A running theme on the stories about publication of Saddam Hussein's underwear photos: they don't seem mention why Saddam is in jail in the first place until the jump page.

This story, on MSNBC, takes 27 paragraphs to mention that Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer.

This story, on CNN, takes 21 paragraphs to quote Secretary of State Rice reminding people that Saddam Hussein is accused of serious war crimes.

This New York Times piece, in the 16th paragraph, quotes the editor of the British tabloid The Sun as noting Saddam has been charged with murderous war crimes.

The L.A. Times notes, in the seventh paragraph of its story, that Saddam is set to be tried on war crimes, possibly this year.

This Boston Globe story, again relying on the Sun's editor's quotation, doesn't mention Saddam's war crimes until the 20th paragraph.

ABCNews.com, in the 13th paragraph of this story, relies on a quote from a Saddam critic to point out that the former Iraqi dictator is responsible for mass murder.

This Washington Post story mentions in the 16th paragraph that Saddam is on track to be tried for war crimes.

This CBS News-AP story gets around to mentioning Saddam's past of torture - by quoting someone talking about the Kuwaiti reaction to the photos - in the 14th paragraph.

Would it be particularly difficult to refer to Saddam, on first reference, as "the accused mass-murderer awaiting trial for war crimes?" Or, perhaps, on second reference? Or third reference? Or does collective amnesia about Saddam's bloody, torturous past not go away until fourteen paragraphs?

The fact that Saddam murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of people seems to be only secondary to the fact that he's been publicly pantsed.