Subject: POWELL'S BLUFF -- SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Earlier we posted debunking the so-called case for
"If Iraq does not Disarm, then we must disarm it" revealing
the hidden premises and the deceit behind it.

Now, we are told, not only would a US invasion and overthrow of Iraq
be ok if WMDs  were found, but even if cooperation is not "proactive
enough" and if various satellite pictures and  other visual attractions
can be used to argue that this unknown item which was seen to be moved
at this time from this location to that location, etc, etc, mean
that the solution is not to investigate that evidence, but (surprise
surprise) to bomb.

An Oscar award is due to both the media and the Bush team for their
performance over the past many months insisting they had "not made up
their minds" and are "reluctant" to invade Iraq. A star
performance. Someone this is to be believed despite "regime change"*
being the aim, openly stated, all along (actually we would love
regime change too, but that is not the honest thing Bush wants; see below)

If in fact Bush had ANY useful evidence of ANY evasion, unknown arms,
etc, by Iraq, then if disarming any WMD in Iraq was REMOTELY their
purposes, their obvious actions would have been to inform the
inspectors (without necessarily telling Iraq) so that, armed with
these (we are told) important and fundamental pieces of satellite
photos etc, the inspectors could have -- on their own terms (since
Iraq wouldn't know just how much the inspectors know -- confront Iraq
with specific questions about where was this item, what happened at
that date at that place, etc.

Powell today if disarming Iraq were remotely the policy, would have
presented thus: "Here is the info we gave to the inspectors; here is
what they did on the ground, here is what they found out based on our
information, here is what they asked the Iraqi officials, and here is
the responses they got from Iraq" but no -- why not?

Does it make any sense whatsoever to not have given all of this
information to the inspectors BACK THEN (not now)? And not to have,
furthermore, encouraged (indeed pressed) the inspectors to use this
information to uncover every possible WMD, every possible
moving-things-around by Iraq, every possible no-no behavior, and then
let the inspectors report on the reactions they got, and Powell could
have thusly reported too if he wanted? Why on earth not? It makes zero
sense..

..Unless "disarming" is not the first objective, and a military attack
and bombing and invasion and overthrow by Washington was the first
objective -- in which case the decision to not give (to the
inspectors) all of the information Bush/Powell claim is so revealing,
to the inspectors BACK THEN and to share claims about it (to the
public) NOW, would make very good sense.

Don't be fooled: whether Saddam is "wants to hide" or not
is not the key question. The key question is, can the inspection
process -- even if Iraqis cooperated mostly in "process" but not
"proactively"  -- could successfully inspect and keep Iraq
disarmed. You don't bomb based on what Saddam is or is not trying. If
the inspections are successful -- as they have been more so in
disarming Iraq even than the 1991 War -- that is what is key. A lesson
for us indeed: the Inspections after the Gulf War of 1991 have been
far more successful than the Gulf War of 1991  in disarming Iraq. That
speaks volumes.

= = = =

See http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/mass-distraction.html
for the much deeper logically (on top of factually) dishonest elements
of the reasonable-sounding "If Iraq Does not disarm, them we must
disarm it"

As for the goal being "regime change" that not only exposes
the lie that "we didn't decide on war from day 1" but also is
not quite honest: they are not for regime change; they are
for US-based leadership-change (while still preventing 
democracy in Iraq, so they can control it) One can point to example,
after example, after example of Iraqis who would have overthrown
Saddam had the US not slammed the door in their faces, or had
Stormin' Norman not "accidentally" let Saddam use his
aircraft immediately  after the Gulf War (when US had *total* control)
and so on -- because they would not be -- I won't say 'puppets' --
they would be democratic and thus not easily controlled.

These options are still there if we were serious about getting
rid of Saddam -- without $100 billion spent or the bloodshed
of tens of thousands of Iraqis and who know how many Americans -- if
we were willing (what Bush is not willing) to let Iraqi democratic
resistance groups -- who are not bad people but are not 
people you can "control" by remote -- letting them get rid of
Saddam. Bush doesn't want that -- if the Iraqi people had
democracy they would control the oil, not the US, and they
would get the lion's share of profits. Why not let them?

Let them have democracy, while getting rid of Saddam. We'd more than
make up the money by saving the billions of our tax-dollars Bush would
spend on bombs and a war. Iraqis would win, Americans would win,
Saddam would be out, but (the only two "flaws") Washington would not
control the oil -- the Iraqi people would -- and ExxonMobil would get
profits, but more would go to the Iraqi people, less to it.

How Bush I and II rebuff the Iraqis who would overthrow Saddam:

http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/goodbye-Saddam.html

Rebuffing a path that is still open to us today.


Don't forget to de-bunk the current rhetoric with

http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/mass-distraction.html

which is titled:

"Weapons of Mass Distr(a)ction: "Disarming" Public Debate"


========================================

Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most UseNet posts but welcome email