Aiding and Abetting Saddam

Saddam Hussein's courtroom drama was nothing more than a smoke-and-mirrors act. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that those responsible for setting up the kangaroo court were not at all interested in seeking justice. If they were, many others would have been made to stand trial alongside the deposed dictator. Columnist John Pilger, in a recent article, asks, "Why are these accomplices not being charged with aiding and abetting crimes against humanity?"

Pilger begins with the guys who were in on it from the beginning:

Why isn't George Bush Sr. being charged? In 1992, a congressional inquiry found that Bush as president had ordered a cover-up to conceal his secret support for Saddam and the illegal arms shipments being sent to Iraq via third countries. Missile technology was shipped to South Africa and Chile, then "on sold" to Iraq, while US Commerce Department records were falsified. Congressman Henry Gonzalez, chairman of the House of Representatives Banking Committee, said: "[We found that] Bush and his advisers financed, equipped, and succored the monster... ."

Why isn't Donald Rumsfeld being charged? In December 1983, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad to signal America's approval of Iraq's aggression against Iran. Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad on March 24, 1984, the day that the United Nations reported that Iraq had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent against Iranian soldiers. Rumsfeld said nothing. A subsequent Senate report documented the transfer of the ingredients of biological weapons from a company in Maryland, licensed by the Commerce Department and approved by the State Department.

What about those responsible for the current war in Iraq?:

Above all, why aren't Blair and Bush Jr. being charged with "the paramount war crime," to quote the judges at Nuremberg and, recently, the chief American prosecutor - that is, unprovoked aggression against a defenseless country?

Let's not forget the pro-war, pro-government mainstream media:

And why aren't those who spread and amplified propaganda that led to such epic suffering being charged? The New York Times reported as fact fabrications fed to its reporter by Iraqi exiles. These gave credibility to the White House's lies, and doubtless helped soften up public opinion to support an invasion.

The only explanation I can think of is that America has grown soft on crime. We'd rather blast the Dixie Chicks for criticizing the president than go after the treasonous mass murderers in Washington. Talk about misplaced priorities.