Due to Saddam's sectarian legacy, and due to US occupation's exploitation of the sectarian question in Iraq, there is a deep Sunni-Shi`ite rift in Iraq, and beyond. I notice (from following the ME coverage): joy in Shi`ite areas, and gloom and sadness in many Sunni areas of Iraq. It is amazing how US news media show only one side to the story: the scenes that conform with US foreign policy goals, and wishful thinking. But I am disappointed with AlJazeera's coverage too: they have been focusing too much on Iraqis who resent Saddam's capture, just as CNN focuses on those who are happy. I think, no I know, that all Iraqis suffered under Saddam, but Sunnis are now particulary nervous about the consequences of US occupation. In fact, it will be folly to think the occupation will now proceed smoothly. If anything, the Shi`ites may now join the resistance because they have no fear of Saddam's return. And Saddam's followers (who constitute one element of several in the resistance) may now get more lethal and more brutal, lashing out agaisnt Shi`ite in particular. It is in their interest to sew the seeds of Sunni-Shi`ite war. I was surprised to see how skeptical many Arabs are about whether Saddam was captured. It is certainly Saddam, I think. And I am no DNA expert. What adds to the skepticism is the varied and different stories coming out of the US government: He was leading the resistance; the military (and I think that they are right) insist that he has nothing to do with the resistance. He is a lousy military planner with defeat upon defeat on his c.v. He was captured due to a tip from somebody; no he was captured due to great investigative techniques. He was found in the hole under ground; no he was found over ground in the bedroom and the hole was only used to hide when troops were in the vicinity. He was cooperative during interrogation, said colonial administrator Bremer; no, said the military and the Arab puppet council members who met him. He was defiant and arrogant, and even yelled obscenities at one of the members. When asked about his merciless killing of two respected Shi`ite clerics (by the name of Sadr (Chest in Arabic), he called them rijl (foot in Arabic, very insulting in Arab culture). And you know what is sexist: many Arab media are now maintaining that he was captured because his 2nd wife (who lives in Beirut) turned him, and that he was calling her once a week. First, that is so unlikely. There is no evidence that he has used a phone himself in years, and the US troops said that they did not find any phone or technological device on him (except a Sony MP3 player--kidding here). And was it not ironic that Ariel Sharon was congratulating Bush on the capture of Saddam? If you ask me, Saddam and Sharon belong in the same prison cell, and both should be put on trial for war crimes.