Subject: Eight Washington Lies about Iraq

By Jon Basil Utley (from why-war.com); I've added extra comments and references

(info@why-war.com) EIGHT WASHINGTON LIES ABOUT IRAQ (Jon Basil Utley)
http://www.why-war.com/cgi-bin/read.cgi?id=2004

ONE

IRAQ WAS INVOLVED IN THE 9/11 ATTACK ON AMERICA OR IS CLOSE TO
OBTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

ANSWER: The War Party in Washington has mounted a vast campaign in
conservative media to attack Iraq again. See Georgie Anne Geyer column
on lobby in Anti-Arab Advocates Risk U.S. Interests. Saddam is an
enemy of Islamic Fundamentalists. Iraqi women are among the most
emancipated in the Moslem world. You never see Saddam wearing a robe
and shouting about Holy War. Iraq has not been a supporter of "global
terrorism," although it does support Palestinian terrorists against
Israel's UN declared illegal settlements on the West Bank. There is no
evidence of Iraqi nuclear ability, nor that it ever provided chemical
weapons to other nations or terrorists.

TWO

IF WE DON'T BOMB IRAQ, SADDAM WILL USE HIS WMD AGAINST US OR HIS
NEIGHBORS OR ISRAEL

ANSWER: Saddam is rational. He had these weapons during the First Gulf
War and didn't use them because he feared our threats of worse
consequences even when his nation was being decimated. Israel has some
200 atomic bombs and its own active biological and chemical weapons
program. It can well defend itself. Meanwhile Washington arms all
Iraq's neighbors (except Iran), and Turkey bombs and invades Iraq at
will. Yet the pressure now in Congress to attack Iraq is based upon
its unreal threat to Israel. Also, Iraq's neighbors oppose an American
attack. If Iraq was such a threat, why do they not fear it?

THREE

IRAQ WOULDN'T LET THE UN-US MONITORS INSPECT POSSIBLE WMD PRODUCTION
OR STORAGE SITES. THAT'S WHY AMERICA STARTED BOMBING.

ANSWER: Untrue -- Iraq did allow them from 1991 until 1998, but
Washington still wouldn't take off the trade blockade, under which
thousands of children were dying every week without clean water,
electricity, etc. Scott Ritter, the former UNSCOM inspector, told CNN
on 2/18/01 "In terms of large-scale weapons of mass destruction
programs, these had been fundamentally destroyed or dismantled by the
weapons inspectors as early as 1996." Yet Madeleine Albright declared
in 1997: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq
complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction,
sanctions should be lifted." Clinton went one step further when he
said, "sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he
[Saddam] lasts." THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT REPUDIATED THESE
STATEMENTS.

Then in 1998 Washington made new demands, access to all government
personnel files, the basis of its power structure. UN weapons
inspectors were still roaming Iraq and the country had been found
"clean" for 7 years. Iraq saw that U.S. demands were just always
escalated with no hope of sanctions being lifted. The Iraqis also
complained that most of the UN inspectors were British and American
intelligence agents, who were trying to overthrow their government
(Scott Ritter on CNN 1/5/02 said he had been working with Israeli
intelligence from 1995-98). Clinton then launched a new bombing
campaign using information from the "spy UN inspectors" for bombing
targets. Iraq now fears, justifiably, that this would happen again.

[Further, the UN inspectors left on orders from Washington, not Iraq:

Former Head weapons inspector, Scott Ritter in response to "...then
you were kicked out?" states: "Saddam Hussein didn't kick out the
U.N. inspectors. They were ordered out by the U.S. government, which
then used information they provided to bomb 100 locations that had
nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. So the weapons
inspectors were used by the United States. This is the reality: When
Madeleine Albright called up Richard Butler and said, "Jump!" Richard
Butler always said, "How high?" It was obvious from day one.
See: http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/23/news4.shtml ]

FOUR

IT'S SADDAM'S FAULT THAT HALF A MILLION CHILDREN DIED SINCE THE
ECONOMIC BLOCKADE, SADDAM COULD FEED HIS PEOPLE IF HE CARED INSTEAD OF
USING HIS MONEY TO BUY WEAPONS -- " More than one million Iraqis have
died -- 500,000 of them children -- as a direct consequence of
economic sanctions... As many as 12% of the children surveyed in
Baghdad are wasted, 28% stunted and 29% underweight." -- UN FAO,
December 1995. For details see Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi
Children 1990-98.

ANSWER: Nearly all oil sales money has been controlled through United
Nations officials, subject to over 35% reduction for reparations (Iraq
is forbidden to contest any claim) and UN expenses, and subject to
Washington's veto and foot dragging. Washington allowed food and
medicine imports, but almost nothing else for economic reconstruction.

For nearly ten years it blockaded chlorine to sanitize the water and
any equipment to rebuild the electricity grid, sanitation and
irrigation facilities. Even pencils for school children were
prohibited. (A NY Times editorial 2/11/01 reports, "currently American
diplomats are holding up billions of dollars of imports needed for
civilian transportation, electric power generation...and even medical
treatment"). Finally the Europeans rebelled at the cruelty and shamed
Washington into allowing such imports, (NY Times 12/6/00). However, as
of 12/2/01 about $1 billion of electric and other machinery has been
held up for a year by Washington. Until oil prices increased in 2000,
sales ran about $4 billion yearly minus about 35% withheld by UN left
2.6 billion divided by 20 million population = $130 per year per
person = 36 cents per day per person for food, medicine.

Iraq is now also getting substantial monies through sales of smuggled
oil, especially since the price of oil went up and the rest of the
world tires of the American blockade. No doubt some of this goes for
weapons purchases.

****************************************
Interlude with important deeper documentation:

[From: http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm ]

Dennis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq and
former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, resigned in
protest over the truth behind the sanctions. (his success Hans von
Sponneck did the same thing; how many Americans know this?) Read on.

"HALF A MILLION CHILDREN UNDER FIVE ARE DEAD AND DYING IN IRAQ  -- 
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?" An interview with Dennis Halliday by  David Edwards.

And here's just a sample from that:

Q: "The British and US Governments claim that there are plenty 
of foodstuffs and medicines being delivered to Iraq, the problem
is that they are being cynically withheld by the Iraqi regime.
In a letter to the New Statesman recently, Peter Hain, Minister 
of State, wrote: "The 'oil for food' programme has been in place
for three years and could have been operating since 1991 if 
Saddam had not blocked it. The Iraqi people have never seen
the benefits they should have." Is there any truth in that?

Dennis Halliday: "There's no basis for that assertion at all. The
Secretary-General has reported repeatedly that there is no evidence
that food is being diverted by the government in Baghdad. We have 150
observers on the ground in Iraq. Say the wheat ship comes in from god
knows where, in Basra, they follow the grain to some of the mills,
they follow the flour to the 49,000 agents that the Iraqi government
employs for this programme, then they follow the flour to the
recipients and even interview some of the recipients -- there is no
evidence of diversion of foodstuffs whatever ever in the last two
years. The Secretary-General would have reported that."

These facts and details are not exactly widely broadcast in the
corporate-run mainstream media of the US...

For more details, see http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm

Just a bit more eye opening information, what about medicine?

Q: What about medical supplies? In January 1999, George Robertson, then
defence secretary, said, "Saddam Hussein has in warehouses $275
million worth of medicines and medical supplies which he refuses to
distribute."

DH:"We have had problems with medical drugs and supplies - there have
been delays there. There are several good reasons for that. One, is
that often the Iraqi government did some poor contracting; so they
contracted huge orders - $5 million of aspirins or something - to some
small company that simply couldn't do the job and had to re-tool and
wasted three, four, five months maybe. So that was the first round of
*  mistakes. BUT SECONDLY, THE SANCTIONS COMMITTEE WEIGHED IN AND THEY
*  WOULD LOOK AT A PACKAGE OF CONTRACTS, MAYBE TEN ITEMS, AND THEY WOULD
*  DELIBERATELY APPROVE NINE BUT BLOCK THE TENTH, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT
*  WITHOUT THE TENTH ITEM THE OTHER NINE WERE OF NO USE. Those nine then
go ahead - they're ordered, they arrive - and are stored in
warehouses; so naturally the warehouses have stores that cannot in
fact be used because they're waiting for other components that are
blocked by the sanctions committee."

Q: What was the motive behind blocking the one item out of ten?

DH:"Because Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately
played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for
years - it's a deliberate ploy. For the British Government to say that
the quantities involved for vaccinating kids are going to produce
weapons of mass destruction, this is just nonsense. That's why I've
been using the word `genocide', because this is a deliberate policy to
destroy the people of Iraq. I'M AFRAID I HAVE NO OTHER VIEW AT THIS
LATE STAGE."

Q: The British government claims that Saddam is using the money from the
`oil for food' programme for anything other than food. Peter Hain, for
example, recently stated, "Over $8 billion a year should be available
to Iraq for the humanitarian programme - not only for foods and
medicines, but also clean water, electricity and educational material.
No one should starve."

DH:"Of the $20 billion that has been provided through the `oil for food'
programme, about a third, or $7 billion, has been spent on UN
'expenses', reparations to Kuwait and assorted compensation claims.

That leaves $13 billion available to the Iraqi government. If you
divide that figure by the population of Iraq, which is 22 million, it
LEAVE SOME $190 PER HEAD OF POPULATION PER YEAR over 3 years - THAT IS
PITIFULLY INADEQUATE."

****************************************

FIVE

IF IRAQ ALLOWED INSPECTIONS FOR WMD (WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION),
WASHINGTON WOULD REMOVE THE BLOCKADE. IRAQ MUST PROVE THAT IT HAS NO
WMD AND THAT IT WON'T MANUFACTURE ANY IN THE FUTURE.

ANSWER: There's No Connection Between Inspections and Sanctions on
Iraq. Equally no Nation can "prove" a negative, that it's not doing
something. Biological and chemical weapons can be made, "in a large
closet which is all the space you need to mix deadly chemical
weapons... Chemical and biological weapons are the great equalizers
against our atomic weapons." (Time "Everyman a Superpower", 11/24/97).
Re inspections, Reuters reported, 12/13/99, "The (European) aim was to
prevent the United States and Britain from imposing arms requirements
that Iraq could not meet and thus keeping the sanctions in place for
years to come." And Agence France Presse 12/13/99, "French diplomats
retorted that by insisting on full cooperation, the council would give
the United States an excuse to refuse to suspend sanctions on the
flimsiest grounds."

Scott Ritter, former head of the U.N. arms inspection team in Iraq, on
the NBC Today Show, 12/17/98, explained, "Washington perverted the
U.N. weapons process by using it as a tool to justify military
actions... The U.S. was using the inspection process as a trigger for
war." For details on how Iraq complied, e.g. 700 inspections by UN/US
officials, and grew to realize that Washington would prevent the
sanctions from ever being lifted see Le Monde-Diplomatique . Note also
that Iraq did not expel the inspectors. The U.N. withdrew them in
anticipation of the extensive American bombing attacks.

SIX

IT'S IRAQ'S FAULT THAT THE BLOCKADE CONTINUES. AMERICA HAS NOTHING
AGAINST IRAQ'S PEOPLE, ONLY AGAINST ITS GOVERNMENT.
ANSWER: Britain and Washington have introduced a "peace plan"demanding
that Iraq must allow inspections, but would still be under the trade
blockade indefinitely.

Russia and France have introduced a plan (vetoed by Washington)
allowing for immediate lifting of sanctions in return for continued,
ongoing WMD inspections and blockade of military supplies.
Washington's policy (also followed in Serbia) is to tell local
dictators to get themselves killed or thrown out of power (and then
tried for "war crimes") or otherwise have their citizenry starve while
their country's devastated economy is kept in ruins. The policy was
denounced by former Pres. Jimmy Carter . (For detailed discussion of
UN resolutions see CASI from Cambridge and IAC detailed analysis of UN
Resolution)

Most nations in the world want trade sanctions lifted for non-military
goods. It is the U.S. veto that prevents lifting of sanctions (United
Press, 11/1/00). Imposed in 1990 many nations argue that they were
never intended to last for years and are one of the most brutal
sanction regimes in modern history. The crippling trade embargo is
incompatible with the UN charter as well as UN conventions on human
rights and the rights of the child (BBC News Online, 9/30/00).

SEVEN

SADDAM GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE

ANSWER: Atrocities are often the key substance of propaganda to get
Americans to go to war. Didn't our government also do that at Waco?
The C2 gas used by the FBI killed children who couldn't fit into gas
masks and then created an explosive mixture which triggered fire and
immolation, (see super documentary, Waco, nominated for an Academy
Award).

To see how good natured Americans are lied to by our own government
see, How Hill and Knowlton Public Relations "sold" the Iraq War). For
the First World War, it was stories that German soldiers ate Belgian
babies. For the Iraq war it was lies about babies being thrown out of
incubators, "testified" to a Congressional Committee, with massive
media coverage, by a "mystery" witness who later turned out to be the
daughter of the Kuwaiti sheik's ruling family who is Ambassador in
Washington. It was all lies. Then we were told there were aerial
photographs of the Iraqi Army massed on Saudi Arabia's border ready to
attack. They were never released; they apparently were lies too. How
do we know we weren't also lied to about the gassing? See Jude
Wanniski Report on gassing for questions about it.

[Chomsky points out that the Kurds aren't Saddam's
"own people" any more than Native Americans were 
President Andrew Jackson's "own people", whom is massacred.

Also: actually, the US *did* have information that 
gassing took place -- but went ahead and supported Saddam
even AFTER this; Reagan sent Rumsfeld(!) to say, 
"don't worry, ignore criticism in US media, we want to
be your allies" and went on to help fund and arm Saddam further.
The would would be a better place if the millions of americans
in the peace and human
rights movements -- the ones who opposed funding
Saddam back in the 80s -- helped the nation decide
on foreign policies -- not the "hawks" who were
in bed with their now ex-pal Saddam, to make excuses for
killing thousands of Iraqis to replace Saddam with
another dictator who will let them control the oil of this
nation

Let's face it: Bush's "If the UN won't disarm Saddam, we will"
is a lie on more levels than one. First, because the UN
did disarm Iraq 95% very succesfully (Scott Ritter) before
the UN was "asked" to leave before Washington bombed in 1998.

BUT MORE TO THE POINT, "WE WILL DISARM IRAQ" IS A LIE TOO:
the real plans are to remove Saddam from power AND to
replace him with a non-democratic thug who will be extremely
"friendly" to the demands (orders) from Washington and Exxon
AND to exercise control over the world's second largest
oil reserves (posisbly the largest) AND to use this puppet
regime in Iraq to create new US bases (just as they
created bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan after killing
3,000 in the war on Afghanistan, just as they put bases
in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 attack on Iraq), from which
to attack, threaten, and control the entire region and
to control the world's oil. This is admitted in several
document, and parts are admitted in a leaked document:

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification", their desire "for a substantial American [military]
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam
Hussein." and that "even should Saddam pass from the scene",
military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently.
[Ref: http://www.sundayherald.com/27735] ]



For more background and earlier answers about Iraq, please go to
http://iraqwar.org/talking-points.htm and to
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm#one about the missing evidence that
Iraq was planning to attack Saudi Arabia in 1990.

EIGHT

A WAR WOULD BE QUICK AND EASY TO WIN. IRAQIS WOULD WELCOME AMERICANS
TO OVERTHROW THEIR CRUEL DICTATOR. AMERICA WOULD THEN SET UP A
FRIENDLY REGIME, EASILY OCCUPY THE COUNTRY AND RID IT OF WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION.

ANSWER: To assume that after massive new bombing (what we always do)
and killing tens of thousands more Arabs, that America would be
welcome is unreal. Also Washington is now considered in the Arab world
as an instrument of Israeli policies. More likely would be continuing
guerrilla warfare against occupying Americans, possible break up of
the nation, economic chaos in Jordan and Turkey which trade with Iraq,
and/or the rise of a new dictator. War, once started, has its own
momentum. Arnaud de Borchgrave draws a possible scenario of a
worldwide oil crisis, overthrow of pro-U.S. Moslem regimes, and chaos
for American interests.

Also millions more Moslems would be seeking vengeance against America.
There would be little support in Congress for a prolonged occupation
and "Democracy building."

CONCLUSION

Look at the above and think how America is now hated. No wonder many
Arabs engage in suicide missions. American soldiers are so unpopular
in Saudi Arabia that the government hides our Airmen away in desert
bases to keep them out of sight from its citizenry. How the world sees
us was reported by the Wall Street Journal's European edition editor
(2/24/98):

"What came up most were charges of American hypocrisy. The US wants to
bomb Iraq over its violations of UN directives, but won't take any
action against the Israelis for theirs (e.g. occupation of and
settlements in Palestine)."

Washington Times columnist Bruce Fein (10/9/01) put it another way,
"Other nations and peoples are more resentful of our pious hypocrisy
than of Realpolitik bluntness."

No doubt America can easily decimate Iraq again. But then what? More
death, more hatred, more enemies wanting vengeance. Out of the billion
plus Moslem world others would finally find new ways, perhaps
biological, to hit us back. And meanwhile we would live in constant
fear of that day.

If, instead, Washington showed justice and fairness in its policies,
then it would not be creating sworn and desperate enemies who, in
former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick's words, "define themselves as
being Enemies of America." The best security for Americans is not to
make so many enemies (see Joseph Sobran column, How Many Enemies Do We
Want?)

ADDENDUM

The Boston Globe (5/16/99) reported:

"In planning the 1991 Persian Gulf War, US officers found a 12 bridges
for the movement of Iraqi troops in and out of Kuwait. US planes
bombed those bridges over and over, with little effect. So they bombed
every bridge in Iraq, 160 in all, about two-thirds of them far from
Kuwait. After a while, all bridges were seen and treated equally.

Similarly, now in Belgrade, it seems, all military agencies are seen
and treated as if they were of equal importance. The Pentagon
announced last week that three-quarters of the targets hit in this air
war, 270 out of 380, have been 'strategic targets.' Only 110 have been
directly connected to the soldiers and militias in Kosovo."

Jon Basil Utley is the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises
Institute. A former correspondent for Knight/Ridder in South America,
Utley has written for the Harvard Business Review on foreign
nationalism and Insight Magazine on preparation for terrorist threats.
E-mail this story to a friend

Take Action
o  E-Mail This Article
o  Printer-Friendly Version
o  Write to Story's Editor
o  Contact your Representatives

http://www.why-war.com/cgi-bin/read.cgi?id=2004

**************************************************


So, what can the movement do to avert a war?

Bush is annoyed by protests but will keep going. It is only when
mainstream America opposes this war more and more, that costs might
get high enough. Protests and marches can be a great way to energize,
educate oneself, make contacts, and bet inspired.  How does the
movement reach out to the rest of America? Door-to-door?  "Town hall"
style local meetings? Something like that is needed to reach the rest.

Think of the number of hours (150,000 protesters, each
having spent 6 hours at a protest, plus two-way travel, is
900,000 hours...close to 1,000,000 hours.

Between and after protests, could some of that time be used in going
door-to-door, holding local events, local town meetings, Town Hall
style debates, teach-ins, etc, that will reach out to the rest of
America?

We offer these thoughts in the hope of critical and strategic
thinking (you can bet that Bush and Corporate America
are always analyzing, playing mental chess, thinking about strategies
and tactics that will make them more effective -- we need to do the
same) -- how can we be most effective with what time we have?


****************************************
Other ideas and other resources:
****************************************

To practice intellectual self-defense against the flood of lies:

Keep updated on Iraq:
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm

And daily news: http://www.democracynow.org

If you have a fast internet connection: video:
http://www.freespeech.org
(has audio too)

Sign the petition: http://www.noiraqattack.org
See also http://www.peacepledge.org/

10 Things You can do to stop a war on Iraq:

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/tenthings.html

************************************************************