By Yasmin Alibhai-Brown | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Bad boy Julian Assange, the pretty, blondish founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks was hugely admired when he uncovered oppressors and political chicanery in places like China and Kenya, but now he takes on Western duplicity and crimes. Can't have that. This spawn of Beelzebub, say our masters, a traitor whose insolence is a crime against the secretive states of the US and UK. Disregard the pique and dyspepsia of officialdom. It is a distraction, smoke from fires deliberately started to stop us seeing what lies before us.

The audacious website first released confidential and candid material on the hellish war in Afghanistan and now opens up a new front, more than 400,000 classified US files documenting the previously untold horrors of the Iraq war. Revealed are countless atrocities and the deaths of 66,000 Iraqi civilians at the hands of US and British soldiers and Iraqi personnel who had joined the allies. Men were burnt, some had parts removed, others were killed slowly; women were shot, children too, killed before they grew. Anything goes, it seems, during a military conflict and no questions are asked. As an Israeli army trainer said, when asked about the death of Rachel Corrie, the young, pro-Palestinian activist mown down by an Israeli tank: "During war there are no civilians".

The authorities in Iraq did not investigate reports of abuse and killings. An Iraqi friend tells me the rape of girls, women, boys and men was widespread, a tool used both to intimidate and punish. Apparently, there are images from Abu Ghraib prison of these sadistic "punishments"; they were never released because of the feelings they could arouse in Muslim countries. So morally deformed are these men of war that they care more about inconvenient outrage than they do about crimes against the people they supposedly went to save. They should have heeded the words of Martin Van Creveld, an erudite Israeli war historian who compared the disastrous American Vietnam War with the Iraq adventure:

"He who fights the weak – and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed – and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins, also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel."

By this reasoning, to fight the weak who are not in any sense your enemy is extreme brutishness and totally self-defeating.

Key figures in the British Army and Government must have been privy to this information. They held their tongues and presumably sidestepped any ethical niggles. The Americans were in command and you don't get to lick the arse of the world's only superpower and then turn round and kick it. That, you understand, is the pact, the unbreakable deal behind our special relationship.

Manfred Novak, the UN special rapporteur on torture, says Obama's administration must investigate and come clean – after all, this President vowed to change the image and behaviour of the US which, for too long, has co-operated with tyrants and violated human rights across the world, including in Guantanamo Bay, which is still open and where captured, lost boys became broken men.

Fewer and fewer global citizens now believe the rapturous anthems and sombre panegyrics of God's own America. After this week, the number will have tumbled further, which, in some ways, is a pity. There is much to praise about the US, its history of perpetual resistance to unacceptable state power, its energy, creativity, business, intellectual and cultural buzz. When such a great nation does great wrong, its mirror is shattered and even if the shards are stuck back together again, the cracks will always remain. And when the custodian of the free world behaves so appallingly, how do we liberal Muslims promote democratic values across the Muslim world?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (sounding like a clone of Condi Rice) slammed the Wikileaks exposé and warned that lives of US civilians and forces and their allies were now in serious danger. At one level, I fear she is right. The internet traffic over the past two days has been so fast, furious and volatile, it could indeed fuel terrorism, recruitment into jihadi cells, even more violence in unstable Iraq, suicide bombers in Afghanistan and ugly attitudes towards the West, home to millions of Muslims. But keeping the stories hidden was always wrong. Innocent Iraqi people should never have been made to suffer by the allies and even the guilty should have faced due process to prove commitment to justice and decent values. When there was evidence of liberators behaving monstrously, action should have been taken and in the public eye. Clinton must know this, as a lawyer. It is a primary principle of her profession.

I wonder if some staunch supporters of the Iraq war will now think again about the purpose and execution of that illegal and vainglorious expedition. The sanctions and war killed, maimed and destroyed more civilians than Saddam did, even during the most diabolical periods of his rule. Blair, Bush and their armies have never had to face proper, international judicial interrogations. Now imagine good Muslims worldwide, who know all about universal rights, but can see that there is no universal accountability, that Third World despots are made to pay while others earn millions writing autobiographies and lecturing the world on good leadership and governance. Hundreds of savvy, smart, keenly aware young people email me from various Muslim states asking: "What's the point? They say one thing and do the opposite. They say they want to help us and kill our people. Why should we trust the British and Americans?"

What do our army commanders and American leaders advise me to tell these disenchanted Muslims? And Mr Blair, I wonder if he has some wise thoughts? He is, they tell me, still one of the greatest prime ministers this country has had. And his wife, the hot human rights lawyer, does she think these abuses her husband just might have known about should be investigated? No answers will be forthcoming. Those who took us into this war are not obliged to explain themselves, not liable. In that they are worse than the dictator they toppled. Not comfortable that thought, but true.

(The Independent)

By Maidhc Ó Cathail* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Chutzpah, a Yiddish word meaning "shameless audacity," has been famously defined as "that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan." Considering Israel's increasingly outrageous behaviour, perhaps it's time for a new definition. The one that springs to mind is "that quality enshrined in a state, which having induced its 'allies' into a disastrous invasion of Iraq, then urges them to attack Iran."

At a recent dinner in honour of visiting Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took yet another rhetorical swipe at Tehran. "Humanity stands before one of its most difficult tests since World War II," Netanyahu intoned. "The radical Islamic regime threats [sic] the well-being of the state of Israel, the region, and all of humanity."

Sounding more like an Israeli envoy than the head of a sovereign nation, Berlusconi responded, "My job is to make sure that world leaders do not commit the same error of the past, the error of indifference that brought about the greatest tragedy in history."

In Defamation, a highly revealing 2009 documentary on anti-Semitism by Israeli filmmaker Yoav Shamir, Professor Norman Finkelstein noted this strategy of invoking past Jewish suffering to justify future wars. "The irony is that the Nazi holocaust has now become the main ideological weapon for launching wars of aggression," said Finkelstein, the author of The Holocaust Industry. "Every time you want to launch a war of aggression, drag in the Nazi holocaust."

Or, to be more precise, every time Israel wants other countries to launch a war of aggression on its behalf, it drags in the Nazi holocaust. In the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Netanyahu was one of many Zionists who did just that. In a September 20, 2002 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "The Case for Toppling Saddam," Netanyahu laid on the guilt trip: "We now know that had the democracies taken pre-emptive action to bring down Hitler's regime in the 1930s, the worst horrors in history could have been avoided."

And as he and other Zionists are now doing with Iran, Netanyahu was in 2002 hyping a non-existent Iraqi nuclear threat. Saddam Hussein, he claimed, was "feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons." Moreover, "the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs," the then former Israeli Prime Minister speculated, could be produced "in centrifuges the size of washing machines that can be hidden throughout the country-and Iraq is a very big country." To uncover Saddam's hypothetical "portable manufacturing sites of mass death," Netanyahu warned that "nothing less than dismantling his regime will do."

One might think that with over a million people dead and almost five million others displaced in Iraq-and not a weapon of mass destruction to be found-that Netanyahu might be showing some remorse. Instead, he's beating the drums loudest for an even more catastrophic war with Iran.

That should tell us a lot not only about the man but about the nature of the ideology that drives him. Zionism, like the fictional Jewish parenticide, shamelessly attempts to turn reality on its head.

Instead of acknowledging that it is the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, Israel and its supporters focus the world's attention on imaginary threats from its regional rivals.

Rather than apologizing for their crimes against humanity-most notably, the dispossession and virtual imprisonment of the Palestinian people- Zionists arrogantly portray themselves as the defenders of humanity against Islamic aggression.

And instead of admitting that they lied about Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories, Iraqi yellowcake uranium from Niger, and Iraqi meetings in Prague, Zionist propagandists are busy concocting similarly brazen lies about Iran.

If world leaders are indeed committing an "error of indifference," it is hardly their supposed resistance to Zionist scaremongering. Rather, it is their indifference to the suffering of Arab and Muslim peoples. Foremost among them are the Palestinians-the ultimate victims of the shameless audacity of Zionism.

* Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer based in Japan.

By Jeff Gates* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The Christmas Day "terrorist" is the latest in a series of staged incidents meant to make The Clash of Civilizations appear plausible and "the war on terrorism" rational.

The storyline does not hold together. Not even a little bit. As usual, the source of this media-fueled fear campaign traces directly to Tel Aviv-with a supporting role by the FBI.

How did a young Nigerian Muslim without a passport "slip through" security at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport? Not only did his itinerary feature an illogical travel route, he paid cash for a high-priced last-minute ticket and boarded without checked baggage. How?

ICTS International, the security screening company at Schiphol, was founded by former members of Shin Bet, Israel's civil security agency, and Israeli executives in charge of El Al security. ICTS had already proven its expertise in mounting this type of operation.

In December 2001, Richard "The Shoe Bomber" Reid "slipped through" ICTS security at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris. Huntleigh USA, an ICTS subsidiary, shared responsibility for security at Logan International Airport in Boston where hijackers for two of the four 911 jets "slipped through" airport security. It gets better.

The Crotch Bomber told U.S. authorities that radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki counseled him on the incident. Born and raised in New Mexico, Al-Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2004 after advising the two 911 hijackers who trained in San Diego. He also advised U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan who is charged with shooting 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009.

It's not yet clear whether FBI agents were monitoring the Nigerian while he too was advised by Al-Awlaki. If not, that would be an anomaly in a repetitive pattern of FBI complicity.

FBI agents not only monitored Major Hasan and Al-Awlaki before the Fort Hood shootings, they also monitored the San Diego hijackers while they were advised by Al-Awlaki. It gets better.

Though the Nigerian was foiled while trying to ignite 80 grams of PETN, an explosive sewn into his underwear, that amount was barely enough to dislodge the arm on his seat - of course that assumes it could have been ignited.

Without a blasting cap, this "terrorist incident" was doomed to failure even before he "slipped through" security. Could this get even better? Oh yeah.

We were told about his father alerting the C.I.A. station chief in Lagos However we were not informed that his father, a banker, oversaw a Nigerian defense firm that hired Israeli Defense Forces personnel to train Nigerians-in security.

Nor were we told that, for decades, Nigeria has been a central hub for Israelis laundering the proceeds of their transnational organized crime. That's not all.

The Iraq War Connection

Four days after 911, San Diego special agent Steven Butler came to the San Diego home of Iraqi-American Munther Ghazal, the Iraqi closest to Saddam Hussein then living in the U.S.

That's the same day Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz proposed in a principal's meeting at Camp David that the U.S. should invade Iraq. Iraq?!

Agent Butler paid rent and cashed checks for the two San Diego hijackers while they were being advised by Al-Awlaki. What did Butler want to know? Was Ghazal funding Mel Rockefeller with whom he had traveled to Iraq in 1997.

While in Baghdad, they confirmed that Saddam Hussein had mothballed Iraq's WMD program after the 1991 Gulf War-and was prepared to negotiate his departure without this war. That was four years before 911. The FBI has yet to interview Mel Rockefeller.

Meanwhile, the usual suspects are once again profiting off the misery of both sides in a "Clash" that they played a key role in creating. It was Jewish Zionist Bernard Lewis who first coined the term, The Clash of Civilizations.

Only later was Harvard professor Samuel Huntington branded with that premise when his book by that name was published in 1996, five years before 911.

Israeli-American Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security (aka the rabbi's son), now promotes firms that manufacturer highly intrusive body scanners that are terrific for spotting crotch bombers unless, of course, an Israeli firm is in charge of security.

News reports suggest that the stock of body-scanning firms soared $3 billion in value after this latest "terrorist" incident. Imagine the glee among clients of the Chertoff Group.

Meanwhile the U.S. has been transformed from the wealthiest nation to the world's largest debtor. Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz projects a $3 trillion tab for a war based on fixed, flawed and outright fabricated intelligence-every cent of it borrowed, including $700 billion in interest.

Tel Aviv: The Common Source of Terror

That's not all. Controlling shares in ICTS are held by Menachem Atzmon, board chairman since 2004. While treasurer of Israel's long-dominant Likud Party, Atzmon was convicted of campaign finance fraud. His co-treasurer, Ehud Olmert, resigned as Prime Minister in 2008 after being acquitted of fraud amid multiple corruption charges.

Did I forget to mention that ICTS was also handling security for London's bus system when the U.K. was targeted for its terrorist attack? Did I neglect to note that six months prior to the Shoe Bomber's flight on American Airlines, Richard Reid was stopped at Schiphol while boarding an El Al flight to Tel Aviv. Shin Bet allowed him to board so he could be monitored in Israel.

Did the Israelis inform their loyal ally about Richard Reid? What do you think?

Remember the October 1983 truck bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut that left 241 Americans dead? A former Mossad case officer conceded they had a description of the truck. Did our ally tell us? What do you think?

Our withdrawal from Lebanon left the field open to those who specialize in displacing facts with what targeted populations (including our own) can be deceived to believe.

Recall our belief in Iraqi WMD? Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda? Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories? Iraqi yellowcake uranium from Niger? Iraqi meetings in Prague? All were false. All were traceable to Tel Aviv. Are you still having trouble connecting the dots?

As the U.S. sinks into bankruptcy, we are ridiculed abroad for failing to acknowledge the obvious: Americans have long been the target of a fraud operated by Israelis, pro-Israelis and those supportive of their goals for the region.

What better way to wage war on the U.S. than from within? How else can Israel expand except by duping its super power ally to wage wars for Greater Israel? Never mind the cost in blood and treasure. As an ally, the U.S. is easily portrayed as guilty by association.

Those promoting the Crotch Bomber scare are part of the problem. In the Information Age, this latest false flag operation is typical of how treason proceeds in plain sight yet, to date, with impunity. Those media outlets marketing this latest lie are an enemy within.

* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, merchant banker, educator and consultant to governments worldwide; served for seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. He is the author of Guilt by Association, Democracy At Risk and The Ownership Solution. See his website Criminal State

There were protests outside the inquiry featuring Tony Blair and fake blood (Lewis Whyld/PA )

The Chilcot Inquiry showcases the conspirators

By Christopher King * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Christopher King argues that Britain's Iraq Inquiry "appears now to be part of a general unravelling of the Blair conspiracy" and has underlined that UK politicians cannot be trusted. He says the lesson of Iraq lies not in whatever the inquiry might report but in the necessity for British people to take on oversight of the political process themselves.

"The Iraq war is a 'critical incident', that is, a catastrophic failure that indicates fundamental problems and demands appropriate change to avert future failures from the same cause. The Chilcot objective of defining theoretical 'lessons learned' is wholly inadequate. In the case of, for example, a bridge failure, the basics of bridge design must be revisited and extended. In the case of the Iraq war only a tribunal or court ruling that the war is or is not aggressive warfare will appropriately extend law. This is entirely consistent with the development of English common law. Paper reports are binned or archived without trace. Criminal proceedings and prison sentences are meaningful and remembered."

We have learned very little that is new from the Chicot Inquiry but it is useful to see those involved in the Iraq war accounting for their actions. We get background and can judge their credibility as well as see the sort of person one finds in these positions. Jack Straw, former UK Foreign Secretary who presented the UK case for war to the United Nations, was completely unconvincing with his evasions and careful wording on critical points but the inquiry was never going to get anything of substance from him.

The inquiry has been at its best in the last two days in pursuing the question of the war's legality. The entire Foreign Office legal department was unanimous in ruling that it was illegal to go to war without a specific United Nations resolution. This was communicated to the office of the attorney-general, Peter Goldsmith, who was in no doubt about their view when he declared the use of force to be legal. Sir Michael Wood, who headed the Foreign Office legal team, was at one point asked to comment and sent the Foreign Office's contrary view to the prime minister's office which drew the angry response: "Why did you put this in writing!"

The fact was that the prime minister didn't want to be told anything except what he wanted to hear. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Michael Wood's deputy, made this plain. Wilmshurst is a class act, no doubt about it -- the most impressive and credible witness so far. She resigned from the Foreign Office because, she said, she would be unable to present to others, as she would be required to do, a government policy in which she did not believe. Indeed she said that it was unprecedented for an attorney-general to ignore Foreign Office legal advice. Goldsmith did not consult the Foreign Office. He consulted the Americans and Jack Straw who wanted a war. Blair avoided asking for a firm ruling on the legality of using force without a UN resolution until American and UK forces were in the Middle East on Iraq's borders, a few days before the invasion.

Wilmshurst's boss, Michael Wood, was asked why he had not resigned as well. He mumbled about the department being in difficulties with a lot of resignations. Now this is interesting. Although obviously very capable, he's a typical government careerist who will do whatever he is paid to do. This is how despotic governments get away with it. By contrast, Wilmshurst has gained enormous international credibility from her independence. The next government might do well to offer her the attorney-general's position. It's people of her quality and integrity that we need to restore the UK government's international and domestic credibility.

The other person of real interest is Peter Goldsmith, the attorney-general who ruled the Iraq war legal. Goldsmith had given a provisional opinion that there was only a "reasonable" case for using force, with the safest course a UN decision -- until he consulted with the Americans, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and others in the cabinet. These people told him what the French and other countries really meant in approving Security Council Resolution 1441, although Goldsmith did not ask the French or other countries themselves. Following this enlightenment, he realized that a United Nations decision was unnecessary for acting on Resolution 1441 despite the clear wording within the resolution that the UN would decide what would be done. Anthony Blair himself could make the decision. Goldsmith duly asked for a decision from Blair and the conspiracy was on its way.

Goldsmith's term, a "reasonable case" for using force without a further UN resolution was, as Wilmshurst said, reasonable in the sense that a reasoned argument could be made, but it was just plain wrong. Goldsmith made clear that his reasoning in favour of force was the sort of case that could be put to a court. He was clearly not thinking in terms of warfare, the devastation of a country and the lives of people. In considering a UN decision to be the "safest" course, he meant safe for himself and his client, Anthony Blair, that is, he explained, in defensibility if challenged in court. He did not mention safety for those who might suffer in a consequent war. That was the aspect of safety that Wilmshurst and the Foreign Office were concerned about. Following the invasion, Goldsmith immediately briefed defence counsel in preparation for a legal challenge as he knew he had given advice of challengeable legality.

Goldsmith believes that in forming his legal opinion he should take into account the circumstances in which UN resolutions had been taken from the time of Operation Desert Fox, Kuwait, in 1998 until current circumstances, UN discussions and resolutions. Nevertheless, he believes that although legal, whether or not it was right to use force was a political decision and none of his concern. Leaving aside any contrary legal argument, this is the flaw in his reasoning. If circumstances leading to his decision are relevant, then circumstances consequent on his decision are relevant. Indeed, consequences are always relevant to legality. We know this from our schooldays knowledge of Shylock's proposition from The Merchant of Venice, the irony of which Goldsmith might contemplate.

Jeremy Greenstock, an enthusiastic promoter of war from the UN corridors, had a similar view that although legal, the war was not legitimate because it was not accepted domestically and by the UN. Surely he is aware that the word "legitimate" derives from "legal" and can be separated from it only by the most tortuous reasoning if at all.

Two wholly unexpected related developments have occurred. Firstly, the Netherlands government has concluded its own enquiry into the Iraq war and ruled it to be illegal. Peter Goldsmith rejected that conclusion and insisted that his own opinion was right. Moreover, it appears that Anthony Blair sent the Netherlands prime minister a letter by hand which, once read, was immediately brought back to the UK. The Netherlands has recently requested a copy but the UK government has refused the request. Among many UK citizens, I would also like to see it. I would also like to know how many other such letters the prime minister wrote, to whom and of their content.

The other development relates to the inquiry by Lord Hutton into the death of the weapons inspector David Kelly in 2003-04. We will recall that David Kelly gave information on which the BBC reported that the prime minister's office had "sexed up" the intelligence on Iraq in its dossier that made the case for war. The BBC and Kelly were hounded unmercifully by Alstair Campbell, Blair's director of communications, following which Kelly was found dead in woodland near his home. Hutton's report gave the cause of death as suicide. A group of doctors disagreed. I have, myself, asked two doctors whether there was any possibility that Kelly's injuries, reported as self-inflicted, would lead to his death. They replied, "Not a chance!" Now the dissenting doctors have discovered after five years, that Hutton sealed the post mortem report on Kelly for 70 years.

The latest information is that the doctors will be given access to the Kelly post mortem report so we shall learn more. It is not believable that Hutton's action was to spare the feelings of the family as he claims. He and his report are completely discredited.

We may now look forward to Anthony Blair's evidence to the Chilcot committee. One has the feeling that the Chicot committee might be going somewhere, although uncertainly. We need it to lead to a court or tribunal that will hear the case of the UK's participation in the devastation of Iraq with uncounted millions of deaths, injuries and refugees, leading to its continued occupation by America.

It appears that the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court cannot hear a complaint relating to aggressive warfare because although named in international law, it has not been defined. I see no difficulty here. Since the named crime of aggressive warfare exists, we need a UK court or tribunal that will determine whether the Iraq war fits that crime. There was no law against murdering millions of Jews by industrial processes but it was fitted into existing law by a tribunal created at that time to examine the war within which crimes were committed and law was thereby extended.

War is simply criminality on a large scale, carried out by particular individuals using the apparatus of the state. That it is carried out by states is a fiction. It can be judged, broadly, by the same criteria as civil criminality. It is convenient to consider civil criminality and war crimes to be separate because state leaders like the right to make warfare when they choose and to enjoy immunity from their crimes. They should not have it and the people must deny them that right. No government will willingly implement such legislation. The people must force the UK government to do so.

The Iraq war is a "critical incident", that is, a catastrophic failure that indicates fundamental problems and demands appropriate change to avert future failures from the same cause. The Chilcot objective of defining theoretical "lessons learned" is wholly inadequate. In the case of, for example, a bridge failure, the basics of bridge design must be revisited and extended. In the case of the Iraq war only a tribunal or court ruling that the war is or is not aggressive warfare will appropriately extend law. This is entirely consistent with the development of English common law. Paper reports are binned or archived without trace. Criminal proceedings and prison sentences are meaningful and remembered.

We should not confuse common law with statute law beloved of governments such as those of Blair and Brown. Statute law is the law of the monarch in modern form, that can be changed on the whim of the government of the day. Common law expresses the underlying values of our society. According to those values it is unlawful to kill and maim other humans and destroy their property. Peter Goldsmith can argue whatever fine points of law he wishes. His ruling led to death, injury, misery and damage on a vast scale. Contrary to his view of law as distinct from political decisions, in choosing (as he acknowledges) a less certain interpretation that would lead inevitably to deaths rather than a conservative UN decision that might avoid deaths, he made a political choice.

Jack Straw said that he considers international law to be an uncertain field because no court can enforce it. He sought to take advantage of that weakness and with Goldsmith sought precedents and legal grounds for war in order to achieve the objective of making war. Wilmshurst said that it was precisely because of that weakness that there was an obligation to take more care, not less in interpreting the law. But in any case, she said that at the late stage of war preparations when Goldsmith made his ruling, he was not going to stand in the way of the government. As the closest observer with the highest credibility, she should know.

What Goldsmith and Straw believe is that although prohibited by the Nuremberg Principles, because there is no definition of aggressive warfare no court can try them for it. They can get away with mass murder. That is not the position. The crime exists and is defined by the words themselves. No other definition is needed. Was their conscious objective warfare? Yes. Was their warfare aggressive? Yes. This is a valid prima facie case. We now need a tribunal to examine whether the facts fit the definition in terms of British common law, not the statute law that enables people like Anthony Blair, Jack Straw and Peter Goldsmith to sacrifice the lives of others and claim that no law against it exists.

The Chilcot inquiry has its weaknesses but it appears now to be part of a general unravelling of the Blair conspiracy that is making the nature of that conspiracy clearer. What is absolutely clear is that our politicians cannot be trusted -- neither the government nor parliament as a whole. The lesson of Iraq lies not in whatever Chilcot might report but in the necessity for the people of this country to take on oversight of the political process themselves as many are now doing. That depends on citizen action and direct intervention, not government-sponsored reports.

Forget the international courts. We should put our own house in order. Like William Joyce the traitor who collaborated with Hitler and attempted similar legal evasion, Blair, Straw and Goldsmith belong to us. We need a British Iraq tribunal to begin the cleanup of the filthy Augean Stables that is our government. We need to demand that the parties contesting the coming elections promise us one and whether they do or not, continue to demand one.

* Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.

By Aijaz Zaka Syed* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

How right Edward Gibbon was when he said history is little more than the register of crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind. But perhaps no register is enough to chronicle the crimes double-speaking and double-dealing politicians routinely commit against humanity.

Look at Tony Blair. You would think two years out of power would have narrowed down the gap between the former British prime minister and what is commonly known as common sense. But then there's no antidote to hubris.

In the countdown to the Iraq invasion and long since, Blair insisted ad nauseam that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Speaking in the world's oldest parliament, a grim faced Blair solemnly warned the British public - and the world - that Saddam had the capability and the intent to launch a WMD attack against Britain "within 40 minutes."

In fact, with his gift of the gab the man once known as Britain's most successful politician played a crucial role in building the case for Iraq war, and gifting the much-needed legitimacy to with-us-or-against-us Bush and his cowboy coalition.

Without Britain's support, it's just inconceivable how Bush would have put together his Coalition of the Willing and gone to war against Iraq. As Ken Macdonald, one of Blair's senior public servants and Britain's former chief public prosecutor, wrote in the Times this week, the British leader used "alarming subterfuge with his partner George W Bush" to take the world to war.

A sham war that has totally destroyed Iraq, unleashing chaos that continue to rock the Arab country and the Middle East from one end to another!

Blair and Bush told us this war had been absolutely critical to the security and stability of the 'civilized world.' Just like the morally bankrupt politicians before them did, they told us the war was necessary for peace!

Even when the whole world stood up against the war, from Americas to Asia, the coalition stuck to its guns, insisting the war on Iraq-already on the brink after two major wars and years of devastating Western sanctions-was essential to rid the world of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction!

And now Blair turns around to tell us WMD or no WMD, the Coalition of the Willing would have invaded Iraq anyway. Ironically though, in doing so, the man who has turned the old-fashioned deceit and lying into a refined art, may be telling the truth for a change!

In a now infamous interview with BBC's Fern Britton that captured Blair at his smug best, he gloated: "I would still have thought it right to remove him (Saddam). I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat."

Can this get any more disingenuous? No wonder Blair's claim has reignited the Iraq war debate with some familiar names associated with the circus that preceded the invasion joining the fray.

While individuals like Ken Macdonald, whose conscience hasn't gone to sleep, have blasted the former premier for his lies, deception and sucking up to Bush, there are more revelations from those close to the former prime minister that the Atlantic allies were indeed determined to attack Iraq, WMD or no WMD. This is what anti-war groups, human rights activists and majority of peace-loving people around the world have been saying all along.

This war never had anything to do with Saddam's mythical weapons or his alleged links to Al Qaeda. The West just wanted to invade Iraq and was looking for an excuse to hit it. In fact, it didn't even need an excuse to do so.

According to fresh testimony before Britain's new Iraq inquiry, Blair had signed on to America's Iraq war mission during his visit to Bush's Texas ranch in June 2002. That was a year before the Iraq invasion-and long before Secretary of State Colin Powell swore before the United Nations that Iraq was a 'clear and present danger' to world peace. Remember Powell's claim about Saddam moving around his 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' on trucks?

Sir Christopher Meyer, UK's envoy in Washington during that critical year, told the Iraq inquiry this week that Bush and Blair had 'signed in blood' their Iraq pact during that meeting.

The oil, the Israeli lobby, Bush's Oedipal complexes or old-fashioned hegemonic ambitions, whatever drove the coalition, clearly Iraq had been in its sights right from the day one. This was a war based on and driven by lies and treachery right from the word go.

And Blair's BBC interview has nailed this monumental lie on which this sham war was built. What more do we need? Is that not enough to put him and other leading lights of the coalition in the dock for crimes against Iraqi people and for crimes against humanity? Blair is supposed to appear before the Iraq inquiry later next year. But he has already confessed to his crimes, hasn't he? Blair and Bush are not just guilty of war crimes against Iraqi people but are also guilty of misleading the international community.

It was their WMD claim that persuaded the United Nations and the world community to give that fig leaf of 'international mandate' to Iraq invasion.

Would the United Nations, ineffective and toothless as it is, have given its blessings to the invasion, if its august members had known Saddam didn't have all those frightening weapons that Bush and Blair claimed he had?

The UN Resolution 678 approved use of force against Iraq, only if it failed to 'disarm' itself of its weapons of mass destruction. The coalition used this Security Council resolution, passed in the 1990s during the first Gulf War, to justify the war.

Denuded of that legal and moral cover, the Iraq invasion is nothing but war crimes against a helpless, defenceless people. Which it essentially was! International law doesn't allow any country to force a regime change in other countries even on humanitarian grounds.

As former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, who desperately pleaded with the UN and Western powers to give more time to Iraq for disarming itself and a diplomatic solution, writes in the Guardian this week, "The responsibility for launching the war must be judged against the knowledge (about Iraq's non-existent weapons) that the allies had when they actually started it."

This was a 'criminal enterprise,' as Ken Macdonald puts it. And there exists a strong war crimes case against all those who planned and visited this calamitous war on a country that posed no threat to anyone, let alone the powerful, nuclear-armed Western countries or even Israel. It's time to hold them to account

Otherwise, another toothless British inquiry is not going to bring any succor or hope to Iraqi people. After all, this is the fourth inquiry that is looking into the legality and morality of the Iraq war. Another round of harmless testimonies and pointless brainstorming by retired civil servants and diplomats is hardly going to make Blair and his old friends and allies lose their sleep.

What we need is a Yugoslavia style tribunal. The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia has been trying political leaders who plotted 'large-scale violence' against civilians for collaborating in a 'joint criminal enterprise'.

What's happened in Iraq in the name of democracy, freedom and human rights is far worse than what happened in the Balkans more than a decade ago. More innocents have died - and continue to die - in Iraq than in Kosovo or Bosnia Herzegovina.

In fact, there's no comparison between what happened in the Balkans and what's still going on in Iraq. One was a scene from the Hell-Dante's Inferno, if you will. And the other is a living hell itself. It still is.

* Aijaz Zaka Syed is Opinion Editor of Khaleej Times and can be reached at aijaz@khaleejtimes.com

[by Carlos Latuff]

Did you know that last August, a US Navy sailor, Ariel J. Weinmann, was suspected of spying for Israel and has been held in prison for four months. Last month, the Washington Post reported that the sailor was accused for spying and pleaded guilty, but guess what? They say he is accused of stealing a Navy laptop computer and peddling its classified contents to a “foreign government.” All of a sudden, Israel disappeared from the media report. It is now an “unidentified country” called “foreign government.”

Did you know that Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, has long had strong ties to Israel? In fact the Jerusalem Post says that his ties to Israel is nothing new and he never failed to buy Israel bonds to benefit the United Jewish Appeal. The Jerusalem Post wonders if he may face pressure from Arab organizations and other political groups to stop supporting Israel, but they rush to confirm that “Reid will use his skill as a consensus builder to secure Israel’s future and be a successful majority leader.” Note the scale of success!

Did you know that we are ALL SHOCKED?! Incoming U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told a Senate committee that Israel has nuclear weapons, and that this partially explains Iran’s motivation to acquire nuclear weapons. Also Olmert opened the doors of hells when he admitted that they have nukes, during his interview with some German channel. Wow!! Do they really think that the world does not know and we are SHOCKED?

Did you know that “Israeli army expelling Palestinians from West Bank as PR all about peace?”. It’s a sure bet the main stream media is not about to give NEWS… PR is what it likes, and what it spreads. GOOD news is in, truth is out.

Did you know that Israeli experts say Middle East was safer with Saddam? Although few tears were shed in Israel over Saddam Hussein’s death, a small but growing chorus - including government officials, academics and Iraqi émigrés - is warning that Israel could find itself in more danger with him gone, and that it might even regret having welcomed his toppling.

Did you know that US - to get Palestinian civil war REALLY going - is providing Abbas troops with $86 million? This in addition to the $42 million it already sent to Abbas.

Did you know that US campaign began: “Fox says Obama attended Muslim school when he was 6!”

This morning, Fox News featured a segment highlighting a right-wing report that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attended an Islamic “madrassa” school as a 6-year-old child. Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy pointed out that madrassas are “financed by Saudis” and “teach this Wahhabism which pretty much hates us,” then declared, “The big question is: was that on the curriculum back then?” Later, a caller to the show questioned whether Obama’s schooling means that “maybe he doesn’t consider terrorists the enemy.” Fox anchor Brian Kilmeade responded, “Well, we’ll see about that.” [via: thinkprogress.org]

Hey, one don’t have to go to school to “learn to hate” the US Imperialism!!! (BTW, Madrassa is an Arabic word that means “school”.

Did you know that Israel has plans for nuclear attack on Iran? Two Israeli air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear “bunker busters.” Two other sites, a heavy water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs.

Did you know that Israeli Occupation Forces says Ramallah arrest raid was a mistake? (Again! But worked in botching up Mumarek meeting.)

Did you know that morality of Israeli government is declining like never before? Uzi Benziman says: “History will judge Sharon with regard to his success as prime minister. Meanwhile, it can be asserted that during his time in office, government corruption reached new heights. He and his two sons were involved in doubtful affairs that were of interest to the police and the State Prosecutor’s Office. Among none of his predecessors was the office of prime minister transformed so crudely into a tool for promoting his family’s economic interests; and until that time, no prime minister’s family had been involved in affairs of state in such a deep, exploitative and cynical way. A longing for Sharon, which comes to the fore now, a year after he fell ill, overlooks his contribution to the declining morality of government.”

Did you know that the Israeli soldier who killed 13 year old Palestinian girl: “Just following orders”? They were always to shoot to kill - even though this violated the official rules of engagement!!! Iman al-Hams, a 13-year-old girl who was killed by soldiers at the outpost in October 2004.

Did you know that “you can draw George Bush as evil but not Ehud Olmert?”

Did you know that “This Road is for Jews Only.” No, there is Apartheid in Israel. It’s just traffic regulations!!!

Did you know that the Pentagon confirms that a US nuclear submarine collided with a Japanese commercial ship? But not to worry, nothing happened. And we can trust them when they tell us that….. nobody would EVER bullshit us.

Did you know that Israel is the only “democratic” country in the world that rules over another land (if we consider US and UK occupation in Iraq is actually “War for Freedom.” Don’t ask me which freedom!)

“In another seven months, the occupation will be 40 years old. Israel today is the only “democratic” country in the world that continues to rule over the land of another people. Standing over David Ben-Gurion’s grave, Ehud Olmert made a commitment from which there is no return. How right Ben-Gurion was when he declared, the moment the Six-Day War was over, that now was the time to give it all back. But we have been wandering in a desert of illusion for 40 years, and they have been marching nowhere in blood and fire for 40 years. Enough is enough. Let’s make Olmert keep his word. He needs that Nobel Prize badly, to pay for his new digs,” Yoel Marcus said, Ha’aretz.

Did you know that Israel refuses to discuss the essence of imprisonment of Palestinians as part of the occupation of the Palestinian territories and the struggle against it. The essence of the occupation is attacking civilians, negating their rights to the point of undermining their right to live. But the occupation apparatus also appropriates the right to decide that anyone who opposes it is a criminal. Worse, Israel now denies that Palestinian children are jailed illegally. Who can complain? After all, this is Israel!!

Did you know that Israel draws “green line” out of the map? When they call the “occupied territories” or “Shtachim” as they are called in Hebrew, Judea and Samaria, they are proponents of the theory that God gave them the land, and therefor it’s their to take from the Palestinians, because it is Jewish land, no matter what the deeds say, or who lived on it for the past few hundred years. The Green Line was the border before the Six Day War… and as all adherents of the Israeli right, this writer says that the US agrees that the borders should never go back… But this changing of the map is the beginning of making sure that these borders no longer exist if there ever should be discussions about a two State solution.

Did you know that ‘West Bank’ settler population grew by 6% in 2006? According to the Interior Ministry, there were 268,379 Israelis living in the West Bank at the end of 2006, compared with 253,748 in 2005, a 5.8 percent increase.

Did you know that support plummets for Kadima under Olmert? (Neocons must be delighted!) Their boy Netanyahu will save the day, the settlements, the Iran war… it’s only a matter of time.

Did you know that Israel issued a tender for another settlement - new Ma’aleh Adumim housing? The tender was published during U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Israel, while SHE and HIM were talking about their own obligations under the road map.

Did you know that Olmert, Peretz vying for PR on dealing with settler abuse of Palestinians caught on tape? The videotape showing settler Yifat Alkobi abusing her Palestinian neighbors in Hebron was aired at a perfect time from the perspective of Olmert and Amir Peretz. It gave them the chance to compete with each other in their “expressions of shock” over Alkobi’s behavior and to promise (like so many prime ministers and defense ministers before them, which never happened), to take care of settler violence in Hebron.

Amira Hass say: “The found of Apartheid would be proud.”

Travel Warning!
If you plan to visit Bethlehem, Jerusalem or any part of the Occupied Palestine, be aware that Israel (which are the only way to reach the oPt) is arbitrarily turning away foreign nationals at Israeli ports of entry. A Campaign for the Right of Entry/Re-Entry to the Occupied Palestinian Territory(oPt) has all the latest on the undeclared Israeli policy. It denies entry and/or re-entry to foreign nationals, who want to visit, live, or work in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), causing unjustified hardships, families are being separated, investors are exiting the country, educators are unable to reach their schools and universities, students’ education is being disrupted, and elderly are being left without caretakers, to state but some of the ramificat.

Did you know that the head of the research division of Military Intelligence, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, said Sunday that Syrian President Bashar Assad is preparing for a war with Israel? So, get your self ready for new war soon guys.

Did you know “Why Germans believed Hitler?” YnetNews.com: “Where did the Shoah money go?”

Did you know that Israel, with Merkel in its pocket, anxious to have HER do the “peace deal”? Imagine a German Chancellor NOT taking Israel’s side… It is her moral duty, as the world would see it. It did not take HER long to show her flag: Merkel praises Israel’s ‘hopeful signals’. She praised the Israeli government for its “recent peace overtures,” saying “We want to use these hopeful signals which are being sent by the Israeli government to make progress.” “We need results in order to halt the violence in the Palestinian territories,” she added. AHA! Now we know why we need results…. not so that the Palestinian boycott can be stopped, the starving of the Palestinians, or the other things Israel and the world is doing to them… it is to stop the violence…. yes, yes, Mrs. Merkel is going to be a very fair peace arbitrator in the region.

Did you know that Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist, America Created It [Hat Tip: kimmy]:

Did you hear Desmond Tutu statement? “Israel refused fact-finding mission to Gaza.” Facts? Who needs them? Diffidently not Israel nor the world!
Tutu was denied entry to start his UN mission to investigate Beit Hanun massacre.

Did you know that “Carter speaks the truth, and that’s good for the Jews,” Rabbi Michael Lerner said. “He is the only president to have actually delivered for the Jewish people an agreement - the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt - that has stood the test of time. To get that agreement, Carter had to twist the arms of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. Sometimes that is what real friends do - they push you into a path that is really in your best…”

Do you know “How Israeli Soldiers Kill and Civilians Grow Numb?” [Hat tip: Sokari]
One Israeli officer says the world doesn’t seem to notice killing in small numbers. And those closest to the violence become too scared to empathize for those who die.

Did you know that US depleted Uranium used in Kosovo still ‘killing Italian troops’ 10 years later? “Troops who served during the wars in the 1990s believe they have contracted cancer and other serious illnesses from extended exposure to the munitions.”

In Iraq:

Did you know that press freedom in Iraq has plummeted since the beginning of US occupation?

What was that Condi slipped in about the Iraqi OIL? Came and went so quickly one hardly had a chance to notice…. and God forbid any of the MEDIA should have asked a question about anything so insignificant…

Rice:

“….As to whether the Iraqi people want to live in peace, I think that twelve and a half million of them went out and voted against a lot of terrorist threats because they wanted a single Iraq…… You have to look at the way that their leaders are trying to work together…. One of the things that is interesting about this national oil law, to which they are close, is that that’s a very good sign of overcoming sectarian differences for a larger political purpose…. and it’s not as if they’re not sacrificing for a unified Iraq…

What IS this national oil law??? Is the oil what they’ll be sacrificing?

Kurds Push Own Oil Policy:

While violence engulfs much of Iraq and the Baghdad central government continues negotiations over a petroleum law, the Kurds have moved ahead and are poised to pass their own oil law. In addition, they have already signed a handful of contracts with foreign firms to explore oil fields in the north.

Iraqi Trade Union Statement on the Oil Law

Iraqi public opinion strongly opposes the handing of authority and control over the oil to foreign companies, that aim to make big profits at the expense of the people. They aim to rob Iraq’s national wealth by virtue of unfair, long term oil contracts that undermine the sovereignty of the State and the dignity of the Iraqi people.

And which oil company is Condi talking to about running after her brilliant tenure as Secretary of State?

Do you know how the West plans to get Iraq’s oil riches (You thought this was about FREEDOM??) Iraq’s massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days. The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

Did you know that it was the ever incompetent, always bloodthirsty, Rice who OK’d Saddam handover?

Did you know that out of 1000 employees at the US embassy in Baghdad, 6 (six) ONLY are fluent in Arabic? “All of our efforts in Iraq, military and civilian, are handicapped by Americans’ lack of knowledge of language and cultural understanding,” the bipartisan panel said in its report.

Did you know that over 1000 people gathered in Nancy Pelosi’s district, on Ocean Beach in San Francisco, to spell out the message “IMPEACH!” [Hat tip: Robin]

“America is a great country,” said event organizer Brad Newsham, a local cab driver and author. “But President Bush has betrayed our faith. He mislead us into a disastrous war, and is trampling on our Constitution. He has to go. Now. I hope Nancy Pelosi is listening today.”
A majority of Americans share Newsham’s sentiments. A 2006 Zogby poll found that 52% of Americans agreed with the statement: “If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment?”

Did you know that Ex-Rice speechwriter: “She doesn’t have ‘vaguest notion’ of Middle East history.” Duh…. like THAT isn’t obvious…. but who cares? Some diplomats negotiate, others just buy what they want. $7,000 boots, Saddam Hussein’s hiding place, Abbas’s giving away Palestine, the oil in Iraq: They can all be bought. THAT is Rice’s area of expertise.

Did you know that starving Afghans sell girls of eight as brides? While the Islamic world are watching, villagers whose crops have failed after a second devastating drought are giving their young daughters in marriage to raise money for food.

Did you know that American passports were found on bodies of “Al Qaeda” fighters in Somalia? Also some British and Australian passports were found.

Did you know that top Somalia al-Qaida Not Dead after all…. gee, are we surprised! For those who believed the crap that CNN feeds us in the first place, especially prepping the public for a major Bush televized speech….. sorry, it was a mistake, he’s not dead after all….. but he was dead long enough to get into the major media, and that’s all that counts.

Did you know that many civilian died as US strike targets “Al Qaida” in Somalia? Same old, same old… those air strikes always seem to end up as an “ooops”… with lots of dead women and children… but who knows? The Pentagon didn’t know if the strike was successful….. you bomb, and you wait and see what you hit.

Hat tip to my excellent friend, Editerette for most of the links above!

Missed previous “Did you know?’s” You can find them here!

Copy here: http://blip.tv/file/123466

Sky News is reporting that Saadoun Janabi, a member of the legal defense team for Saddam Hussein has been kidnapped in Baghdad.

Update - Reuters is now reporting the kidnapping victim, also identified by police as Saadoun Dulaimi, is actually a defense lawyer for former Iraqi judge Awad al-Bander, who is one of Hussein's co-defendants.

WELCOME TO NEW JUSTICE SYSTEM IN IRAQ!
Update: Now found dead...

Iraq says Jordan harbouring 'terrorists'...

The Iraqi government accused Jordan on Sunday of allowing members of Saddam Hussein's family living there to fund a network seeking to destabilize Iraq.

Government spokesman Laith Kubba said the former Iraqi dictator's relatives in Jordan have "huge amounts of money" to support efforts to revive his Baath Party organizations.

"We don't want Jordan to harm a quarter of a million Iraqis (living in Jordan) because of one Iraqi" involved in the Friday attack, Kubba said.

"We are sorry to say that until now, a high number of the figures of the regime and those who supervise terrorist groups are based in Jordan," Kubba charged.

However, it appeared Kubba's statements were aimed in part at deflecting criticism from Jordan about the possible involvement of Iraqis in subversive operations in Jordan.

What a joke... What a shame!

Instead of condemning the terrorist attacks on Jordan, he is accusing Jordan of hosting people involved in "terrorist acts" in Iraq.

A novel Saddam Hussein reportedly finished writing a day before the U-S-led war in Iraq began will be published next week. The book includes a dedication from his daughter which reads: "to the one who taught us all the great values."

Saddam Hussein's family will publish next week a novel written by the ousted Iraqi leader before the United States-led war on Iraq.

"Ekhroj Minha Ya Mal'un", whose title could be translated into "Get out, damned one", tells the story of a man called Ezekiel who plots to overthrow a town's sheikh, but is defeated in his quest by the sheikh's daughter and an Arab warrior.

The story is apparently a metaphor for a Zionist-Christian plot against Arabs and Muslims. Ezekiel is meant to symbolise the Jews.

The novel opens with a narrator, who bears a resemblance to the Jewish, Christian and Muslim patriarch Abraham, telling cousins Ezekiel, Youssef and Mahmoud that Satan lives in the ruins of Babylon destroyed by the Persians and the Jews.

Ezekiel is portrayed as greedy, ambitious and destructive. Youssef, who symbolizes the Christians, is portrayed as generous and tolerant � at least in the early passages.

"Even if you seize all the property of others, you will suffer all your life," the narrator tells him.

A Jordanian company will first publish the book in Arabic and follow with an English and French editions.

Raghad Saddam Hussein also wrote a dedication to her father on the book's back cover:

"To the beat of the heart, to the eye and to the father of the Iraqis... to the creator of men and heroes... to the one who taught us all the great values.

You, who raised our heads high, the heads of the Iraqis, the Arabs and the Muslims ... we present to you our souls ... to the father of the heroes, to my beloved and dear father, with all my respect and glory to you."

Two other books -- "Zabiba and the King" and "The Impregnable Fortress" -- have been attributed to Saddam although each was released as a novel written "by its author".

Published in 2001, "Zabiba and the King" is considered Saddam's first work of fiction. It tells of a love story between a simple girl and the king of ancient Mesopotamia which is seen as symbolising the relationship between Saddam and his people.

New version by Emad Hajjaj:

The original American Gothic by Grant Wood:

Pleasure marriages, outlawed under Saddam Hussein, have begun to flourish again. "Al-Zaidi hopes to soon finalize his third muta'a, or "pleasure marriage," with a green-eyed neighbor. This time, he talks about it openly and with obvious relish. Even so, he says, he probably still won't tell his wife."

At least Saddam did one right thing!