Conspiracy theory
How was Saddam really captured?
Amira Howeidy reviews alternative, albeit unsubstantiated theories, in this week's Egyptian press
Click to view caption |
Clockwise From top left: "I have an oxygen tank because of Bush's warning to the region: 'Don't even breathe!'" Amr Selim in Al-Osbou; this is what some streets could look like after a new Egyptian law which says the husband can inherit from his wife. Mustafa Hussein in Al-Akhbar; in the Lebanese daily Almustaqbal, Bleibl wonders what will happen to Iraq's debts while it remains under US occupation; Mahjoub, of Al-Quds Al-Arabi, ridicules the debate among Arabs over the way Saddam was captured and shown on TV
|
Because the independent press is weekly and comes out on Sunday, it missed the capture of Saddam Hussein. A week later, conspiracy theories and mostly cynical analyses of his fall dominated the independent press while the national publications maintained a more neutral posture in its coverage. The opposition and independent press thus ceased to stress the "fate of other Arab leaders" while offering theories about Saddam's capture and stressing the lack of US credibility.
"After the capture of the first Arab president: who's next?" screamed the red banner headline in the Nasserist opposition party's mouthpiece, Al-Arabi on 21 December. Another headline, "The capture of Saddam the day Rumsfeld visited Kirkuk and 150 Iraqis fought with him in the last battle", reflected much of the public mood which does not believe the American version of the story.
In a lengthy article contesting every aspect of Saddam's capture as released by US forces, Al-Arabi's Bothayna Nasseri argued that "we cannot be sure that the spider hole that Saddam was allegedly found in is in fact where he was captured because we believe that the Americans are lying." She referred to the widely circulated theory that the palm trees visible in the footage released by the US had yellow dates which only grow in summer, not in December. The writer also pointed to the "contradictory statements" made by various officials on Saddam's capture. "A member of the Interim Iraqi Governing Council said Saddam was asleep, while the Americans said that 600 US troops and their artillery conducted the operation to capture him. So how could a fugitive remain asleep amidst all this noise without waking up?" she asked. Referring to a corpse of one of Saddam's aides which was found in the Tigris, the writer suggested that the aide had betrayed the Iraqi leader either by drugging Saddam's food or exposing his hiding place. "The Americans might have killed him to hide the true story. Didn't they do this to Kennedy's assassin [Lee Harvey] Oswald so that he would not expose the role the CIA played in murdering him?"
The most fascinating theories appeared in the independent Al-Osbou which appeared 22 December with headlines reading, "Captured two months ago and the yellow dates expose the lie", and "Saddam is expected to be murdered if he refuses to cooperate with the Americans." The paper's editors, brothers Mustafa and Mahmoud Bakri, ran a lengthy article entitled, "The surprise" which claimed that Saddam was captured in October and drugged. He was then flown to Virginia where he was subjected to intense CIA interrogation "which failed to extract information" from him. The article also said that Saddam "refused to expose some Arab leaders or admit his country's possession of WMDs in return for his release".
"I will not allow Bush to enjoy an illusionary victory. I won't sell my country even if I stand alone, even if all my comrades and friends betray me, even if the Iraqis wash their hands of me," Saddam allegedly told his interrogators. "His answers were amazing and his steadfastness mythical," wrote the Bakris "That's why Donald Rumsfeld said Saddam was not cooperating and remained stringent in his stands."
Sawt Al-Umma's editor Adel Hammouda, who ran a two-page-long article on Saddam, argued that the Arabs have reason to believe that the Americans are lying. "All the stories that were published, heard or leaked came from only one side -- the Americans. There are no other stories to corroborate... There is no doubt that the American record is laden with endless lies and fabrications... They declared war on Iraq under the pretext of its possession of WMDs which they failed to find when they invaded the country... then another lie: the completely fabricated story propagated by US forces about the rescue of Jessica Lynch from Iraqi captivity in a supposedly courageous operation which proved to be nothing but imagination."
Sawt Al-Umma's front page splashed a huge photo of Saddam in his heyday wearing a very stern look. Below it were three smaller images from US-released footage of the ousted president. The paper ran these sensational headlines: "The theatrical play of arresting Saddam Hussein", "The fate of Arab leaders from assassination to detention" and "The beginning of the age of trying presidents live on air".
Akhbar Al-Yom's Mohamed Mustafa published a column on 20 December expressing frustration at what he felt was widespread sympathy for Saddam. But he argued, "I can understand that the only thing that is hurting Arab sentiments is that Saddam was captured by the Americans, who are the occupation -- which bring with it contempt and bitterness -- in the eyes of many. These sentiments will not go away until the occupation forces go."
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shifted attention from Saddam when he announced his readiness to stop his country's programme of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear programmes. "We didn't know that Libya had WMDs" was perhaps the most expressive quote on Al-Wafd's 22 December front page. The paper was quoting President Hosni Mubarak who told reporters on Sunday that the Libyan leader's initiative was "useful".
Al-Ahram's Abdel-Moeti Mohamed published a column, "...and what about Israel?" in which he argued that "it was unreasonable that the region's countries take initiatives to stop their nuclear programmes while Israel pursues hers, threatening not only the security and stability of the region but international peace and security."
Abdallah El-Sinnawi of Al-Arabi offered a different perspective. "Whose next?... Muammar Gaddafi didn't waste time and was quick to approve international inspections for WMDs in Libya only five days after Saddam's capture." This, argued El-Sinnawi, will not "remove Libya from the circle of America's political and military shelling" and might, in fact, encourage external interference in Libya's internal affairs. "Gaddafi should have reconciliated with his people and made concessions for them first. Or are concessions for Bush legitimate and concessions for his people illegitimate?"
The assault on Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher on Monday in Al-Aqsa Mosque by Palestinian worshipers who threw shoes and slippers at him triggered an angry reaction. Al- Ahram's headline on 23 December read, "Ahmed Maher survives a vicious attempt to attack him inside Al-Aqsa Mosque following a peace mission in Israel," while Al-Akhbar's headline described the assault, "A criminal attack".
"Al-Akhbar condemns the unjust attack," the paper's front page read "and maintains that the object of Maher's visit to Israel and what he said at the press conference was to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people and realise their hopes of getting their legitimate rights, something that is rejected by anti-peace extremists."
Stating that "Egypt's peace efforts will not stop," Al-Ahram's editorial justified Egypt's role vis-à-vis the peace process and Maher's visit which included a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "The ball remains in the Israeli court, specifically with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon... accordingly, presenting an agenda that is different from the roadmap, such as taking unilateral steps, does not agree at all with [the situation] and collides with the roadmap which is based on negotiations between two sides, not on a solution based on just one side. Offering Egyptian ideas to help the Palestinian and Israeli sides begin negotiations is necessary because it breaks this stalemate and enables both sides to negotiate without preconditions."
