During the early days prior to the unjust invasion of Iraq, much of the public was lead into being convinced that Saddam was a threat and just had to go. The media served to propagate the lies that Bush Jr. and his cronies spewed out in order to justify an impending invasion on the Cradle of Civilization, but now that we're seeing in the clear, we have exposed the lies for what they are whenever they came out, every step of the way. And this is exactly what I am going to do right now.
One of the first statements that "justified" the Iraq war was the "threat" that Saddam posed to the West. Many people started thinking about a potential WMD attack on the U.S.A., which is something that they have not done during the previous administration and after the Gulf War, when he had his WMD's ready for bear. Bush succeeded in convincing the American public (supporters, really) that Saddam was a "threat to world peace". He managed to gain more support for this outright invasion which violated the sovereignity of a foreign nation. What else? Oh, yeah, Saddam was a "bad, bad man", in the words of that old coot, Rumsfeld. Putting all this political bullshit aside, let's call this exaggeration for what it really is: somehow, Saddam became a threat because the Bush admnistration said so, but he wasn't when Clinton was in power, nor was he a threat after the Gulf War on Kuwait ended. Now, we are supposed to believe that after 10 years of sitting on the throne, he somehow became a threat, even when the existence of his WMD's (the next lie I shall expose) was a matter of debate that is in fact still going on today?
The thing is, Saddam wasn't a threat to begin with. The "ceasefire" he "broke" (allegedly not letting inspectors see his WMD's) was used as a pretext to violate Iraq's sovereignity and launch a full-scale invasion that would topple Saddam. Don't take me wrong: I hate Saddam like I hate most politicians, but I'd rather see Iraq be liberated by Iraqis, not by some foreign invader (it wasn't even a "liberation" to begin with). The Guardian wrote a report on the issue, citing a former U.S. intelligence official, who claimed that the "threat" factor was based on faulty intel. A similar case was found in the UK, where Blair and his aides have beefed up the "threat" that Saddam posed.
The falsehood that Saddam posed a threat has to do with his mythical "WMD's". It happened that during the Iran-Iraq war, also called the First Gulf War, the American administration supplied Saddam with chemical and biological weapons. The U.K., ever the puppy of the aggressive American war machine, has also supplied Iraq with weapons. Amnesty International presented a report on this issue, and I cite:
There's also the allegation that Saddam moved the WMD's elsewhere. Syria was one of those possibilities: both countries have Ba'ath party leaders focused on socialist principles. Surely, the WMD's moved there? Not at all, and according to the Asia Times,
The Al Qaeda connection was faulty, but it was still used as a reason to motivate the war machine. Although this connection was denied long time ago, many people still believe that such a connection existed. It was already obvious, even before the war, that Bin Laden hated Saddam, and branded him an "infidel" because of his brutal secularism, according to Samia Nakhoul. Bin Laden also mentioned that "Saddam's secularist socialist government lost credibility", so an alliance between the two bodies was unlikely. Furthermore, consider this: Saddam is a secular brute, while Bin Laden is a religious extremist. Saddam is a nationalist, but Bin Laden is not (I don't like Bin Laden, though). They have opposite goals, and thus an alliance between them would not only defy nature, but also insult intelligence.
The Washington Post already finished this matter, citing the poorly-funded September 11 commission report.
Another lie that this war brought up was the oil issue. It was stated that many U.S. officials, like Bremer, claimed that Iraqi oil "belonged to the Iraqis". Such statements were made under false pretenses, when it was discovered that oil in Iraq was being exploited by the U.S. The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is clearly full of holes and exposes the true aims of the Coalition, putting aside all propaganda and cutting to the chase.
When one understands the lingo of neocons, everything becomes clear, and their speeches, no matter how whitewashing, are irrelevant. According to Think Progress, a leftist think-tank, the NSVI holds no "standards for accountability" for actions committed by the Coalition (typically nationalist of them), ignores all "key challenges" that would be posed upon the Coalition in Iraq's changing political and social climate, and dismisses all accounts of violence and the likelihood for violence in Iraq to increase. The Washington Post reported that the Coalition was to sieze Iraq's southern oil fields even prior to the Iraq invasion, but that's not what really damns the Coalition's aims. What really does is the so-called "PSA" (production sharing agreement) policy of acquiring oil in Iraq. Joshua Holland of Alternet cites an interview with Antonia Juhasz, who claims that,
The war itself had a lot to do not with faulty intelligence, but with the misuse of intelligence. The "faulty intelligence" excuse was used to hide the real motives behind the Iraq war. Intelligence itself revealed no WMD's, and no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to this provoking documentary on the issue, "The Dark Side" on PBS's Frontline (thanks, NabberGnossi), officials like Dick Cheney quarreled with the CIA in order to take control over intelligence and manipulate it in a way that would suitably favor their side of the argument and "bring the war on terror to Iraq". For example, John Brennan, Deputy Executive Director of the CIA from 2001 to 2003, spoke of the increasing pressure to manipulate intelligence in order to justify the war on Iraq.
Salaam, from
Saracen
One of the first statements that "justified" the Iraq war was the "threat" that Saddam posed to the West. Many people started thinking about a potential WMD attack on the U.S.A., which is something that they have not done during the previous administration and after the Gulf War, when he had his WMD's ready for bear. Bush succeeded in convincing the American public (supporters, really) that Saddam was a "threat to world peace". He managed to gain more support for this outright invasion which violated the sovereignity of a foreign nation. What else? Oh, yeah, Saddam was a "bad, bad man", in the words of that old coot, Rumsfeld. Putting all this political bullshit aside, let's call this exaggeration for what it really is: somehow, Saddam became a threat because the Bush admnistration said so, but he wasn't when Clinton was in power, nor was he a threat after the Gulf War on Kuwait ended. Now, we are supposed to believe that after 10 years of sitting on the throne, he somehow became a threat, even when the existence of his WMD's (the next lie I shall expose) was a matter of debate that is in fact still going on today?
The thing is, Saddam wasn't a threat to begin with. The "ceasefire" he "broke" (allegedly not letting inspectors see his WMD's) was used as a pretext to violate Iraq's sovereignity and launch a full-scale invasion that would topple Saddam. Don't take me wrong: I hate Saddam like I hate most politicians, but I'd rather see Iraq be liberated by Iraqis, not by some foreign invader (it wasn't even a "liberation" to begin with). The Guardian wrote a report on the issue, citing a former U.S. intelligence official, who claimed that the "threat" factor was based on faulty intel. A similar case was found in the UK, where Blair and his aides have beefed up the "threat" that Saddam posed.
The falsehood that Saddam posed a threat has to do with his mythical "WMD's". It happened that during the Iran-Iraq war, also called the First Gulf War, the American administration supplied Saddam with chemical and biological weapons. The U.K., ever the puppy of the aggressive American war machine, has also supplied Iraq with weapons. Amnesty International presented a report on this issue, and I cite:
German companies have been subjected to criminal investigations on suspicion of violation of the arms embargo against Iraq. The UK and the USA have been accused of supporting the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons program through the sale of chemicals and technology.This isn't what really damns the American administration. What really did was that Reagan, acting U.S. President at the time, knew about the gassing of the Kurds prior to supplying Iraq even more weapons, according to this New York Times report; such weapons were continuously being supplied until 1989. However, the question is not who presented WMD's right now or if they are not in Saddam's possession. The question is where. I have several possibilities. UNSCOM visited Iraq in the late 90's, after the Second Gulf War. According to their report of the visit, they have seen to it that loads of biological and chemical weapons were decommissioned and destroyed. Assuming that Sarin and VX-2 were amongst the gases remaining in Saddam's WMD cache, he still couldn't make use of them: biological and chemical weapons degrade and decompose with time, and thus the weapons couldn't have posed a threat, let alone explode on their own. It's kind of like a man and a gun in front of him. The man fires the gun, not itself.
"British firms sold thousands of kilos of the basic ingredients of nerve and mustard gas to Iraq and Iran last year, the Department of Trade confirmed yesterday... the Department’s figures show that 2,000 kilograms of methyl phosphonyl difluoride has been exported to Iraq. This is the basic ingredient of the nerve gas Sarin... British firms also sold 38,000 kilograms of dimethyl methylphosphonate and other Sarin ingredients to Iraq."Andrew Beitch, The Guardian, 6 April 1984
Four years after this article was published, in March 1988, an estimated 5,000 people were deliberately killed and thousands wounded as a result of chemical weapon attacks by Iraqi forces on the town of Halabja in Northern Iraq. Most of the victims were civilians, many of them children and women.
There's also the allegation that Saddam moved the WMD's elsewhere. Syria was one of those possibilities: both countries have Ba'ath party leaders focused on socialist principles. Surely, the WMD's moved there? Not at all, and according to the Asia Times,
Syria has long been a haven for Iraqis opposed to Saddam. Syria's branch of the ruling Ba'ath Party broke with the Iraqi Ba'ath Party in 1966 amid political infighting.Although current relations between Iraq and Syria are improving, they are certainly not improving on the grounds of Saddam as a leader, but on part of U.S. cronies like Allawi. Iran is definitely not an option: Saddam, being a secular sectarian Sunnite, has hated Iran for its leadership ever since the First Gulf War. Could he have then gave it to Al Qaeda?
During the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, Syria was the only Arab country to support Persian Iran. Syria also joined the US-led coalition against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War.
The Al Qaeda connection was faulty, but it was still used as a reason to motivate the war machine. Although this connection was denied long time ago, many people still believe that such a connection existed. It was already obvious, even before the war, that Bin Laden hated Saddam, and branded him an "infidel" because of his brutal secularism, according to Samia Nakhoul. Bin Laden also mentioned that "Saddam's secularist socialist government lost credibility", so an alliance between the two bodies was unlikely. Furthermore, consider this: Saddam is a secular brute, while Bin Laden is a religious extremist. Saddam is a nationalist, but Bin Laden is not (I don't like Bin Laden, though). They have opposite goals, and thus an alliance between them would not only defy nature, but also insult intelligence.
The Washington Post already finished this matter, citing the poorly-funded September 11 commission report.
But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.Notice the italicized statement in the second paragraph. This could be what Bin Laden meant by Saddam losing "credibility" with him: although they may have spoken with each other, Saddam had no interest in Bin Laden's aims, and a mutual feeling developed much later on.
The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
Another lie that this war brought up was the oil issue. It was stated that many U.S. officials, like Bremer, claimed that Iraqi oil "belonged to the Iraqis". Such statements were made under false pretenses, when it was discovered that oil in Iraq was being exploited by the U.S. The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is clearly full of holes and exposes the true aims of the Coalition, putting aside all propaganda and cutting to the chase.
When one understands the lingo of neocons, everything becomes clear, and their speeches, no matter how whitewashing, are irrelevant. According to Think Progress, a leftist think-tank, the NSVI holds no "standards for accountability" for actions committed by the Coalition (typically nationalist of them), ignores all "key challenges" that would be posed upon the Coalition in Iraq's changing political and social climate, and dismisses all accounts of violence and the likelihood for violence in Iraq to increase. The Washington Post reported that the Coalition was to sieze Iraq's southern oil fields even prior to the Iraq invasion, but that's not what really damns the Coalition's aims. What really does is the so-called "PSA" (production sharing agreement) policy of acquiring oil in Iraq. Joshua Holland of Alternet cites an interview with Antonia Juhasz, who claims that,
"The United States crafted a new oil law for Iraq that provided for production sharing agreements (PSAs), which are contractual terms between a government and a foreign corporation to explore for, produce and market oil. Production sharing agreements are not used by any country in the Middle East or, in fact, by any country that's truly wealthy in oil. They're used to entice investors into an area where the oil is expensive to produce or there isn't a lot of oil."The fact that PSA's haven't reached the MidEast makes it a totally new thing, and enables the U.S. to call the shots on purchasing oil, especially corporations like Halliburton, which was awarded the role of "rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure" (or more like sabotaging the oil infrastructure). What really makes the PSA's dangerous is the fact that
"All undiscovered oil fields are now open to the PSAs. That means, depending on how much oil there is in Iraq, foreign companies will have control over at least 64 percent of Iraq's oil and as much as 84 percent."We're not just talking about oil, but controlling at most 84% of Iraq's oil; technically, this is a massive oil grab, and Bremmer's empty rhetoric that "Iraqi oil is for Iraqis" is easily thrown into the dustbin.
The war itself had a lot to do not with faulty intelligence, but with the misuse of intelligence. The "faulty intelligence" excuse was used to hide the real motives behind the Iraq war. Intelligence itself revealed no WMD's, and no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to this provoking documentary on the issue, "The Dark Side" on PBS's Frontline (thanks, NabberGnossi), officials like Dick Cheney quarreled with the CIA in order to take control over intelligence and manipulate it in a way that would suitably favor their side of the argument and "bring the war on terror to Iraq". For example, John Brennan, Deputy Executive Director of the CIA from 2001 to 2003, spoke of the increasing pressure to manipulate intelligence in order to justify the war on Iraq.
"I think there was a feeling within the agency that intelligence was increasingly becoming the meat in the sandwich on this one; that we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there. Responding to the requests from the Hill for that National Intelligence Estimate in a very short period of time and compressed schedule to do something as major and as significant as that, there was concern that intelligence was being pushed forward as the justification for war."He confirms this later, citing crones in the Bush administration.
"At the time there were a lot of concerns that it was being politicized by certain individuals within the administration that wanted to get that intelligence base that would justify going forward with the war."Who?
"Some of the neocons that you refer to were determined to make sure that the intelligence was going to support the ultimate decision. Looking back on it now, as we put pieces together, it probably is apparent to some, including Paul, that it was much more politicized than in fact we realized. It wasn't a secret, though, at that time that there were certain people who were strong advocates of going to war, almost irrespective of what the intelligence was."The administration just had to go through the CIA in order to do this, but in doing so, put aside the obvious and went on with their war on Iraq. As stated before by myself, Bush planned this war before 9-11, and all this for the sake of oil and more global economic and political hegemony, as the American administration has been doing for the past 50 years. Who knows what other lies we will unearth as this farcical "war on terror" progresses? Ahmadinejad's non-existent intentions of building nukes, perhaps? We just can't wait and see, but we have to call for action, and protest the injustices that the neocons have wrought unto this world ever since they took power.
Salaam, from
Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment