Hypocrisy
and
immorality simply do
not come on uglier
terms.
- Of Blair,
Hussein
& Genocide
Of Blair, Hussein And Genocide
-
- By John Chuckman
5-19-3

- Britain's Prime Minister Blair has
now claimed that the war in Iraq was justified by
the discovery of mass graves. The ugly truth is
that mass graves have become pretty common things
since the beginning of the twentieth century,
although many of the world's most savage and
horrific acts left no such evidence, as in the
case of America's napalming, carpet-bombing and
throat-cutting millions in Vietnam.
-
- No one can be genuinely surprised
to learn that a dictator kills people, especially
those who rebel against him, but no one should
slip into shabby abuse of the word genocide as
many reporters do and as politicians like Blair
are happy to allow them to do. Genocide is the
effort to destroy a whole class or kind of
people, not the killing of a group of rebels or
enemies.
-
- Of course, we've not seen even a
modest discovery of the weapons of mass
destruction Mr. Blair went on and on about for
months to justify the invasion of a country that
was threatening no other country. Blair went
through several iterations of producing what were
called dossiers, although they proved utterly
unconvincing, with no genuine evidence. There was
what proved to be a cribbed graduate-student
paper used on one of his supposedly top-secret
intelligence efforts.
-
- Once, Blair frantically asserted
that Hussein could mount an attack with chemical
or biological weapons within 48 hours. Although
one must concede this in no way surpasses the
grossness in lying of Colin Powell's solemn
recitation about satellite photos of actual
components for chemical and biological warfare.
-
- There was that phony study by an
institute in Britain, given great publicity by
Blair's government, claiming Hussein could build
an atomic bomb in a very short time. There was a
phony biography of Hussein, done by another
Englishman, making the same claim. There were the
phony papers that surfaced in Italy about Iraqi
transactions to buy uranium. And then there were
the genuinely-qualified experts, the UN weapons
inspectors, who were not allowed to do their
jobs.
-
- So I suppose after all that, plus
a great many awkward lies stumbled over by
President Bush, Blair would feel under some
obligation to find a reason for a rash,
unjustified war, even if it is on an ex post
facto basis.
-
- Blair knows perfectly well that
these recently-discovered dead go back many years
to uprisings in Iraq after the first Gulf war.
The graves can be no surprise since virtually
every detail of the uprisings was known to
British and American governments. The CIA had
many informers, both inside Iraq and as refugees,
it had genuine information from spy satellites
and high-flying aircraft, it had telephone and
Internet interceptions, and it had information
from Mossad, people who keep a very close watch
on that neighborhood. This information would have
kept the two governments about as well informed
as Hussein himself.
-
- For some reason, I don't recall
any great outrage expressed at the time. I don't
recall the British or American governments doing
anything, or even threatening to do anything, at
the time. Could that possibly be because the
uprisings in Iraq were actively encouraged from
outside? The United States did this knowing full
well that it had no intention of helping those it
incited to revolt, and it did this knowing the
dreadful price that would be exacted by Hussein
for the rebels' almost-certain failure.
-
- In other words, just to keep
unrest and turmoil going for Hussein, the United
States, and its loyal ally, Britain, deliberately
helped send those thousands to certain death.
Now, years later, Blair and Bush want to use
their poor broken remains as evidence for
different claims. Hypocrisy and immorality simply
do not come on uglier terms.
-
- The United States has pulled this
kind of dirty trick a number of times on people
like the Iraqi Shia or the Kurds who find
themselves in vulnerable situations, but one does
not associate that kind of ruthless activity with
modern Britain. Well, one doesn't associate all
the phony arguments and claims made by Blair with
modern Britain either. Or the cozy barbecues in
rattlesnake country with a powerful ignoramus.
Perhaps I just have a somewhat fogged-over idea
of the behavior of British governments.
-
- Blair says that because a mass
grave has been found which may contain 3,000
bodies (although in Conrad Black's Telegraph we
early find "up to 15,000." One wonders
why not "up to half a million" while
you're at it?), invading Iraq against all
international laws and public opinion, killing at
least 3,000 more people (I tend to include the
poor conscripts who die for their country and not
just the unambiguous civilians), including scores
of children, was justified.
-
- I wonder would Blair's assessment
also apply to the estimated 500 tons of depleted
uranium ammunition used in Iraq, hideous stuff,
really a form of dirty bomb, whose vapors and
dust will continue injuring and killing children
for many years? And I suppose Blair is counting
the razor-like shards of the cluster bombs that
have crippled and lacerated so many children?
Pitching a city of 5 million into chaos with no
electricity, no water, no hospitals, no security,
and no jobs was justified? Has he allowed for the
pillaging and destruction of those priceless
archeological treasures, the entire world's
heritage?

-
- In how many dozens of countries
across Africa, Western Asia, and Latin America
have large groups of a regime's opponents been
murdered in recent years? Should these countries
all have been invaded? What made Hussein so
particularly intolerable? Surely Blair knows that
Israel, certainly not a dictatorship, has killed
about 2,500 Palestinians in the last 2 1/2 years?
That it was responsible for tens of thousands
dying in Lebanon in another illegal invasion?
-
- A couple of countries in South
America had the nasty practice for years of
flying untried people out to sea, generally after
torturing them, and simply throwing them off the
plane. Thousands of these "disappeared
ones" raised not a word of protest from
American or British governments, much less any
threats of invasion. I suspect the difference in
treatment may have had something to do with
America's seeing the soldiers tossing people out
of planes as doing the Lord's work for political
stability. As we all have been given to
understand, dictators in the Middle East don't
worship the same Lord, either temporal or
spiritual.
-
- Of course, there were the horrors
of Pinochet in Chile, torturing and killing
thousands. And what was the role of America in
those crimes? Why, they put him in power in the
first place and have protected him since from
justice. Indeed, Britain's own Baroness Thatcher
spoke out against justice for this vampire since
he assisted Britain during the Falklands war.
That "political stability" stuff goes a
long way. You are free to commit the same crimes
Hussein did, so long as you do it for the right
interests.
-
- But there have been so many, it
would become tiresome to name them all. Nasty
creatures like Samoza in Nicaragua, the Shah of
Iran, Ceausescu of Rumania (a good friend of
Nixon's), Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in
Indonesia, Park in South Korea, and President
Salinas of Mexico.
-
- There have been far more terrible
events in recent decades than Hussein's revenge
for a revolt. We've had genuine holocausts,
genuine attempts at genocide. In Rwanda and
Congo, where were the US and UK when the blood of
a million innocents soaked the earth? There is
every evidence a new wave is now underway in
Congo. Will Blair convince Bush next time they
share a barbecued cow in Crawford to invade
Congo? Can you imagine Republican good ol' boys
like Tom Delay or Trent Lott supporting that?

-
- And Cambodia? More than million
skulls deposited over the "killing
fields," a direct result of America's
destabilizing a neutral government through
invasion and bombing. Nothing was done there to
stop the killing, although the US claimed that
Vietnam's effort to stop the slaughter proved how
right it had been in the first place. Does that
sound familiar, Tony?
-
- At the end of Sukarno's reign,
Indonesia went on a rampage killing at least half
a million people. People had their throats slit
and their bodies dumped into rivers for being
suspected communists. The US not only didn't lift
a finger, it had intelligence people on the phone
reporting names of suspected communists not to be
missed. Mighty heroic work that.
-
- I do not understand why Blair was
willing to see the UN, NATO, and the EU put
through a meat grinder over Hussein's known
killings, which while horrible are not so far as
we have evidence anything so terrible as these
others? And if they were in fact that horrible,
if there is evidence for true mass murder rather
than a dictator's punishment for a failed
rebellion, why didn't Blair just tell us so in
the first place, with convincing facts?
-
- But Blair knows perfectly well he
didn't invade Iraq over these killings, as he
knows he would not invade another dictatorship
for identical acts tomorrow. He invaded over the
American claim of extraordinary weapons, which
Bush said absolutely, over and over, were there,
but which we can all see are not.
-
- Iraq was invaded simply because
Hussein didn't play the game by American
rules.
..
The Truth Will Emerge,
by US
Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Remarks - May 21, 2003
Published
on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
"Truth,
crushed to earth, shall rise again, - - 
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers."
Truth has a
way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure
it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a
time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to
obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of
squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.
But the
danger is that at some point it may no longer
matter. The danger is that damage is done before
the truth is widely realized. The reality is that,
sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and
go along with whatever distortion is currently in
vogue. We see a lot of this today in
politics. I see a lot of it -- more than I would
ever have believed -- right on this Senate Floor.
Regarding the
situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the
American people may have been lured into accepting the
unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation
of long-standing International law, under false
premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific
events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to
switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who
masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam
Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of
Iraq featured the President and members of his cabinet
invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from
mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to
drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major
cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of
overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat
to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to
provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering
from a combination of post traumatic stress and
justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. It was
the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the
anger.
Since the
war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed
to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush
Administration has been brushed aside. Instead of
addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House
deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass
destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they
will in time. Perhaps they yet will. But, our
costly and destructive bunker busting attack on Iraq
seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite
of what we were told was the urgent reason to go
in. It seems also to have, for the present,
verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection
team he led, which President Bush and company so
derided. As Blix always said, a lot of time will be
needed to find such weapons, if they do, indeed,
exist. Meanwhile Bin Laden is still on the loose
and Saddam Hussein has come up missing.
The
Administration assured the U.S. public and the world,
over and over again, that an attack was necessary to
protect our people and the world from terrorism. It
assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces
of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they
virtually became one.
What has
become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that
Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Ravaged by
years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane
against us. Iraq's threatening death-dealing fleet
of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed
into one prototype made of plywood and string.
Their missiles proved to be outdated and of limited
range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our
technology and our well trained troops.
Presently our
loyal military personnel continue their mission of
diligently searching for WMD. They have so far turned up
only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons,
and the occasional buried swimming pool. They are
misused on such a mission and they continue to be at
grave risk. But, the Bush team's extensive hype of
WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive
invasion has become more than embarrassing.
It has raised serious questions about prevarication and
the reckless use of power. Were our troops
needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi
civilians killed and maimed when war was not really
necessary? Was the American public deliberately
misled? Was the world?
What makes me
cringe even more is the continued claim that we are
"liberators." The facts don't seem to support
the label we have so euphemistically attached to
ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal,
despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the
follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better
life for the common people. In fact, if the
situation in Iraq is the result of
"liberation," we may have set the cause of
freedom back 200 years.
Despite our
high-blown claims of a better life for the Iraqi people,
water is scarce, and often foul, electricity is a
sometime thing, food is in short supply, hospitals are
stacked with the wounded and maimed, historic treasures
of the region and of the Iraqi people have been looted,
and nuclear material may have been disseminated to heaven
knows where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and
guarded the oil supply.
Meanwhile,
lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and
refurbish its oil industry are awarded to Administration
cronies, without benefit of competitive bidding, and the
U.S. steadfastly resists offers of U.N. assistance to
participate. Is there any wonder that the real
motives of the U.S. government are the subject of
worldwide speculation and mistrust?
And in what
may be the most damaging development, the U.S. appears to
be pushing off Iraq's clamor for self-government.
Jay Garner has been summarily replaced, and it is
becoming all too clear that the smiling face of the U.S.
as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an
occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has
replaced the beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and
rioting only exacerbate that image, as U.S. soldiers try
to sustain order in a land ravaged by poverty and
disease. "Regime change" in Iraq has so
far meant anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military
force and a U.S. administrative presence that is evasive
about if and when it intends to depart.
Democracy and
Freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an occupier's
gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to
stop and ponder. How could we have been so
impossibly naive? How could we expect to easily
plant a clone of U.S. culture, values, and government in
a country so riven with religious, territorial, and
tribal rivalries, so suspicious of U.S. motives, and so
at odds with the galloping materialism which drives the
western-style economies?
As so many
warned this Administration before it launched its
misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crack
down in Iraq is likely to convince 1,000 new Bin Ladens
to plan other horrors of the type we have seen in the
past several days. Instead of damaging the
terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their
fury. We did not complete our mission in
Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack
Iraq. Now it appears that Al Queda is back with a
vengeance. We have returned to orange alert in the U.S.,
and we may well have destabilized the Mideast region, a
region we have never fully understood. We have
alienated friends around the globe with our dissembling
and our haughty insistence on punishing former friends
who may not see things quite our way.
The path of
diplomacy and reason have gone out the window to be
replaced by force, unilateralism, and punishment for
transgressions. I read most recently with amazement
our harsh castigation of Turkey, our longtime friend and
strategic ally. It is astonishing that our
government is berating the new Turkish government for
conducting its affairs in accordance with its own
Constitution and its democratic institutions.
Indeed, we
may have sparked a new international arms race as
countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch
attempt to ward off a possible preemptive strike from a
newly belligerent U.S. which claims the right to hit
where it wants. In fact, there is little to
constrain this President. Congress, in what will go
down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away
its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and
empowered this President to wage war at will.

As if that
were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to
ask questions which are begging to be asked. How
long will we occupy Iraq? We have already heard
disputes on the numbers of troops which will be needed to
retain order. What is the truth? How costly
will the occupation and rebuilding be? No one has
given a straight answer. How will we afford this
long-term massive commitment, fight terrorism at home,
address a serious crisis in domestic healthcare, afford
behemoth military spending and give away billions in tax
cuts amidst a deficit which has climbed to over $340
billion for this year alone? If the President's tax
cut passes it will be $400 billion. We cower in the
shadows while false statements proliferate. We
accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to
demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be
politically costly.
But, I
contend that, through it all, the people know. The
American people unfortunately are used to political
shading, spin, and the usual chicanery they hear from
public officials. They patiently tolerate it up to
a point. But there is a line. It may seem to
be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it
will appear in dark colors, tinged with anger. When
it comes to shedding American blood - - when it comes to
wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent men, women, and
children, callous dissembling is not acceptable.
Nothing is worth that kind of lie - - not oil, not
revenge, not reelection, not somebody's grand pipedream
of a democratic domino theory.
And mark my
words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often
of late by the "powers that be" will only keep
the loyal opposition quiet for just so long.
Because eventually, like it always does, the truth will
emerge. And when it does, this house of cards,
built of deceit, will fall.
anyone
wishing to thank Senator Byrd - 202 224-3954; fax 202
228-0002 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0521-10.htm
-
|