The Folly of it all, the trial of Saddam Hussein

Saddam Hussein’s two biggest alleged crimes were: 1) he invaded Kuwait 2) he gassed thousands of his own people, but he is not being tried for either. What gives? Hussein is being tried for the murder of 140 people after an assassination attempt on his life. Why are the two most serious alleged crimes not on the agenda? Since the current trial is taking place in an American built courtroom, by judges who were brought to the US for “training”, with all expenses and salaries of the prosecution team being paid for by the US, one must wonder about the fairness of such a trial. It might be fairer to bring in a “Dunking Stool” from the Salem witchcraft trials.

Could it be that he is not being tried for his invasion of Kuwait because he was given the “green light” by the US ambassador April Glaspie just seven days before his invasion of Kuwait? The Glaspie transcript clearly shows when the US ambassador met with Hussein she indicated the US would not interfere with his invasion. Was Hussein “set up”?? Is the US afraid if he is charged with the invasion of Kuwait the defense might bring up some embarrassing facts about the set up? Could the defense team turn the table and suggest that if Hussein is guilty of invading Kuwait, why is the US not guilty of invading Iraq?

One also must question the “gassing of his own people” accusation?? Could it be that if he were tried for this offense the defense might substantiate charges that the US (then a good friend of Hussein) supplied him with the gasses and is therefore an accomplice? Could it be that it might be difficult to prove that Hussein really did gas his people because a Pentagon statement issued in 1990 indicates there is no evidence to substantiate such and accusation?

That leaves the current charge of killing 140 people who attempted to assassinate him. When found guilty of this crime (the verdict is a forgone conclusion as we bought the best justice money can buy) one must think about similar crimes. Recall the alleged attempt to assassinate former President George Bush when he visited Kuwait. In June of 1993 President Clinton retaliated by ordering the launching of 23 Tomahawk missiles against Iraq. It never made sense that the attempt on Bush’s life was in Kuwait but we turned around and attacked Iraq, but that’s another story. The Tomahawk missiles had the capacity to carry 1000 pound bombs, and according to a variety of news services, several of the missiles hit residential neighborhoods causing many civilian casualties.

If Hussein is guilty of killing people because of an attempted assassination, isn’t Clinton guilty of the same?? Only folly comes from a war based on lies.

If it smells like oil, it probably is oil.

Many have argued that the attack on Iraq was simply a pretext to get Iraq’s oil, a charge vehemently denied by the administration. Now that the administration has lost its credibility it may be appropriate to review some pertinent facts.

Recall that in the 1980s Saddam Hussein was our good friend (i.e. the infamous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein). We willingly and happily supplied him with all his needs including gasses and WMD but suddenly Hussein was depicted as the Hitler figure of his day. What changed? Saddam Hussein announced that all foreign oil companies must leave Iraq and the entire oil industry was taken over by the Iraqi government. The oil companies lost their right to access and sell Iraq’s oil. Although Hussein skimmed millions, he used the oil profits to build infrastructure, to build one of the best education systems in the Middle East, and poured the oil money into a remarkable health care system for the people of Iraq. He miscalculated oil’s power in American politics and his erroneous belief that Iraq’s oil resources belonged to the people sealed his fate. The propaganda began, overnight he became a monster, and Hitler was reborn.

The attack commenced with “Shock and Awe” unleashed on Iraq’s entire infrastructure. A few eyebrows rose when the only government facility untouched by US bombs was the Oil Ministry building, and additionally when US forces invaded Iraq, the very first military move was to secure the oil fields of Iraq. Coincidence?

When the country was secured (it no longer is), Paul Bremer was sent in to administer the new provisional government and one of his first acts was to begin the privatization of Iraq’s oil industry. Shortly thereafter the neocons, the architects of the war, began talking about building an oil pipe line from Kirkuk to the Israeli port Haifa, as reported by the highly respected British paper The Guardian, in April of 2003, and also by the Israeli paper Haaretz. This story went virtually uncovered by mainstream US media but imagine how well that played in the Arab world.

In May of 2003 Congressman Henry Waxman discovered that Halliburton was in charge of pumping Iraq’s oil. Halliburton had been given a contract to extinguish Iraq’s oil fires but abuses and over billing were alleged. Congressman Waxman investigated, and while questioning the Army Corps of Engineers found that Halliburton was also in charge of pumping Iraq’s oil, and that it was not being metered by anyone. This story also went unreported by mainstream American media. Halliburton was formerly run by Dick Cheney who still receives a huge sum from Halliburton each year, which is placed in a blind trust. Is it a coincidence that Mr. Cheney has refused to divulge who attended his energy task force and what topics were discussed, prior to the invasion of Iraq? We now know, through documents made public by court action, that four oil companies attended a meeting with Mr. Cheney and maps of Iraq’s oil fields were used in that very meeting. Was this payback for the oil industry’s large financial support to the Bush campaign without which he may not have been elected?

Just recently an organization called Platform released a publication entitled Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Wealth revealing multinational oil companies are planning a corporate oil grab and will “plunder” $194 million by signing secret deals to gain access to Iraq’s oil. Obviously this illustrates how wrong Hussein was in thinking Iraq’s oil belonged to the people for this represents $194 million taken from the people of Iraq.
This story was not carried by mainstream media in this country.

On 1/16/03 the Wall Street Journal reported that officials from the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Schlumberger, Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war expansion of oil production from Iraq (whose oilfields were largely held by US companies prior to their nationalization)


Noteworthy also is that Saddam Hussein had offered oil exploratory rights to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia, but those rights were not acted upon because of the US imposed sanctions. If Hussein were the victim of “regime change”, those rights would be null and void and not recognized by the new government.

Add to the mix that Vice President, Mr. Cheney, ran Halliburton (a gigantic oil corporation) for five years before becoming Vice President. When Mr. Cheney left Halliburton he was awarded a 34 million dollar severance package, and he continues to collect an annual check from the corporation. The Secretary of State, Ms Rice, formerly worked for Chevron and to show their gratitude named one of their new supertankers (Condoleezza) after her. Both the President and his father have very close ties to the oil industry, and the President’s staff and cabinet are completely dominated by former oil people. Not surprisingly, a new Zoogby Poll shows 76% of Arab people in the Middle East believe the war is an attempt to get Iraq’s oil.

Oil is not the only reason for the invasion and occupation of an unarmed country, but it certainly is one of the major contributing factors.