Subject: Bush says "don't notice":IRAQ WAR PROVED HIS "WMD GAME" WAS From: map@economicdemocracy.org (map@economicdemocracy.org) Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
"So the reasons were already overwhelmingly obvious that the WMD pretext for invasion was fraudulent, even before the invasion.Don't let Bush change the subject. We agree that the question should NOT be forgotten or brushed over: "Where were, were are the WMD?""Well now they are not just "overwhelming" but they are 100% certain, sealed, and the game is over. Bush fears our realizing this even more than he fears the pressure to "produce" evidence of WMD."
But is that really the best question to ask?
It (falsely, as we show below) assumes that a justification of the war is possible were some "Evidence" found.
In fact, had Saddam possessed WMD, that would not justify, would not even remotely justify, the illegal and immoral unilateral invasion -- as we had pointed out in "Verbal Weapons of Mass Distr(a)ction: 'Disarming' Public Debate" in which the un-stated assumption that WMD would imply "ok to invade" was dissected piece by piece and shown to be entirely fraudulent (See http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/mass-distraction.html )
But even putting THAT aside, there is --today-- a far, far more potent argument at this point against this latest murderous invasion by our "leaders" having had a shred of justification. It is only the daily deluge with a large array of distracting questions and factoids that prevents us from noticing this fact. A fact which shows that in fact, the WMD game is OVER, and what were already overwhelming arguments against the validity of using the WMD pretext to invade, are now not just overwhelming, but final, the final proof is already right before our eyes, if we open them.
The arguments were not "100% final" but certainly "overwhelming" before the invasion: Iraq's own neighbors, far weaker than the U.S. said Iraq was not a threat to them. And, Iraq had been disarmed to the point of being one of the weakest military powers in the region. Plus, Scott Ritter -- the former marine, the former Chief Weapons Inspector, and the card-carrying member of the Republican Party who, forgive him, voted for Bush in 2000 -- pointed out Bush's lies and that Iraq was 90-95% disarmed before the U.S. -- not Iraq -- kicked out inspectors in 1998. And not just Scott Ritter, but the CIA itself for heaven's sake. So Iran whom the US helped Iraq attack, does not feel a threat, nor do inspectors, nor does the CIA, nor weaker countries, by somehow the world's most powerful country, thousands of miles away, was "threatened" were were told, while the countries, much weather, and right nextdoor, said they did not consider Iraq a threat. The CIA was reluctantly forced to contradict it's boss George W. Bush because the "lack of a threat" from Iraq and the possibility if not likelihood of *higher* threats to the U.S. if Iraq were invaded.
(In any case, it's usually a good idea to listen to the *people*, not "leaders". And indeed the vast majority of the world people (including some 75-80% even in the UK) opposed the military attack on and invasion of Iraq, and opposed it for the right reasons. Don't count on European leaders to stand up for principle, just because they are not as extreme as Bush and Company as far as willingness to let innocents die)
So the reasons were already overwhelmingly obvious that the WMD pretext for invasion was fraudulent, even before the invasion.
Well now they are not just "overwhelming" but they are 100% certain, sealed, and the game is over. Bush fears our realizing this even more than he fears the pressure to "produce" evidence of WMD.
SO LET'S LOOK AT WHAT'S RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES.
THE FACT UNDER ALL OUR NOSES is that Iraq did *not* use any WMD -- even under this attack, invasion, and overthrow of 2003.
It didn't use them in 1991 during the Gulf War, which as we pointed out demonstrated Saddam is not suicidal, and still being nonsuicidal, would not use them if not subjected to an invasion, this time, not to expel from Kuwait but to overthrow. Under the later case, we pointed out, as did many others including militarists, right-wing hawks, and many others in between -- there was a real danger that any WMD Saddam had (whatever was left after the 90-95% disarming Scott Ritter spoke of) might be used.
And yet WMD were not used in 2003 by Iraq. Perhaps Scott Ritter, who was subjected to ugly character assassination and innuendos as if he was soft on Iraq (as BBC pointed out long before the invasion, Iraq in fact was angry at Scott Ritter for being so 'tough' as a weapons inspector)..maybe he was too modest after all. Either that or Iraq had much more restraint, and was much safer a neighbor, than the U.S. itself.
Ask yourself:
Do you think the US would *not* use WMD under attack?
*Any* country, virtually any, would, or at least would reserve the right to use WMD, as a last-resort deterrent, as a last-resort defense if threatened by an invading force for it's very survival
And the U.S. would not just use WMD, but the worst kind: Nuclear, if faced with an external military force threatening it's very survival, threatening to overthrow the entire United States government.
And the U.S. in fact reserves the right to use Nuclear weapons on a "first use" basis, and certainly, a fortiori, offensively, let alone, defensively using Nuclear Weapons as a last defense when attacked and threatened with being invaded and overthrown.
Let alone, would Washington have any restraint against using less extreme non-Nuclear WMD in self defense against an invasion threatening the country.
So what does this say?
Either Iraq was really down to zero -- or more accurately, a militarily "insignificant" and thus useless amount of anything in the direction of WMD -- or else, if they had anything remotely militarily useful, then clearly, Iraq's decision NOT to use this -- even with the ultimate knife to their throat that can be put to the throat of any country on Earth, namely the threat of complete overthrow -- shows a degree of restraint that not only surpasses the U.S. and what we expect from most any other country, but which puts to the ultimate, final lie, the notion that Iraq was a threat to other country outside its borders.
Indeed it's possible that Scott Ritter not only didn't overstate, but under-stated the extent of Iraq's disarming. A recent article in The Guardian of the UK notes:
* "Such doubts were echoed yesterday by a three-star Iraqi general who * told the Guardian in Baghdad that the country had purged itself * completely of weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Gulf war. * * "The general, who worked in the chemical weapons section of the Iraqi * military for more than 30 years and asked not to be identified, * insisted that gas masks, anti-contamination suits and atropine * injectors had been intended to protect Iraqis rather than for * offensive use. "We do not have any kind of forbidden weapons," he * said. * * "Describing the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran in the * 1980s as "abnormal", he said the country had possessed weapons of mass * destruction as a deterrent against its neighbours. * * " "If I have nerve gas and I know the Americans have a better version, * it would be stupid of me to use it against them," he said. "The * concept of having this kind of weapon was just to try to protect * ourselves against others who had them, like the Israelis and the * Iranians." " [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,939535,00.html]
It's perfectly the possible the General the general isn't telling the full truth or might not know the full story -- but it's hard to argue with the simple logic: WMD as defense against others who have it, makes sense; to use it offensively, or even to initiate use against an attacker with stronger WMD, is stupid.
Yet even putting that aside, the simple, central fact is inescapable: whatever WMD Iraq had or didn't have in 2003, the lack of any use, even under the MOST EXTREME of all possible circumstances for a government -- an external extremely powerful force invading and attempting to overthrow you (after loudly and openly proclaiming the intention to do so) -- that Iraq did not use WMD is the ultimate, final, conclusive, last proof of the lie that Iraq was ever a threat to anyone, that they were "suicidal" or "irrational" enough to risk using anything they (might) have had in the realm of WMD.
IF what Iraq had was so little, or so useless, or they were so reluctant to use it or having so much restraint, to the point where it was not even able to help them when INVADED -- then it's certainly either a case of militarily insignificant, or so much restraint or reluctance, a fortiori, in the case of the idea they would use it, offensively, against anyone else. They wouldn't even use it (whatever "it" might or might not exist) not even DEFENSIVELY, and not only not using it defensively, but not even under the most grave, ultimate defensive of all situations: when threatened with the overthrow of the entire government.
[Further, not only was attacking a neighbor out of the question, even, prior to the war, even threatening any use was out. Saddam knew that even a threat of using first, against any neighbor, it would mean near-instant annihilation by the US]
So what does this show?
Any way you look at it, it solidifies what we already knew from the fact that all of Iraq's neighbors (even Iran which the US supported Iraq's war again) even Kuwait, were telling the US that THEY did not consider Iraq a threat, even the CIA, certainly former Weapons inspector and card-carrying Republican Party member, who voted for Bush in 2000, Scott Ritter, all of them and more knew very well, and this underscores and gives the Ultimate "proof in the pudding": Iraq was never, ever a threat externally, not to its neighbors, let alone to the world's only (and Rogue) Superpower, as our "leaders" have sadly taken our country's role to be.
Bush may indeed recoil at the thought of the rest of the world reminding him about the WMD pretext. And indeed, we should not let him change the subject from the fact that now WMD have been found.
BUT WE SHOULD GO MUCH FURTHER, and point out that even that even that point, is secondary to the ultimate proof in the pudding we now have putting the ultimate lie to the idea that Iraq was a threat or any justification to an attack (putting aside that even significant WMD would not have justified it, as the article in the URL at the opening pointed out months ago)
Yes, there is a real worry that Washington's will "plant" evidence. They will howl in protest -- and the corporate US media will say with a straight face, how terrible a charge that is. I mean, they were caught with the forgery with the faked "Nigeria nuclear connection", they were caught lying with the "dossier" stolen from a PhD thesis and even caught having changed a few words to make the 10 year old thesis sound worse, and sound recent -- they were caught on the "tubes" which the UN head inspectors said were not nuclear, and on and on. Horror of horrors to think they would ever try to mislead the public!
[As for Bush's motivations, and on the Russian-German-French proposal -- for a large increase in inspectors and monitors and UN troops to give 100% access anywhere etc spread throughout Iraq. If Washington MEANT ONE WORD of what it said, it should should have jumped with joy at that proposal. If WMD is the real concern, that is a wonderful and very powerful plan, a large increase in monitors, in inspectors, in armed UN troops ensuring the inspectors can go anywhere, anytime, with force backing them up. So why did the Bush regime oppose it? Because that would have not given an excuse to invade.
The UN troops could even had (after taking care of any WMD issue, if there had been one) could have been in place for e.g. force democratic election, so even "regime change" couldn't be why Bush opposed the plan. The only reason is, it did not give an excuse to invade, and did not leave *Washington* in control over Iraq. Yet another piece of evidence: halfway through the 48 hour "ultimatum" to Saddam, Bush said, well, even if Saddam does as I ask and leaves, I'll still invade Iraq. So against "regime change" wasn't the issue. How much more clear can it be?]
So yes, it's reasonable to worry about faked "evidence" of WMD in Iraq, and that should be combatted in all ways.
BUT WE SHOULD NEVER RELINQUISH THE ULTIMATE POINT, exposing the lie that Iraq was ever a threat to anyone, whatever it had -- that it would ever have been foolish enough to use them -- the proof is in the pudding, and the formerly overwhelmingly strong evidence is now not just overwhelming, but a historically tested, final, conclusive proof that it was a lie.
= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
More information:
and Iraq Watch on Znet:
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm
http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org/pages/al_kindi_hospital.html
http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org/
Daily Online 2 hour radio show reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
= = = =
Sorry we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/