that it's okay to be lied to - as long as it's Bush doing the lying."

"Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get. America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops... We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report): * Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax. * Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin. * Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart. * Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs. * Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness. * Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance."

"Saddam Hussein was taken into custody yesterday at approximately 8:30pm Baghdad time. Various television executives, White House spin doctors and propaganda experts at the Pentagon are at this time wrestling with the question of whether to claim PFC Jessica Lynch seized the ex-potentate or that Saddam surrendered after close hand-to-hand combat with current Iraqi strongman Paul Bremer III. Ex-President Hussein himself told US military interrogators that he had surfaced after hearing of the appointment of his long-time associate James Baker III to settle Iraq's debts. 'Hey, my homeboy Jim owes me big time,' Mr. Hussein stated. He asserted that Baker and the prior Bush regime, 'owe me my back pay. After all I did for these guys you'd think they'd have the decency to pay up.' The Iraqi dictator then went on to list the 'hits' he conducted on behalf of the Baker-Bush administrations, ending with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, authorized by the former US secretary of state Baker."

DEBKAfile speculates on intelligence issues from a pro-Israeli viewpoint. Noting the "incredibly bedraggled, tired and crushed condition of this once savage, dapper and pampered ruler," DEBKAfile concludes: "Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner. After his last audiotaped message was delivered and aired on Sunday November 16, on the occasion of Ramadan, Saddam was seized, possibly with the connivance of his own men, and held in that hole in Adwar for three weeks or more, which would have accounted for his appearance and condition. Meanwhile, his captors bargained for the $25m prize the Americans promised for information leading to his capture alive or dead. The negotiations were mediated by Jalal Talabani's Kurdish PUK militia." Interesting theory. Also noteworthy is the fact Saddam's capture followed right on the heels of James Baker's appointment for Iraq "debt restructuring," when Bush badly needs the support of Europe. Plus that annoying Halliburton scandal...

Cheryl Seal writes: "When the 'Saddam Capture' story broke, a survey of several mainstream news outlets makes it clear: The corporate media in the US and UK, were conveniently supplied with a package similar to a press kit that included video footage, still shots, press releases worded in such a way they could be cut and pasted in the news section or read on air.... Any questions were undoubtedly referred to a 'senior White House Official' who had been briefed with all the correct answers -just as when you are referred to the 'public relations department' when you have a product complaint, you are shortstopped by someone with all the answers, but no solutions. Yep, the White House supplied the media with everything they wanted them to know and say. No need at all for the lazy corporate editor or journalist to ask any questions. Just open wide and let 'em spoon it in!"

Here's a report from the Daily Mirror from 9-21-03 that now seems extremely interesting in light of last weekend's events: "Saddam Hussein has been in secret negotiations with US forces in Iraq for the past nine days, we can reveal. The Iraqi dictator is demanding safe passage to the former Soviet republic of Belarus. In exchange, he has vowed to provide information on weapons of mass destruction and disclose bank accounts where he siphoned off tens of millions of dollars in plundered cash. President Bush is being kept abreast of the extraordinary talks by his National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice. She is co-ordinating negotiations in Baghdad which are led by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of American forces in Iraq." What was that about?

"It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed lo these last twelve years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse... Scott Ritter... said, 'It's great that they caught him. The man was a brutal dictator who committed terrible crimes against his people... [but] we didn't go to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found'... The dying will continue because America's presence in Iraq is a wonderful opportunity for a man named Osama bin Laden, who was not captured on Saturday... There will be no trial for Hussein, at least nothing in public, because he might start shouting about the back pay he is owed from his days as an employee of the American government."

Saddam always said he'd tell the world of his real connections with the Reagan and Bush administrations if he got the chance. Now, thanks to an "amazing coincidence," he won't get his day in a world court. That's because 3 days before his alleged capture, the Bush interim government in Iraq set up a special war crimes tribunal that will be closed to the world except for "outside experts" (hand-picked by the Bush junta, of course). How very, very convenient. As the AFP reported on December 10, "Back in Iraq...the Governing Council approved late last night the creation of an Iraqi penal tribunal to try former members of Saddam Hussein's regime for their crimes against humanity.. Council members have said US overseer Paul Bremer has to sign the tribunal statutes, but a coalition spokesman has insisted it was the Governing Council that was taking the decisions about the court and not the US-led occupation authority." Yeah, right.

The Progressive reports that in 1991, Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-CT) condemned Reagan-BUSH for selling bioweapons to Iraq: "From 1985 to 1990, the US Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. [Only thirty-nine applications were rejected.] The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted... The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that... it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein." [Rep. John Dingell] investigated the Department of Energy concerning an unheeded 1989 warning about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. In 1992, he accused the DOE of punishing employees who raised the alarm and rewarding those who didn't take it seriously."