2nd May 00:14
The hypocrisy of Western debates on the Iraq war (false numbers reality speech case)
In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
The hypocrisy of Western debates on the Iraq war
by Iqbal Siddiqui
Political controversies seem to be brewing in both the US and Britain
about the evidence that the Bush and Blair governments used to justify
their Iraq war. Bush was forced to admit on July 7 that his State of
the Union speech in January contained false allegations about Iraq's
nuclear programme. CIA director George Tenet accepted responsibility
for their inclusion in the speech, although it is known that CIA
officials objected. He seems to be taking the blame to protect Bush,
defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and national security adviser
Condoleeza Rice. Bush's response was interesting: instead of
apologising for lying on such a crucial issue, he was seemingly
magnanimous towards Tenet, but accepted no responsibility for his own
speech. Despite remarkably little pressure from America's "free press"
or the opposition Democratic party, Bush's position remains difficult,
mainly because of the US's inability to secure Iraq and the blatant
falsehood of numerous other assertions, for example that the Iraqis
would welcome American troops as liberators.
In Britain, Tony Blair's administration also decided to concentrate on
a single point to counter criticisms of their pre-war claims,
selecting a BBC report to the effect that Blair's office had
deliberately exaggerated allegations about Iraq's "weapons of mass
destruction" in two dossiers (September 2002 and February this year).
The government's deliberate blame of one man, Dr David Kelly, a
weapons expert and senior ministry of defence official, for these
reports, resulted in his apparently committing suicide early last
month. The cir***stances surrounding Kelly's death are now the subject
of a judicial inquiry, which could prove extremely damaging to Blair
or members of his government. Nonetheless, their immediate object, to
deflect attention from the issue of the grounds on which Blair took
Britain to war, has been achieved.
Although both governments appear to be in some difficulty over these
issues, in truth neither is being asked the really difficult
questions. In each case, the government propaganda-machine has picked
one allegation to address "albeit in different ways" to establish the
broad tone of the response. For Bush, this tone is "okay, we made
mistakes in the detail, but who cares?" Blair's approach is simply to
stick to his story, regardless of the evidence marshalled against it.
In both cases, by focusing on one allegation, they have largely
succeeded in obscuring the huge mass of incontrovertible evidence that
they went to war for reasons very different from those they gave in
public. The fact that they can get away with this, without key and
unanswerable questions being asked, indicates that most of the media
and political establishment, although officially in opposition, are
not genuinely interested in establishing the truth.
For those really interested in the truth, crucial information is
continuing to emerge regularly without being taken up. For example, in
a briefing given to military commanders on July 19, reported in both
the Washington Post and the New York Times, US air force General T.
Michael Moseley revealed that the US air force launched operations
against Iraq in June 2002: three months before Bush went to the UN to
present his case for disarming Iraq, five months before UN resolution
1441 threatened Iraq with "serious consequences" if it did not disarm,
and nine months before the war was officially launched. Moseley
revealed that the US flew 21,736 operations against 391 targets before
the war officially began, involving unprovoked attacks on key
installations, including communications networks and civilian
airports, all under the pretext of protecting the self-declared and
illegal "no-fly zones".
Another detail revealed in the same briefing was that, during the
three-week invasion, American planners estimated in advance the
numbers of civilians likely to be killed in each operation. Any attack
that was expected to kill more than 30 needed Rumsfeld's personal
approval. More than 50 such attacks were referred to him; he approved
every one. So much for minimalising civilian casualties.
If anyone were truly interested in bringing Bush and co. to account
for their blatant dishonesty, or the murderous nature of their war,
this briefing would have been dynamite, yet it passed with barely a
comment. Such episodes reveal the reality that all debate about
weapons of mass destruction and whether Bush and Blair lied are in
truth nothing but political games within the West's ruling elites,
rather than the genuine processes of democratic accountability that
they are portrayed as.
Mr. Iqbal Siddiqui is Editor of Crescent International and Research
Fellow at the Institute of Islamic Contemporary Thought.
by courtesy Iqbal Siddiqui
2nd May 00:15
The hypocrisy of Western debates on the Iraq war
We have a saying about the pot bad
mouthing the kettle.
You beguin with the standard
Allah both gracious and merciful
as if this might be worth imulation
but instead you have again cut & pasted,
plodded, pouted and offered nothing.