The decades-long record of American
collusion in the crimes of Saddam Hussein is clear and overwhelming --
and has been documented not only by news organizations like the Los
Angeles Times but also by investigations of the United States Congress.
Yet not a word of this is breathed in the media or

Congress today; it is as if it never existed. And now the
American-formed, American-backed government is about to take Saddam
from American custody and hang him on an American-built gallows. It's
like Al Capone throwing the switch with Frank Nitti in the chair.
Few will mourn Saddam -- a thug enthroned with the help of the CIA and
sustained in power for years by the Bush Faction which is now about to
kill him. The falling out of thieves ends ever thus. But far more
disturbing is the way that the memory of even very recent, very public
events can be manipulated and erased for sinister ends: in this case,
to justify the mass murder of more than 600,000 innocent people. In the
fever dreams of dominance and divine favor that pollute the minds of
George W. Bush and Tony Blair, the idea has taken hold that the blood
of Saddam Hussein will somehow wash the clotted viscera of dead
children from their hands.
It will not. It will lead only to more blood. But this is nothing now
to such men. They are each, like Saddam, like Macbeth, "in blood
stepp'd so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious
as go o'er. Strange things I have in head, that will to hand."
Strange things indeed are in their heads, and we have yet to sup full of the horrors they are willing into being.
UPDATE: But while we in the West jaw over Saddam's fate, what do actual
Iraqis think about the impending execution? Burhan al-Chalabi, former
chairman of the British Iraqi Foundation, gives his view in the
Guardian:
The Trials of Occupation. Excerpts:
The imminent execution of Saddam Hussein is nothing but a smokescreen -
a diversion in a series of diversions that will do nothing to address
the price of the occupation of Iraq. If the Bush administration truly
wanted to curb the cycle of bloodshed, it would come clean and share
with the US public, the Iraqi people, and the international community
the real goals of this disastrous neoconservative adventure.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was an act of US imperialism,
marketed as a war of liberation. Iraq was chosen ahead of Iran or Syria
because it had been weakened by 13 years of sanctions. It provided the
opportunity to station US bases in the Middle East, and a vantage point
to monitor Iran. Control of the massive oil reserves was not to be
sniffed at, either. It was assumed that Iraqis' distaste for Saddam
would somehow make occupation acceptable.
It has, of course, proved to be anything but acceptable. It has proven
unacceptable to the people of Iraq, the Middle East, and the world
over. Today, a country is occupied and its sovereignty violated. The
UN's legal and moral authority has been undermined. Iraq's cultural
heritage is in tatters, its natural resources squandered, its
infrastructure destroyed.
Safety, security and the rule of law are nonexistent. Terrorism is on
the rise. This is borne out even in Washington's own reports. More than
3 million Iraqis have fled their homes. More than 600,000 civilians
have been killed.
Officials of the former regime are judged and punished - sometimes with
death sentences as in Saddam Hussein's case. Regardless of the nature
of the crimes, it is only right that allegations should be tested by a
properly constituted court of law that meets the basic requirements of
justice, fairness and independence. These qualities could not be found
in the court in Iraq, established by US viceroy Paul Bremer, who
appointed its judges in direct contravention of international law...
The US presents the Iraqi people with this phoney act of
accountability, but no one has been held accountable for invading and
occupying Iraq or the mass human rights abuses carried out in the
process...The occupying forces continue to peddle the nonsense that
they cannot withdraw immediately - that this would only spark civil
war. I am convinced that the opposite is true: when the occupiers
leave, the prevailing civil war will subside. Ordinary Iraqis will have
to choose between killing each other or rebuilding the country - which
they can only do in an independent, sovereign Iraq.