After Saddam’s execution, the press had a field day in analyzing and editorializing the incident as well as Saddam himself. Most were writing well out of their league and their ignorance of history showed. Because most U.S. readers do not know the history of Iraq, the scribes’ words were taken as true.

The theme of many articles was that justice was not achieved because Saddam was hanged for a lesser crime than the major ones assessed against him. The "progressive" writers wanted to see him tried for gassing incidents so they could tie together U.S. involvement with the "misdeeds" of Saddam Hussein. Article-after-article mentioned Rumsfeld’s visit to Iraq in the 1980s and said the U.S. gave Iraq the technology for Iraq’s WMD programs during the Iran-Iraq War, however, not one questioned the reason for the war. They all blamed it on Saddam and wrote as if Iran was a benign and aggrieved country. Also, not one writer mentioned that Saddam was quickly hanged before the gassing incidents could come to court. Many people accuse Iran, not Iraq of gassing the Kurds at Halabjah. If Saddam was dead, these items could not be addressed, so the truth behind the myth of "gassing his own people" went to the grave with Saddam. Further, not one mentioned that Saddam’s Iraqi attorney, Khalil al-Dulaimi, the only defense lawyer able to speak in the courtroom, had been approached twice in the previous year by Iranian agents who tried to persuade him not to mention Halabjah at the trial. On his first encounter, in Jordan, he was offered $10 million to keep the subject off the agenda. Later, in Paris, the Iranians upped the ante by offering him $100 million. The only way to keep the subject away from public scrutiny was to kill Saddam on bogus charges. Shortly after he died, the court dropped the genocide charges against Saddam Hussein.

But, in most of the reporting, a visible part of history was missing. At the same time Saddam Hussein and Rumsfeld met, Iran was killing Iraqi soldiers and civilians with missiles supplied by the U.S. The U.S. had already made the deal with Iran to sell them missiles and other military material, with Israel getting the obligatory 10% for being the middleman. Iraq and Iran were both supplied by the U.S.

After Saddam’s execution, some writers mocked him and again, re-wrote history. In "So Long to 'Our Tyrant,’" Andrew Cockburn stated in Common Dreams on December 30, 2006:

Cockburn, of all people, should know that after Desert Storm, many plots to get rid of Saddam emerged.. For instance, even Scott Ritter, once head of the U.N. inspection team, stated that the goal of the U.S. personnel on the inspection contingent was to overthrow Saddam. He admits that he was part of the scheme.

John Simpson of the Sunday Times relayed more historical revision in his piece "Tyrant Met His End with Fortitude:"

The glaring mis-representation in this piece is the depiction that his ministers, the officers in his army and police force consisted mostly of Sunnis. In fact, 60% of the Republican Guard officers were Shi’ite. As were two-thirds of the Iraqi ambassadors assigned to the U.N. during Saddam’s tenure. Iraq’s mouthpiece to the world in March and April 2003, Mohamed Sahaff (the Iraq Information Minister) was Shi’ite. In the infamous deck of 55 playing cards created by the U.S., 35 individuals were Shi’ite. Plus, Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister, was a Christian. Justice could have been better portrayed if Simpson took a few minutes to research facts before he made such erroneous allegations.

In the article, "Rule of Noose," in The Nation of December 31, 2006, Bruce Shapiro wrote:

Shapiro packed much rancor into such a short span of words. "Depraved and sadistic" stick out. I doubt that Shapiro has an education and background in psychology, but he tries to dissect Saddam Hussein’s brain. On December 30, 2006, the only "depraved and sadistic" Iraqis we saw were the ones who taunted Saddam and those who pulled the lever for his hanging.

On the other hand, some articles contained realistic information. According to Robert Dreyfuss, in his article, "The Consequences of Killing Saddam," in The Nation, December 31, 2006:

Michael Boldin spoke of the lies and deceit of the U.S. administration in his piece "Saddam Was Right and Bush Was Wrong," published online by www.populistamerica.com on December 30, 2006:

Boldin is one of the few writers who went right to the core of the problem of the demonizing of Saddam Hussein. If those who accused Saddam of myriad atrocities had been exposed as liars about virtually every aspect on Iraq, how could they transform themselves into purveyors of truth in describing Saddam Hussein and his regime?

Al-Quds of al-Arabi assessed the situation in a logical manner. Its editor, Abdel Bari Atwan, told Aljazeera News:

The pundits had a great time writing about Saddam Hussein’s execution. Many work for huge publications with limitless resources for research, yet they chose to re-hash old discredited information and add a few new untruths as well.

These represent only a few statements made in the Western press. But, in newspapers from Brazil to Russia, from India to Indonesia, from Pakistan to Venezuela, and many other nations, the media were much kinder to Saddam Hussein and the barbaric end he experienced.

Many Western observers are not aware that Saddam Hussein was well-regarded in much of the world. Brazilians remembered that thousands of their countrymen were recruited by Saddam to build the advanced highway and bridge systems that once crisscrossed Iraq. Egyptians did not forget that more than two million of their countrymen owned and worked land in Iraq prior to January 1991. Indians did not forget the reciprocal dealings with Iraq and how the Ba’athists gave support to Indian causes. The Lebanese remembered the dozens of Iraqi trucks that showed up daily at the Lebanese border during that country’s civil war. They were laden with food and clothing for any Lebanese person in need. The convoys’ recipients included all Lebanese, not a certain faction of those battling in the civil war. Most Palestinians display a picture of Saddam Hussein on their walls. Over the years, many nations have temporarily supported the Palestinian cause, only to withdraw aid once threatened by the U.S. Saddam Hussein, even during the embargo years, supported the Palestinians with no exception, while other Arab regimes did not want to get involved because they did not want to upset their puppeteers in Washington and Tel Aviv.

It didn’t take long for the world to see how quickly the bogus court that tried Saddam became unraveled. On March 9, 2007, the headlines for Al-Jazeera News read, "Saddam Judge Flees Iraq." Raouf Abdel-Rahman was the judge who sentenced Saddam Hussein, Barzan al-Tikriti (Iraq’s former intelligence minister) and Awad Hamed (former head of Iraq’s Revolutionary Court) to death. All were hanged.

Abdel-Rahman was the second judge on the trial in which the defendants were accused of crimes against humanity for the execution of 148 people from the city of Dujail in 1985. The first judge, Rizgar Amin, resigned. He accused the U.S.-allied Iraqi officials of scripting the trial for him. When Abdel-Rahman came on board, the so-called trial turned into a fiasco. He constantly kicked the defendants and their lawyers out of the court room. He made public statements before the end of the trial in which he stated that Saddam was guilty. When a defense witness came forth with a video tape showing how the head prosecutor, Jaafar al-Musawi and a prosecution witness, Ali al-Haidari had lied, Abdel-Rahman confiscated the video tape and had the witness, along with three other defense witnesses, arrested and tortured.

When the appeals court turned down the request of Saddam’s defense team about the death verdict, Abdel-Rahman had to set an execution date within 30 days of the appeal verdict. Saddam was hanged within four days, on the date of the beginning of a Moslem holiday.

For a few months, Abdel-Rahman relished in his image as a no-nonsense, tough judge. The truth differs. He stood against everything a judge is supposed to represent: to find the truth. He lied and he was a fraud. He was brave while he was protected by the U.S. Army in the Green Zone, but once the hangings were conducted, it appears that Abdel-Rahman must have lost some of his protection. He fled to Great Britain.

There is one aspect of this mockery that is confusing. Abdel-Rahman asked for "political asylum" in Great Britain. Political asylum is usually requested by citizens of countries in which they are not allowed political, social or religious rights that other citizens enjoy. Abdel-Rahman was a product of the quisling Iraqi government. He was right in the middle of all the shenanigans and violence the pretenders thrust on Iraq. Why did he ask for "political asylum" when he was a mainstream player in the sordid politics of Iraq?

It is probable that there were many Iraqis who were offended by Saddam Hussein’s show trial and hanging and some were probably picking up the stench of Abdel-Rahman’s scent. Even the U.S. and the Iraqi stooges would have been unable to give him enough security to ensure that he would be alive at retirement age.

Abdel-Rahman may have been the temporary victor because of his actions in an unfair Iraqi courthouse that led to the hanging of Saddam Hussein. But, in death, Saddam Hussein won the battle against him as Abdel-Rahman made a secret and cowardly exit from Iraq.

At the time of the writing of this book, a very ill Tariq Aziz is being tried on false charges. Out of nowhere, Abdel-Rahman reappeared in Baghdad. It appears that no one wanted to be the judge who orders the hanging of Aziz, so the quisling Iraqi government made a deal with the person who handed down Saddam Hussein’s death sentence. It will be interesting to see Abdel-Rahman’s actions after the trial. He may well return to England for his extended vacation.

Saddam Hussein knew how his life would end, but he was well aware that his legacy would be part of the equation that will resurrect Iraq. He never sold out, not even at the end when he was offered chances to be freed from prison. He knew that if he sold out, he would have sold out Iraq.

Long after his execution, Saddam Hussein still gained ludicrous press coverage. On the first anniversary of the hanging, two British newspapers ran stories about the one-year anniversary.

On December 31, 2007, the British daily newspaper, The Telegraph, ran an article called "Few Gather to Remember at Saddam’s Tomb." It was written by Akeel Hussein and Colin Freeman. Here are a few statements:

This pieces is a horrible example of journalism, especially coming from such an established newspaper as The Telegraph. The tone of mockery is normally never seen in a feature article. Plus, the inaccuracies are glaring. Even from Saddam’s naysayers I have never seen the last words attributed to him that this stooge tag-team wrote. However, the facts are true: only a few dozen people showed up at Saddam’s grave.

Now, let’s go a few miles across London and see how The Times handled the same story. Deborah Haynes and Ali Hamdani collaborated on the article "Thousands Prevented from Visiting Saddam Tomb on Anniversary of Execution" that was published on December 30, 2006.

Let’s take a look at a sampling of this article:

Two stories used basic facts (and some fiction on the part of The Telegraph) in depicting the first anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s murder. However, only one stated why there were so few people at Saddam’s grave.

If Saddam Hussein is a spent force in Iraq, why does the U.S. and its quisling allies keep people from visiting his grave? They are cowards with absolutely no integrity and can only function surrounded by tanks and enough military hardware to incinerate the entire country of Iraq. So much for "bringing democracy to Iraq."

Since the publishing of my book, the Iraqi quislings have gone even further in keeping people away from Saddam’s grave. According to an article in Al-Jazeera News of July 6, 2009, titled "Iraq Bans Visits to Saddam’s Grave:"

If Saddam Hussein is a spent force in Iraq, why does the U.S. and its quisling allies keep people from visiting his grave? They are cowards with absolutely no integrity and can only function surrounded by tanks and enough military hardware to incinerate the entire country of Iraq. So much for "bringing democracy to Iraq."

______________________________________________________________

NOTE: The entire three portions of this series is included in my book, The Mother of All Battles. For the month of December 2009, Uruknet readers, as well as those on other sites, will receive a discount for the 400-page book. The price is $20 per book. When ordering, mention this offer. For non-U.S. readers, the postage is $12.95. I can fit two books into each USPS Priority envelope. This postage is a one-price limit for any amount of what can be put in the envelope. If two people want to order the book, each can pay for the book and have them shipped in one envelope, making the shipping cost half of what it would be if only one book was inserted. Just click on the link following the picture of my book below to order.