When is Saddam not Saddam?
Sun Nov 5, 2006 23:32
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Timely PROPAGANDA: The Myth of Saddam's capture and Trial and Verdict
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 20:30:28 -0500
From: blueridge blueridge@citynet.net
To:



PROPAGANDA: The Myth of Saddam's capture and Trial and Verdict (but none dare say so publicly)

Now everyone should recall that during Iraq war I (G.H.W.Bush) it was broadcast that Saddam had "doubles", such as this National Geographic article on his "posse of body doubles". which made him difficult to locate. This was repeated again during his capture in this article by MSNBC, where they stated: "Saddam was said to have a number of body doubles and to have undergone plastic surgery to radically alter his features." That could well be the most revealing statement which would explain the disappearance of the real Saddam under new identity. Now these photos are from the reference Jim Fetzer gives below, a military agency. Included in his article below is a report from his wife, that claimed the "Saddam"--suspiciously found "hiding in a hole in the ground"--another post-9/11 fabrication refuted by this evidence--is not him. It is noteworthy that the post-capture "Saddam" noticeably has a "widows peak" in his hairline, unlike the pre-capture Saddam, and also different distances of eyes, shape of face, different teeth, and certainly a sudden influx of gray hair.

The New York Times reports that the Senate Intelligence study of prewar intelligence about Iraq
will not only confirm that dire warnings about illicit weapons were largely unfounded and that
ties to al Qaeda were tenuous but that "Saddam Hussein's army posed little threat to regional
stability and American interests". In spite of what we
have been told by the administration, moreover, the resistance to our presence is not primarily
from al Qaeda terrorists but from Sunni Iraqis who are angry about losing power in the wake of
the fall of Saddam Hussein.

According to The Associated Press, indigenous guerrillas "can call on loyalists to boost their
forces to as high as 20,000 and have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by
the presence of US troops that they cannot be militarily defeated". Although the administration
actively denies parallels with Vietnam, the analogies are becoming stronger and stronger. We are
bogged down in a distant land that posed no threat to our security where the population regards
us as invaders, not as liberators, and where military victory appears to be impossible.
The administration persists in proclaiming that we are safer, stronger, and better for
having taken out a ruthless dictator. Yet the fellow we have selected to replace him,
Iyad Allawi, appears to be a facsimile of the fallen leader. Precisely how he became
Iraq's interim Prime Minister remains mysterious, but also he places a premium on
security over democracy and has threatened to place Iraq under martial law, to shut down the
media, and delay elections. He has been described as "brutal", "ruthless",
and "tough", a suitable replacement for Saddam, perhaps, but not a fellow likely to become the
George Washington of his country.
Those who continue to resist the manifest failure of this administration's policies in the Middle
East may want to consider the latest development, which has yet to make
the national news. No doubt, our greatest success in this miserable intervention has been the
capture of Saddam Hussein himself. But there is now evidence that the man whom we captured
is not Saddam Hussein but one of his doubles. If this is the case--and the evidence is
compelling--then this may be the biggest lie to come out of Iraq from an administration that
specializes in falsehoods.
On 18 June 2004, an independent Australian journalist, Joe Vialls, reported that the International
Red Cross has been insisting that the captive Saddam Hussein should be turned over to Iraqi
authorities. Oddly, American authorities decided that this man should be legally transferred to
Iraq but kept under American military control. This
peculiar arrangement appears to be motivated by the knowledge that the Saddam in
custody is not Saddam Hussein but one of his doubles, a matter that would not escape Iraqis were
they to be given access to his person.
Indeed, under pressure from Russia, the US reluctantly allowed Saddam's wife, Sajida

Page 2
Heiralla Tuffah, access to her husband in Qatar. According to Vialls, "Sajida arrived from Syrian
with her official escort, Sheikh Hamad Al-Tani, and then entered the
prison, emerging only moments later pink with rage and shouting, 'This is not my husband but
his double. Where is my husband? Take me to my husband." She was given the unconvincing
explanation that he had changed a lot in custody, which she
did not accept, insisting she would know her own husband. (The article is available
on google under "Mrs Saddam says Saddam is not Saddam".)
On 7 July 2004, Vialls presented evidence to substantiate his claim that the captured
Saddam is not Saddam Hussein, which was based upon differences in their teeth and
jaw. Photographs of the captured Saddam display rather ragged and unkempt lower
front teeth, while photographs of Saddam Hussein display quite beautiful, uniform lower teeth.
Moreover, the captured Saddam has an underbite (where his lower teeth extend beyond his upper
teeth), while Saddam Hussein has an overbite (where his upper teeth extend beyond his lower
teeth). (His article and photographs may be found under "Shaddam Shaddam's New Vaudeville
Scam!")
Here are two of the photographs presented in Vialls' report. The one on the left is the captured
Saddam, the one on the right is Saddam Hussein. They are not the same.
Curious as to whether he might be right, I performed my own search using google and
NEWSWEEK (12 July 2004), which just happened to include a set of several photos of the
captured Saddam, including some that display his ragged and unkempt lower teeth. What I
needed in addition were photographs that the US government itself has offered as photographs of
Saddam Hussein. I found what I was looking for in an on-line piece entitled, "Saddam Hussein
al-Tikriti", which may be located at the following web site:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/saddam.htm.
What I liked about this source is that it not only includes a series of photographs of
Saddam Hussein but a sequence in which his original appearance has been altered to
reflect how it might have changed during the period he was attempting to evade his capture. This
series was issued to Coalition troops in Iraq on 31 July 2003 in order to "better help them
recognize the wanted former Iraqi leader" by CENTCOM, the Central Command. The beautiful
lower teeth and slight overbite are clearly evident in these photographs from impeccable United

Page 3
States sources. Here is a comparison of one of NEWSWEEK's photos with one from
CENTCOM:
Some lies are bigger than others. The deceit and deception that motivated the United States
Congress into supporting armed intervention in Iraq included phony reports about weapons of
mass destruction, chemical and biological capabilities, and attempts to acquire the ingredients
that are required to construct nuclear bombs. One might have thought at least that lying to the
American people about the capture of Saddam Hussein would be beneath our government.
Apparently not.
______________________________________
Jim Fetzer, a professor of philosophy at UMD, maintains a web site devoted to issues of public
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/saddam-pics.htm

Now, interestingly, it appears that the verdict has finally come from the kangaroo court (where numerous changes of judges, and murders of defense lawyers has taken place), just in time for the Nov. 7th election, and it is certainly being thrown to the headlines, with the help of Matt Drudge and others. It is not beyond credulity to believe that a war instigated by pure lies, fabricated evidence, and propaganda, would claim "victory" and continue by the same means, including a fake Saddam, fake trial, and fake sentence and execution, at a time most advantageous to the "powers that be". The war on terror itself is a lie, including 9/11.

When is Saddam not Saddam?

Main Page - Tuesday, 11/07/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)