Iraq Prepares Grim Saddam Museum

Partner Links

Read the comment policy

Showing 2 of 2 comments

Yes, I see Saddam influencing American Public Relations by pointing his finger in the air. And during this video clip, we see him mouthing off (in Arabic-English translation), "George Bush is a criminal." That's the only clip any of us Americans have ever seen since his capture of him... while he was still alive. Yet this was before his trial. A strong influence on American public opinion, indeed. And from there, we saw him hanged. The large gap of his testimony is currently filled in with the American common knowledge of Saddam's presumptive guilt. Why are we not entitled to his testimony? Why, because he was tried by the New Iraq Government! So, let me get this straight... America gave him to Iraq to try him because there would be no publicity giving credence to Saddam's statements. I mean, Americans pretty much know after the war's happening that it became unpopular, but the absence of his statement in the whole matter seems just a trifle, doesn't it? Because, who cares? We won the war, right? I agree. Except, how did the American public get to see the most publicly-convicting clip without providing any other texture? Somehow, based on this one clip alone, America convicted him without listening to anything else he said. Saddam seemed awfully sure that George Bush was a criminal, but he didn't get to--not defend himself, but--describe how George Bush was a criminal. How can that part of that same conversation not get airplay, but this one did? Did we prosecute him psychologically? Did he essentially convict himself with his own psychology? And, if he did, in that one moment, convict himself to the American public, does that mean George Bush was not guilty? If he did, in that one moment, convict himself to the American public, does that mean that we must disallow the rest of the video recording, a recording that was hand-picked by someone standing over an editor to decide what would most readily convict the man who had a public trial with Americans before the legal proceeding even began? I get the feeling the rest of this clip--and the entire legal proceeding--were not figments of American imagination, so what if they were kept from the American public? Did Saddam know something? Are we examining his psychology AND his testimony when he gets hanged in Iraq? Who decided it would be best to turn him over to a new government that hadn't even had a chance to decide anything else about itself? Iraq was in a state of civil war, by definition, during the time the trial took place. Yet, all we see is this little clip of him being questioned by another Iraqi (presumably). Doesn't this bother anyone else? A man who has prosecuted over 100 cases--losing only one--who may be the most famous lawyer in the U.S.--has written a book indicting, and prosecuting, George Bush. But, that doesn't influence our observance of the psychologically-disturbed Saddam who gets caught on video pointing his finger in the air. Did Saddam even know there was a camera in the room? Certainly in 2006 as well, there have been plenty of ways of hiding cameras nearly since their invention over 100 years ago. But, it doesn't matter, because we know he pointed his finger during a preliminary inquiry. Who decided to record it? Is that legal? I mean, doesn't that influence the public's mind right before the trial? Just out of curiosity, how was that allowable? Had his jurors seen any part of this clip? Can we be sure that they didn't? Oh, I forget, he was tried in Iraq. Well, I guess we'll never know this, nor what he had to say about his involvement with the American C.I.A. in which he is seen here calling George Bush a criminal. Oddly--or not so oddly that no one would have anticipated it--the clip is not very long. He was next hung. Along with his testimony. Which will never reach the States.

You have to be friggin kidding me!