Iraq war: Weapons of Mass Deception

The war in Iraq and the “war on terrorism” are merging with the Sunni/Shiite conflict into what looks like civil war. Harper’s index reminds us of the continuing deception directed at the American public by its leaders:

The minimum number of people convicted on “terrorism-related charges” since 2001, according to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in April 2005, was 200.

The actual number convicted on charges related to terrorism or national security was 39.

and

The number of Iraqi troops that had been “trained and equipped,” according to US President Bush in April 2005 was 150,000.

The number that the US military considered ready to deploy independently was 1,500.

Despite ongoing misinformation from the leadership, the American public is rethinking its support for the war. I wonder how Americans would respond if they were being told the truth?

Comments

[silencedogood on 11.04.06 at 16:45]

Oh look. I've been proven right already.

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 16:50]

Silence - It's not about the benefit of hindsight. Bush had an overwhelming NO from his military commanders but make a concious decision to invade based on advice from his policymakers. It's a myth that Saddam was a threat and that the world is a safer place now we are rid of him.

I agree the US and UK made a tough decision, they were just wrong. The problem was, we knew it was wrong. That's the point. Rumsfeld has already admitted they were unprepared.

[silencedogood on 11.04.06 at 16:52]

Ok then what was the right decision?

What should the US have done which would have addressed the issues raised by Reardon?

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 11.04.06 at 16:52]

What realities of the day?

That Saddam had WMDs? He didn't!
That Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda? He didn't!
That he bought Uranium? He didn't!

You say he was a threat and should have been stopped from hetting his hands on WMDs.
Fine. But it's completely hypocritical to go after him full bore while Kim Jong Il is still around. He abused his power and tortured people? So did many, many others, but where was the invasion?

Gah... why do we bother arguing?

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 16:57]

Silence - the right decision would have been to listen to his military commanders who had Saddam contained. In other words - keep him contained, keep the lid on the powder keg that is Iraq. THe US was already doing a great job. And had plenty of support doing so.

Then concetrate on the real issue of defeating Al Queda in Afganistan and continuing to help to find a solution to the "Israeli-Palestinian" question.

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 16:59]

Silence - I might add that Zinni wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

All matters of public record.

[Cancundreaming on 11.04.06 at 17:02]

H Reardon Wrote,

"Njegos, explain to me how the world would be a safer place today if the US didn't back up the UN resolution. Tell me how the world would be better with one of the worst offenders of genocide were still in power (be sure and use the standard "this guy is worse" argument)."

H Reardon,

I think perhaps, this is where your argument goes off the train tracks; I think one needs to distinguish, quite carefully, two separate questions, how would the world be better with Saddam and would the world be safer without the invasion. I think one can reasonably argue that the world is better without Saddam, but this is of course assuming that the situation in Iraq stays within the sphere of the current geopolitical context, i.e. if the current sectarian violence doesn’t intensify and envelop the entire country then I think one can make a strong argument that the world is better off without Saddam. If it does happen, given the geopolitical realities of the region and the current state of the country, I think one would need to revisit that question, how this is another matter.

The question of whether the world is safer without the invasion as it happened is, I think, the real pertinent question. Given the geopolitical realities of the Middle East, one would be hard pressed to make that argument. Evidence continues to mount that in fact Iran poses a far greater threat to America and the West then the Iraq of the past. Given the current status and realities of the current mission in Iraq, i.e. when one takes into account the financial and military resources spent for the invasion and the ongoing occupation, not to mention the political capital used for the invasion and ongoing occupation, one must seriously question whether Iran can be effectively dealt with given these realties.

I think, one must also question the status of the war on terrorism. This can be looked via three grounds. The first is asking the question of whether the invasion and subsequent occupation has helped the ‘war on terror’ as it is often coined. Well the consensus seems to be that the invasion and occupation has not helped the war in terror. In fact, many argue that it has hindered that goal, the invasion and occupation has seemed to spread hatred for America and the West, and has not decreased it as promised.

But I think there are also a couple of other broader points. When one looks at the enormous amount of money spent on the invasion and occupation, and given the U.S’s current deficit, one has to seriously question whether that money was well spent given the fact that the war on terror continues to this day. One can point to a number of areas where the current lack of funding from either the federal, state or local governments has left ‘security’ in the same or even worse position when compared to the situation on September 10th 2001. Also, given that fact that Iraq and Saddam had only a loose connection to the attack on September the 11th 2001 and also the deleterious effect the invasion and occupation has had on the war on terror; I find it hard pressed to answer yes to the question of whether the world is safer as a result of the invasion and occupation. That is perhaps, the worse criticism one can levy at both the President and the Iraqi War.

[H Reardon on 11.04.06 at 17:33]

Cancun,

Some interesting points--thanks for responding to the question. I don't disagree that Iran today may be more of a threat than Iraq 4 years ago, but if someone doesn't stand up and back up a threat, what does it tell these rogue nations? Iran 4 years ago wasn't much of a threat, who is to say that Iraq today wouldn't be a major threat if the US and UK had backed down and gone home?

Is Iran more or less willing to talk and give up their nuclear program because the US backed up the UN threat? Would Iran even care what the rest of the world had to say if the US had gone home, knowing that a military option is not there? Why in the world does a country with huge oil reserves need a nuclear power plant?

I still really don't see the clear cut decision that could have been made given the circumstances. Should UN sanctions be truly toothless? What does that mean for the security of the world?

Elvis, if Bush lied impeachment proceedings would have begun in the US House. See Clinton. The UN Security Council believed Saddam had or was close to having the capability of producing WMD--ergo the resolution threatening "dire consequences."

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 17:42]

H - good questions, but I don't see Iran's current sabre rattling as an indication they are afraid of the US or the UK. One could almost argue that the current state of Iraq gives them some heart. There is no way that the US could invade Iran right now since they are so massively stretched over the border.

I don't think we or the generals were suggesting the US went home, just that they had Saddam contained and that they were able to focus on Al Queda.

[H Reardon on 11.04.06 at 17:56]

Elvis,

Some interesting reading for you to peruse:

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=1

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123051,00.html

[Shark on 11.04.06 at 18:03]

The USA wouldent even have to invade Iran they can just bomb instalations and cripple Iran (which is what will happen in the worst case scenario and there there is nothing Iran can do to stop it except cause as much choas in the middle east as they can.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 11.04.06 at 18:22]

Checking out the first two.

But Fox news? Come ON.

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 18:25]

Elvis - also known as Al-Foxeera

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 11.04.06 at 18:29]

Wait. The Weekly Standard is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and is neoconservative. It goes to the same place Fox News does.

CNS originally stood for Conservative News service before changing their name.

Sorry. How 'bout some links from something OTHER than a neocon angenda?

Nope... the man still lied. You haven't proved otherwise.

[stuart J Hayward on 11.04.06 at 18:30]

H Reardon,
I’ll work my way through your comments/questions — it may take me some time…

Stuart, you asked about support for the war, which has to mean the decision to go to war.

The decision to go to war and the conduct of it are two sides of the same coin. In both cases one has to weigh up the costs/benefits — social, economic, environmental, psychological, the gamut.

Saying that the Iraqi troops aren't sufficiently trained today should not change an American's view of the decision to go to war, but rather possibly change an American's view on the handling of the war--two issues that get confused too often.

The pre-war predictions were that American troops would wipe out Saddam’s army, be welcomed with garlands of flowers as liberators, leave the mopping up action in the hands of Iraqis and be back home (in time for dinner lol). In that light, if two or three years down the road only 1,500 Iraqi troops are combat ready, then yes Americans ought to be reviewing the decision to embark on the war.

However, the reason I brought Iraqi troop strength into the discussion was the hundredfold discrepancy between Bush’s declaration of Iraqi troops “trained and equipped” (and I have no doubt he said it to inflate his pronouncements of the war’s “good progress”) and their actual readiness for deployment. The ongoing disconnect between what Pres. Bush portrays and what is — remember “mission accomplished” — should trigger in Americans a rejection of reasons offered for starting and continuing the Iraq war AND, most importantly, for starting a war against Iran.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 11.04.06 at 18:30]

angenda isn't a word.

[SmokingGun on 11.04.06 at 18:34]

HEUE11

"That Saddam had WMDs? He didn't!" - Other than gassing the Kurds?

"That Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda? He didn't!" -Other than paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Something Al-Qaeda also may have been doing.

"That he bought Uranium? He didn't!" - Maybe not but you might want to ask the French, Russians or Germans as to what discussions they might have had regarding nuclear power etc.

The fact is Saddam was playing everyone against each other. He wanted to maintain a sense of power in the region and he used a vicious regime to do it. Bush (and a whole lot of other world leaders) got frustrated with his antics in making the UN look like a toothless saw-horse at the US expense. (The US always ends up paying the lion-share of the UN screw-ups.) So he called Saddam's bluff. And Saddam blinked figuring, as was mentioned, that the US forces would not risk attacking if there was a potential for large loss of life.

The biggest mistake Bush and his suits made was not truly understanding that once the cork was pulled then all sorts of pent up rage, distrust and vengeance would come pouring out and that all the other extremists would come pouring into Iraq to make sure the infidels are killed and their agendas spread.

The trouble is the western world has little understanding of how the middle east really works and as is often the case they try to walk in and fix everything the best way they see it. The western world tends to see it all as a necessary piece of business and have little patience for any of the histrionics of the religious and tribal fanatics. Which can really get people's goat.

[Bill Cook on 11.04.06 at 18:35]

Saddam was no real threat to anyone external to Iraq he was crippled militarily by Desert Storm.

Colin Powell arguably the most knowledgable and more importantly the most trustworthy was opposed to the methodology but was marginalised by the cadre of Neo Cons led by Paul Wolfowitz the prime artectecht of the strike.

The Israelis have a select secret service whose task is to be on the look out for the proliferation of nuclear weaponry by its neighbours and they are highly trained and well equipted to take out anyone developing such just as they did already taking out the nuclear plant supplied by France.

It would have taken app 10 yrs for Iran to reach a nuclear capibility militarily anyway and if Iraq had been manufacturing WMD they would have been the first to know

They are sitting with the 3 rd largest nuclear arsenal in Dimona inc the Neutron bomb and are the US's pit bull in the area

With the hundreds of billions poured in to Israel by the US it would logically look to them to keep an eye on things in return

Iraq was a threat only to itself it was a toothless Tiger a scapegoat for the greatest combination of lies by the largest assembly of liars in recent history and that is saying something !

[Ethiops on 11.04.06 at 19:30]

I just find it amazing that we can forget so quickly that Iraq never threw even a rock at America and at present there are over 100,000 of them dead at the hands of Americans that invaded their land. How sweet it must be for those that cover their asses amidst all the drummed up media drivel of how, what, why, when, n where.

Saddam only had one arm and depending how you look at it, one of mass destruction of a way of life other than lost of a physical one. The only danger he posed for America was changing the petro dollar system and this is after all’s said n done the only reason they invaded this country. There is an abundance of shitheads around the globe that could use a lil special group hug from the so called world police but, you don’t see them moving in any of those directions.

Among intelligent people one shouldn't have to explain that there are good n bad people in any nation, no one should see this as taking pot shots at the states.

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 19:48]

I think what I struggle to understand about supporters of the war is the "what else could we have done?" or "how were we to know" argument.

It simply doesn't hold true since there was plently of evidence to suggest Saddam was no threat to anyone (other than his own people), much of that evidence came from US armed forces on the ground and Hans Blick (sp?) was only days from announcing his findings. Of course to wait for that report would have spelled disaster for the Bush administrations plans.

Ethiops is dead right. This has fuck all to do with Saddam, freeing the Iraqi people, securing the region, nuetralising a threat and everything to do with keeping oil traded in US dollars.

Oh, Smoking Gun, Saddam was ideologically opposed to Al Queda - he would only support suicide bombers (if at all) purely because it pissed the West off. Uranium/yellow cake - that was all a forgery concocted by Italian journalists (I believe). Incidently, Blair is still blethering on about this when even the CIA have agreed it was all fake. WMD's - sure he gassed the Kurds but he had no way of delivering those weapons to Israel never mind further afield. An ineffective military machine, poor weapons, obselete and poorly maintained aircraft.

See? No threat. Only to his own people. And there are plenty of despots around the world like that.

[SmokingGun on 11.04.06 at 19:53]

Ethiops - 100,000 at the hands of Americans? I think you'll find the vast majority of iraqi's have been killed by other Iraqi's or infiltrators.

Also I never realized Saddam only had one arm. You sure about that?
I know alot of guys ended up missing their finger nails when around him though.

[SmokingGun on 11.04.06 at 20:17]

sandgrownan - I don't disagree that this probably had a lot to do with oil but I guess the Kuwaitis never figured him a threat either. We must remember one thing though. The USA has been relatively free of all the terrorist antics we see happening around the world today such as the 40 odd people blown up in a prayer service in Pakistan just today. When Saddam decided to "piss off' the US/Western world he got people to start taking him far more seriously. He played to the fear that he might support terrorist strikes in the USA. He may not have been in cahoots with Al Qaeda but he certainly played in their game.

No worries, when someone slips into the US and sets off the next wave of terrorist attacks we can all try to figure who's backing them. After all, Saudi Arabia has been a strong ally of the US and yet we all know who flew the planes. It's all a matter of trust and the fact is Saddam was just totally untrustworthy. Do I think Bush has made the best decisions? Not at all but I'll stick by my byline - Saddam tried to play everyone and he lost. And at great expense to the people of Iraq.

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 20:55]

Reardon:

You are mistaken. There was no UN resolution to back up. The UN refused to pass the second resolution authorising force against Iraq. The war is an outright violation of international law. Even Richard Perle formerly of the Defense Advisory Board at the Pentagon admitted this in a speech in London 2 years ago.

Salman Pak, Ansar al-Islam, unmanned drones, the mobile biological weapons labs, uranium yellow-cake, 45 minute warnings, stove-piped intelligence at the OSP in the Pentagon - ah, the list of deception stretches for miles. It was all 24-carat rubbish and our leaders knew it beforehand. This war had bugger all to do with "tough decisions".

Let's turn to the humanitarian issue. Shortly before the war, Tony Blair said that as long as Saddam Hussein complied with UN resolutions to disarm (which he did as we have now discovered) then he could remain in power. So I don't think that the invasion had anything to do with Saddam's brutal record. Moreover, Western governments were happily arming Saddam Hussein and selling him all sorts of lovely chemical weapons in the 1980s when he was our ally. I think we can safely dispense with any so-called humanitarian motive for this war.

Now if you want to discuss genocide then we also need to talk about several hundred thousand Iraqis who died for lack or medicine or sanitation under the medieval sanctions regime which provoked the resignation of 2 heads of the UN Oil for Food Programmes (Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck). The sanctions regime was enthusiastically endorsed by Clinton's NSA Sandy Berger who praised them as "some of the toughest in history". (Berger, incidentally, was touted as a potential secretary of state under not-to-be president John Kerry). Then there are those who have died as a result of DU, white phosphorus and good old bombing in the last few years. It is not a proud record. If you exclude Iranians killed in the Iran and Iraq war, it is entirely possible that successive Western governments have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein.

Back to that Iraqi "threat". Why did Colin Powell state in 2002 that Iraq was no threat to its neighbours? Why did none of Iraq's neighbours consider Saddam a threat? Why did the UK government present a dossier alleging an Iraqi threat based on a PhD that was over 10 years out of date? The fact is that Iraq was substantially disarmed by the early 1990's. Scott Ritter will attest to that. His account of the UNSCOM inspection regime is very illuminating ("War on Iraq - What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know"). In it you will learn how biological weapons inspectors refused to inspect Saddam's palaces, described by American politicians as clandestine bio-weapons factories, because they did not want to give Saddam "the benefit of a negative finding". You will also learn how UNSCOM scoured hundreds of Iraqi intelligence front companies abroad, none of which were found to have purchased banned materials. Remember the sinister-looking passenger plane at the "terrorist training camp" at Salman Pak - the so-called smoking gun linking Saddam Hussein to OBL? Well it turns out to have been a hostage rescue training facility which was built in the 80s with the help of British intelligence. Ironically in the 1990s, Islamic fundamentalists were viewed as the most likely hijackers. Ritter also talks about the defector and fraud Khidre Hamza. This was Saddam Hussein's supposed "bomb-maker" who lied about his role in the Iraqi nuclear program and whose intellegence was rejected by Western spy agencies. Saddam Hussein's brother-in-law Hussein Kemal (who defected in 1996) also blew the whistle on Hamza. None of this was publicised in the mainstream media. Needless to say, Hamza was a very popular guest on US talk shows in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

The expulsion of the inspectors is another myth. Richard Butler allowed UNSCOM to be used by CIA intelligence officers to spy on Saddam Hussein. In other words, he compromised the inspection regime. In 1998 with the support of the US, he became extremely aggressive towards the Iraqis tearing up previously agreed inspection protocols at which point the Iraqis ended their cooperation with UNSCOM. So UNSCOM withdrew from Iraq paving the way for US bombing. It is worth noting that Butler refuses to debate Ritter in public on these issues.

You ask what I would have done. First of all, I would not have surrounded myself with a gang of pro-Israeli ideologues who were hell bent on finding an excuse to remove Saddam Hussein. I would have relied on the normal channels of intelligence and heeded the advice of my diplomats. I also would have placed faith in nuclear deterrence, or the Samson Option as it is referred to in "non-nuclear" Israel. I cannot fathom why the doctrine of nuclear deterence has suddenly become obsolete especially against nations that are a mere shadow of the menace posed by the former Soviet Union with its vast arsenal of ICBMs. If we are going to live in fear of weak and ruined countries like Iraq and North Korea, then we might as well surrender now.

But really you should be demanding answers not me from Bush. Why did Bush swallow all the horse manure that he was fed? Shouldn't there be widespread resignations on both sides of the Atlantic? This is an international scandal of unprecedented proportions. Instead Bush stands up at black tie dinners and cracks jokes about not finding WMDs. I wonder if the families and friends of all the dead Iraqis and Americans found it funny. Did you? No wonder the man is so despised.

[SmokingGun on 11.04.06 at 21:29]

Negos - For all intent and purpose I do have to agree I was more than a little shocked to see him clowning about the WMD's. There's always going to be two sides to the story but there's nothing funny about a war when it involves innocent people, especially kids.

http://www.musicforamerica.org/bushjoke

(Be advised it's somewhat graphic.)

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 21:34]

Smoking Gun says:

"That Saddam had WMDs? He didn't!" - Other than gassing the Kurds?

Ok, let's put this one to bed finally:

"No weapons inspection team has set foot in Iraq since 1998. I think Iraq was technically capable of restarting its weapons manufacturing capabilities within six months of our departure. That leaves three and one half years for Iraq to have manufactured and weaponised all the horrors the Bush Amdinistration claims as motivations for the attack. The important phrase here, however, is "technically capable". If no one were watching, Iraq could do this. But just as with the nuclear weapons program they'd have to start from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research. They'd have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies. This would be detected. The manufacture of chemical weapons emits vented gases that would have been detected by now if they existed. We've been watching via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this. If Iraq was producing weapons today, we'd have definite proof, plain and simple."

Scott Ritter, Interviewed by William Rivers Pitt, August 2002

"That Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda? He didn't!" -Other than paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Something Al-Qaeda also may have been doing.

"That he bought Uranium? He didn't!" - Maybe not but you might want to ask the French, Russians or Germans as to what discussions they might have had regarding nuclear power etc.

This is evidence? (BTW, Saddam Hussein was also sent money to Palestinians whose houses were bulldozed by the IDF. America sends money to the IDF).

As to your cat and mouse theory, you could be on to something. Saddam may have wanted to leave an element of doubt in the mind of the Americans because he knew that once the Americans realised he had no WMDs he was finished.

North Korea learned a valuable lesson.

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 21:36]

"For all intent and purpose I do have to agree I was more than a little shocked to see him clowning about the WMD's"

Thank you Smoking Gun. I look forward to Reardon's answer.

[SmokingGun on 11.04.06 at 21:50]

Njegos - I'm not a scientist nor a spy so I'd have to trust one to tell me how they can be sure he was not doing anything. I do have eyes though and when I saw the pictures in Time Magazine of the dead men, women and children then I knew he certainly "had" access to gas weapons.

And as far as the cat and mouse that's exactly what my point is. He knew he had a fragile stance so he put up a lot of bravado in order to try to keep things in check. Saddam tried to push a lot of people around and I'm sure many of his neighbors were happy to see the US take the lead role in getting him out. Even if they wouldn't dare to admit it.

[Bill Cook on 11.04.06 at 22:06]

We all should be sending money to the Palestinians whose homes have been bulldozed by the US Caterpillar Bulldozers if we really were humane.

The only difference between a freedom fighting suicide bomber with a $150 home made bomb who dies trying to drive the occupiers out of his country and an IDF pilot of an American supplied 15 million $ Apache
helicopter who fires his Hellfire rocket into the overcrowded Jabalya refugee camp killing women and children is that he goes home to his nice dinner in his air conditioned billet while the Palestinian is of course dead.

Of course the IDF do not only murder Palestinians they murder anyone they want to as they did with James Miller the British photographer filming conditions in the refugee camp.

Blair being the puppet of Bush can be depended on to do absolutely nothing about that just wait and see.

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 22:15]

Njegos - I'm not a scientist nor a spy so I'd have to trust one to tell me how they can be sure he was not doing anything. I do have eyes though and when I saw the pictures in Time Magazine of the dead men, women and children then I knew he certainly "had" access to gas weapons.

Let me ask you: how did you know from pictures in a magazine that Saddam had poison gas?

And as far as the cat and mouse that's exactly what my point is. He knew he had a fragile stance so he put up a lot of bravado in order to try to keep things in check. Saddam tried to push a lot of people around and I'm sure many of his neighbors were happy to see the US take the lead role in getting him out. Even if they wouldn't dare to admit it.

Hmm. Think of the no-fly zones, the sanctions, the bombings etc. I think it was the Americans who were pushing Iraq around. Surely the real point is that it's safer to have a WMD program.

[Phil on 11.04.06 at 22:24]

SmokingGun

The gassing of the Kurds took place in March 1988. If the Americans were so upset about it, why didn't they do something at the time? Could this be because they were then supporting Iraq in its war with Iran?

According to the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq:

* Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32]

* Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announced its opposition to the bill,[33] and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill "premature".[34] The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died "on the last day of the legislative session".

Also note that Iraq had been making extensive use of chemical weapons in its war with Iran prior to Halabja. The UN attempted to condemn them. What did the US do?

The Security Council could only condemn Iraq by name for using chemical weapons through non-binding Presidential statements, over which permanent members of the Security Council do not have an individual veto. On 21 March 1986, the Security Council President, making a "declaration" and "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members are "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons".[51] The US voted against the issuance of this statement

Here's what wikipedia says:

The massacre at Halabja did not raise protests by the international community in March 1988. At the time, it was admitted that the civilians had been killed "collaterally" due to an error in handling the combat gas. Two years later, when the Iran-Iraq War was finished and the Western powers stopped supporting Saddam Hussein, the massacre of Halabja was attributed to the Iraqi government.

Note also:

Both Saddam Hussein and Ali Hasan al-Majid (who commanded Iraqi forces in northern Iraq in that period) have not had charges relating to the events at Halabja included within the charges for which they are appearing before the Iraqi Special Tribunal for crimes against humanity.The tribunal has made a point of avoiding directly charging President Hussien with the crimes commited at Halabja.

This is purely speculation on my part, but could this be because the Americans are concerned about what light this may shed on their involvement?

For the US to cite Halabja as any kind of justification for the 2003 invasion is hypocritical in the extreme.

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 22:30]

Bill:

About to finish "My One and Only Love" by the Israeli jazz musician Gilad Atzmon who lives in London in "self-imposed exile". Very funny satire on Zionism and espionage.

At the back is a glossary of expressions and historical figures dear to Israelis including a Janusz Korczak, described as:

"a Polish doctor who worked as a kindergarten teacher during WWII. He was killed accompanying a group of young Jewish pupils to the death camps. Israelis adore Korczak because similarly they expect the rest of the world to commit suicide with them."

And we seem all too happy to oblige.

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 23:09]

Phil:

An article appeared in the NY Times in 2003 written by Stephen Pelletierre, a retired CIA intelligence officer who was responsible for investigating the deaths at Halabja.

Pelletierre claimed that a classfied DIA report concluded that the Iranians were responsible because the bodies showed traces of cyanide poisoning whereas the Iraqis were known only to have mustard gas.

Many people think this is unlikely because Halabja was under the control of the Iranians at the time which. The Iraqis were worried that they would seize control of key reservoirs in the region. We also know that the US tilted heavily towards Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. In which case, the best that can be said for the Iraqis is that the target was probably the Iranian invaders but of course, it was innocent Kurdish villagers who died horribly.

Perhaps the report remain classified because the US realised it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Or it may have been a defensive disinformation tactic that was shelved by wiser more senior officials.

The article appeared shortly after the invasion of Iraq which may explain why it attracted little publicity. It was a bad time to defend Iraq or cast doubts on the integrity of the CIA/DIA.

[Bill Cook on 11.04.06 at 23:26]

NG,

SAD BUT TRUE

GOOD TO KNOW YOU TOO ARE A JAZZ FAN !!

I FOUND THAT IT HELPED IN CROSSING BARRIERS EVEN IN BERMUDA !

[Michael Taylor on 12.04.06 at 00:38]

Bill Cook,

"The only difference between a freedom fighting suicide bomber with a $150 home made bomb who dies trying to drive the occupiers out of his country and an IDF pilot of an American supplied 15 million $ Apache
helicopter who fires his Hellfire rocket into the overcrowded Jabalya refugee camp killing women and children is that he goes home to his nice dinner in his air conditioned billet while the Palestinian is of course dead."

I hope I don't find myself on a watch list for saying this, but thank you for pointing out the lack of value in labelling all of today's Davids "terrorists", while glorifying the Goliaths as "liberators" and "freedom fighters". I don't support terrorism any more than the next guy but if these people are terrorists, what would we call the targeted murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in the incendiary and nuclear bombing of WWII? Either both are terrorism or neither are. It can't just be a convenient name employed to demonise a diminutive or poor enemy. Wealth, size, and technology don't bestow divine rights.

[Lisa on 12.04.06 at 03:04]

Limey mate - you don't have to justify yourself or your blog to me. I am just sick of reading about Iraq and was looking forward to seeing something else here. Just felt like expressing my opinion. I quite understand why you do what you do and think you do it very well... most of the time ;-)

[Lisa on 12.04.06 at 03:08]

Just want to add... it's not that I don't think Iraq is STILL an incredibly important issue to discuss and something that is very deserving of intelligent debate.

[david on 12.04.06 at 06:17]

I don't believe this impending civil war is due to the occupation. I can see the insurgency arose out of the initial conflict, many are known to be ex republican guard. Now the issue is that the Shia and Sunnis just don't get on and can't reach an agreement. There are fundamental differences, with religion as usual sticking its destructive nose in. 3 months later still no agreement and more people are dying yet the allied forces are having to put pressure on them when you'd think its looking pretty clear they need to sort it out. This isn't a surprise tho with their history and the fact that islam is this most untolerant of all religions we find ourselves in this situation. You'd just think the US could have seen this. I think we should withdraw and if they want to carry on killing each other why is it our responsibility to sort it out as long as they don't kill us?

[oh lordy on 12.04.06 at 06:42]

"Sorry. How 'bout some links from something OTHER than a neocon angenda?

Nope... the man still lied. You haven't proved otherwise."

Another fine example of Elvis is right. It doesn't matter what you think, what information you offer, if Elvis doesn't says it's true it must be wrong, and how dare anyone disagree with "Him".

ridiculous.

[Bill Cook on 12.04.06 at 08:53]

Michael,

Most people agree that the dominant factors that shape world history have been human greed and the eternal quest for power in every era and culture these factors have determined the outcome of world events.

In Iraq it is all about OIL and in Israel it is all about LAND.

I am a slow learner as it was not until I went to enter Israel but could not because of the latest upraising caused by Sharons procative visit to the Temple Mount.

That led to my investigation of the cause of the situation and a great deal of research which revealed just how depressingly the media had been manipulated to distort the truth.

The price all must pay for the protection of democracy and freedom is ETERNAL VIGILANCE

This will require personal study and research not just acceptance of the popular media or even people like me who may have an agenda, the truth however does not have an agenda.

[stuart J Hayward on 12.04.06 at 09:34]

A story in today’s Washington Post:

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

I rest my case…

[Michael Taylor on 12.04.06 at 09:59]

Bill,

While we are discussing the topic of misinformation, there's a question I have been meaning to ask you. I have been searching for books which get to the truth of the Middle East situation for some years now. In particular I am interested in the history from 1500-1960. Everything I have been able to find on this topic so far has been written either by Zionists or People with Palestinian militant leanings. Every book seems to be chock full of either blatant lies or blatant omissions of obvious fact. I have tried to get some idea of the truth by studying both sides of the story but I am not too comfortable with this technique. Can you recommend any impartial titles on the history of this conflict?

[H Reardon on 12.04.06 at 10:02]

"Reardon:

You are mistaken. There was no UN resolution to back up."

HMMM, well

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/index.html

That looks like one to me.

"what would we call the targeted murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in the incendiary and nuclear bombing of WWII?"

Posted by Michael Taylor on 12.04.06 at 00:38

You are right, the US should have sacrificed 100,000+ troops invading Japan rather than kill the enemy--particularly since the Japanese had been so kind in their fighting of the war. The Bataan Nature Stroll was particularly pleasant.

It is called a war--the point of which is to deplete your opponents resources and will until they capitulate. The Japanese were fierce and not willing to give up easily even though they were beaten. The Japanese were warned and also given time to surrender after the first bomb. They didn't. Suggesting the US not use the bomb is absurd--it probably saved my Grandfather's life.

[stuart J Hayward on 12.04.06 at 10:08]

Reardon writes:

To have a legitimate criticism of going to war, you really need to come up with an alternative--some other decision that the Bush Administration could have made.

I reject this, wholly. The legitimacy of a criticism isn’t made (or broken) by whether or not it is accompanied by alternatives, but rather by the logic, validity and force of the arguments made. A bad decision is still a bad decision even if there are no alternatives (other than NOT to decide).

That said, offering alternatives is a useful thing to do. It is most useful if the “listener” is the one making the decision in question, and if the listener is open to or likely to be swayed by arguments for the alternatives. Offering alternatives after the fact is useless for the decision already made (although it might be useful for future decisions). Requiring alternatives, as you have, seems like a blanket strike at all critics, no matter the quality of their critique.

It’s may be fair to ask, “Well, what alternatives did the poor guy have?” when defending a desperate decision, which I contend this was not. But to require alternatives as an entry fee into the discussion is just not on, IMHO.

[sandgrownan on 12.04.06 at 10:20]

Reardon - As I've stated before, since Iraq was no threat, he decision should have been to keep Saddam contained as per his Generals.

Instead, he chose to listen to group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

These ideologues totally hijacked US policy in Iraq.

[sandgrownan on 12.04.06 at 10:25]

As for the resolution, Blair wanted a second resolution but Bush couldn't wait. In fact they discussed in Downing Street invading regardless of what the UN said. Bush even wanted to send a spy plane in UN colours over Iraq to provoke Saddam into trying to shoot it down! What a pair of wankers!

Meanwhile, the generals are saying no threat, the intelligence is a best flawed, and BLick is saying no WMD's. Explain the invasion please!

[Bill Cook on 12.04.06 at 10:39]

Michael

I will contact you with this information offline, but please note that I have written several long letters that were pretty comprehensive and I will send to you copies.

[stuart J Hayward on 12.04.06 at 10:42]

Reardon writes:
If the answer is sanctions--why are your sanctions going to work when the sanctions of the previous 12 years hadn't?

Surely you jest…

Why was the US army able to virtually waltz into Baghdad? Was it not because the sanctions worked to debilitate Iraq’s war capability?

Why were no biological or nuclear weapons or their makings found? Was it not because the sanctions worked to deter Saddam’s intent?

Why were thousands of Iraq children dying? Was it not because the sanctions worked so well that the country was starved for pharmaceuticals?

The sanctions may not have worked perfectly but they did work.

And sanctions would have had global support. The unilateral decision to invade (and please don’t echo the “broad coalition” deception) was a thumb of the nose to the world.

[Michael Taylor on 12.04.06 at 10:50]

Reardon,

"Suggesting the US not use the bomb is absurd--it probably saved my Grandfather's life."

I don't see where anyone has suggested this.

I am not sure if your comment about sacrificing 100,000 troops (rather than targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians) was sarcasm or not. Either way it doesn't matter. If you think it was a justifiable act of war, you should label Palestian suicide bombers as martyrs. If you think it was an immoral act , you should have no problem labelling it as terrorism along with the acts of the Palestinian "Martyrs".

[Bill Cook on 12.04.06 at 11:00]

Sandy,

Making a nuclear weapon or bomb is not like making a home made nail bomb.

This is a complicated affair and it is possible to detect both by sending a drone plane to detect the atmosphere changes and by checking the water supply which would reveal the activity.

Personally it is my opinion that both Bush and Blair knew that there was no nuclear threat.

To believe that they did not know they could be obliterated by someone pressing the red button is just too much of a stretch for all but the brain dead to swallow.

There are a few more neocons like Irving Crystal but all these people have one thing in common and that is they have been acknowledged for services to Israel and all are Jewish supporters of the Zionist ideal which may make their primary allegiance very suspect in my opinion.

Their plan as far as I can ascertain was first Iraq then Iran, Syria and Lybia etc in line for the total control of the ME so all the posturing with Iran is fascinating to watch being played out.
Remember it takes app 10 yrs to reach weapon stage with the nuclear development so there is no imminent danger it would appear I am no expert I just report what I can find out in research.

[SmokingGun on 12.04.06 at 11:10]

Njegos -

"Let me ask you: how did you know from pictures in a magazine that Saddam had poison gas?"

Because photoshop hadn't been invented back then? I should have added that he was willing to use them.

Limey -

"The gassing of the Kurds took place in March 1988. If the Americans were so upset about it, why didn't they do something at the time? Could this be because they were then supporting Iraq in its war with Iran?"

"For the US to cite Halabja as any kind of justification for the 2003 invasion is hypocritical in the extreme."

A) I have stated since the start "Shame on the Yanks, the Brits, the Germans, French, Russians and anyone else who thinks they have a right to dicate how the world is run for not going in at that time."

B) I don't know if the US is using Halabja as any kind of justification. I know that I am as it's proof he had them and was willing to use them and seeing as he could not be trusted something eventually would have to be done.

Personally I would have had no problem with having him and his wretched sons kidnapped and locked away forever but that doesn't mean we wouldn't have the same problems today.