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, ready to go, in the “news sections” or read on air. Statements from selected officials were provided (Jay Bremer, Condi Rice, etc.), along with timelines of Saddam’s rise and fall, maps, etc. 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!

But here are a few questions that I would like to see asked – not just asked but PROBED, the way real journalists are supposed to probe unexplained “mysteries” that have a significant bearing on the credibility of the government.

How could confirmed results of a DNA test come back in just 7 hours, or even 24 for that matter, when an accurate test takes 3-5 days?

I suspect whoever scripted the DNA test scenario out used CSI as their sole "research" source. And it was done with the assumption that most \Americans, CSI being the most popular show on TV, would buy it. Afterall, DNA results are almost immediate on that show - they just walk in and demand that the test geek deliver and out comes a printout!

Everything the Lazy Corporate Journalist Could Want to Know about DNA testing without ever leaving their desk
www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

Other article excerpts on DNA testing:

"DNA scientists caution against prizing deadlines and speed -- quantity -- over quality.''You have to understand that this is a very complex, multistep process that involves the meticulous manipulation of samples,'' said Stuver, of the Miami-Dade crime lab. ``You can't afford to make a mistake here.''
www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/6195007.htm

BBC 2002 Report on DNA testing

"Typically, more than 10 locations need to be tested before a laboratory can be sure that it has positively identified a specific person. The most common test works by taking DNA from biological evidence and making millions of copies of it - enough to allow a laboratory to match it against corresponding samples such as a lock of hair or a relative's DNA. The tests themselves are time-consuming and they are also extremely sensitive to contamination. Any organic contaminants from a crime scene, particularly one which is old or has been exposed to the weather, may also be copied by accident, making the results useless. The combination of these factors, and the need to be absolutely sure of the findings if they are to play a role in a murder enquiry, means that it can take several weeks to get a clear result.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1994195.stm


Where did the comparative DNA samples come from?

You can't just take a blood sample or tissue scraping from someone, look at it under a microscope and declare "Yep, that's him!!" DNA testing involves comparing a sample –ideally not just one but several, as noted by the BBC report - with another sample. This reference sample MUST be absolutely confirmed as coming from that person or the results are meaningless. So, this begs the big question: Who obtained the reference sample? How was it obtained? Who validated its authenticity and what did they use as the criteria for validation? Was it just someone’s ‘say so’? I mean, unless you can confirm that those toenail clippings or wisps of hair had conveniently been left behind by Saddam when he fled, tucked, uncontaminated, into a plastic baggy neatly labeled and signed by Saddam, what passes for “validated?” These questions raise about a dozen red flags, given this administration’s penchant for lying and creating fantasy-filled scripts that later come unraveled.

If the man in custody is not Saddam, but a double, then who is to say that the Pentagon didn't just take two blood samples from the same man the same day? The results would, of course, show that this was the same man. But that the man is Saddam would be a question that remains unanswered, esp. as this very paranoid man was known to have a stable full of convincing doubles.

How Can Saddam, at 67, still Have BLACK HAIR, even after hiding out in a hole?

Obviously, before the Great Fall, Saddam, a vain man, colored his hair which, at 66, would inevitably be gray if not heavily streaked. Now we see that he still has black hair, though his beard is graying! This means that although he didn't have the facilities at his disposal to CUT his hair or shave, he could still regularly DYE his hair??? C'Mon! How stupid does the White House propagandists think the rest of the world is? Well, as they tried to pawn off the Thanksgiving Day tale and the “End of Major Conflict’s” flyboy extravaganza on us, pretty stupid, apparently.

My guess is that the black hair was required by the Bush propaganda machine because people recall Saddam as having black hair, thus even if this is some bum scraped up off the pavement in a Baghdad alley, he had to have black hair.

Before War:
images.forbes.com/images/2001/06/05/saddam_hussein_200x160.jpg

After "hiding out":
news.yahoo.com/news

Why was a tribunal hastily set up on December 10, without the foreknowledge or consent of the Iraqi people, just in time for Saddam's 'capture on the 13th'?

This kind of coincidence only happens in a Dickens' novel - not in Bush administration real life, where there ARE no coincidences, just scripts. This timing means just one of two things: Saddam was in custody before the 10th, and the Bush machine wanted to make sure they had a closed tribunal in place before Saddam could be shipped to a real world court, like the Hague, or they planned to produce a "Saddam" and a trial, so scripted out the one-two events, thinking no one would question the timing. Bush desperately needed a big PR event - he and Tony Blair desperately need validation of their increasingly reviled war. So what better way than to produce a "Saddam" who, behind closed doors and away from close scrutiny by outsiders, can appear to validate every claim these two corrupt governments have ever made to justify war.

www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/10/sprj.nilaw.warcrimes.ap
web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE141812003

How will We Know What Saddam Actually Says and What the Bush Fairytalers Make Up as they Go Along?

Never in its existence has the Bush administration given itself a better opportunity to fabricate evidence – and it has given itself PLENTY of such opportunities. Every interrogation session made of ‘Saddam’ should be videotaped. Not only that, but conducted with independent observers present – as in people NOT part of the Bush machine (Amnesty International or UN reps would be good). Transcripts of the sessions should be reviewed by these independent observers. Any “statements” released that do not have this backing are, in my opinion, worse than useless.

As it is, the evidence indicates that Saddam may have been in custody longer than the administration claims, with the final “capture on film” staged after the fact – if there ever was such an event (the hole story still smacks of turkey at sunrise, if you know what I mean). What kind of prearranged deals could have been made? The worst case scenario is that Bush has agreed to allow Saddam to escape in exchange for testimony validating Bush’s lies. Of course, Saddam wouldn’t really escape – he’d unexpectedly die of a heart attack or something from the stress of his plight. But in reality, he’d be on a plane for Belarus - the destination the Daily Mirror claimed in September Saddam designated as part of a deal he was trying to work out with the Bush administration as early as September. See
www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/content_objectid=13431908_method=full_siteid=106694_headline=-DESPERATE-SADDAM-OFFERS-AMERICANS-DEAL-name_page.html

If we are to buy any of their current story, then the Bush folks had better start providing the answers to some questions…and some objective observers who can track every move made by all people interacting with “Saddam.”

Last but not Least, What Happened to All those "hoardes of Saddam loyalists"?

Good liars keep their lies straight. But maybe the Bush administration is just hoping no one notices the little discrepancies in the thrill of the moment as they watch the footage of Saddam and the capture in endless loops on FOX, CNN, NBC, et al.

But up until this week, Bush was claiming that the attacks on American troops were largely orchestrated by rebels who were "fiercely loyal" to Saddam. If they were so fiercely loyal, why was he living in a hole, not even able to cut his hair? And why was he having to (allegedly) threaten people to take him in for food or whatever (the latest claim)?

In their PSYOPS-ish efforts to create a demoralizing scenario (a brokem, disoriented Saddam living in a hole) that would (it was hoped) quash the Iraqi spirit of rebellion, the Bush administration appears to have overlooked the glaring gulf between this scenario and the one it was pushing until Sunday: of a defiant Saddam surrounded by fiercely loyal henchmen, toting an arsenal and billions of dollars, not to mention a "sophisticted communications network."

As Shakespeare said, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Now let's see how long this latest web holds up before it, too, comes unraveled.