Powell's story of lies - nod nod, wink wink
The US Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that the US was misled by lies by the CIA and certain Iraqis. His declaration leads to very uncomfortable logical conclusions. If this is not part of some strategy to pull out from Iraq, then I am afraid, that we, as a civilization, have hit a new low.
Were these misleadings deliberate? Deliberate lies? There were millions of people marching one year ago, and presenting proof of the same lies while Mr. Powell was presenting the lies at the United Nations. This elevates the ‘misleading intelligence’ to deliberate lies.
Did this truth dawn on Mr. Powell yesterday? Or, did he live with the lie for so long? One year ago, he was somewhat anti-war, and then suddenly turned around and sold the war to the UN and to the American people. Is this a credibility repair exercise or a testing the water for a US withdrawal.
This ‘new-found’ discovery has no effect on the doctrine of pre-emptive attack that Mr. Powell’s administration invented and still supports. This makes this US administration the most dangerous power to ever exist on this earth. It simply means that the next pre-emption will not even require lies – as the discovery of lies is not enough to dissuade from war. There is no other conclusion that I can come to. I invite a reader to disprove me.
Days before the war, when former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was interviewed by Dan Rather of CBS, he said that he did not have any banned weapons left. Mr. Saddam spoke the truth.
The original liars are sitting on the Iraqi governing council – the same council that will assume the government of Iraq in about three months from today. There is no action or outcry against them – and Mr. Chalabi admitted his lies to a UK TV station with pride. As the presumed ‘first cause’ of so much death and suffering, are these men not accountable? If not, were their statements misleading, or deliberate lies, sold and bought knowingly.
My 10-year old daughter asked me when I explained the news to her: ‘will Bush end the war now?’ I could hardly find the right words to explain to her – ‘no’ – and still keep her moral balance.
Writers, politicians, intellectuals are silent. Their deafening silence shows a disregard for all values that we as humans cherish. Is this a co-incidence, the result of mind-control, or further collusion in the lies?
The vast intelligence budgets of the US are useless. Or did they know and deliberately lied? In either case, pre-emptive aggression has no use for intelligence. Countries, nations and regimes can be wiped out by lies, so why bother with intelligence, which aims to gain a certain level of truth.
These disturbing thoughts then lead to the how? How are these lies still being sold as truth? I started thinking about the repetitive message that we hear every day – ‘but Saddam was a bad man’. Why this monotonous repetition? Maybe he was not such a bad man after all, compared to the liars in the Iraqi government and the US government. Let us try the charges against him:
a. he started a useless murderous war with Iran. So did the US, quite recently, and in Vietnam.
b. he gassed his people – there is very flimsy evidence as to who did it – Iran or Iraq, and if he did, he should have been dealt with 25 years ago, when he was the US’s friend.
c. he killed his own people, the Shia and Kurds. Most of the killings occured in response to US-financed rebellion, amounting to a civil war. The civil war in Vietnam, Korea and the US Civil War can provide proof of internecine atrocities during civil war.
d. he had a ruthless secret police – so did the Shah of Iran and so is the CIA.
e. he had weapons of mass destruction – proven lies.
Then, why was the war waged? Is it possible that the war in Iraq was the only way for the US to end the crippling sanctions against the Iraqi people, without strengthening a bitter Saddam?
Is it possible that the foreseeable occupation of Iraq – 7 to 10 years at least – will extend into the useful life of oil as a fuel for the US economy?
Will there be war-crime tribunals? for Saddam? for the US?
Our cries of injustice are drowned out by the deafening repetition – ‘bad man, bad man, he was a bad man, Saddam, bad man, bad man, bad man’. At least we know today, he was not a liar, as the current leader of the US, and the future leader of Iraq.
Claudia Wright wrote in the Atlantic monthly in 1979, before Saddam came into power:
‘Iraq’s emergence is the result of three things: oil, military strength, and internal development. Superficially, Iraq is not overwhelmingly endowed in any one respect. Saudi Arabia has more oil. Israel and Iran are stronger militarily in the region. By any measure of industrialization, agricultural productivity, literacy, and manpower skills, Israel is much more developed. However, the combination of these three factors has led to Iraq’s new status and to the recognition, everywhere else if not in the United States, of its extraordinary potential for pre-eminence in the Middle East.’
Is this the reason for this current unprecedented, pre-emptive and dangerous aggression? He was a threat to Israel? How did Israel sell the war to the US?
US Presidential candidate John Kerry asked famously during the Vietnam war – ‘how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?’
The question American parents have to ask now is even more stark, ‘how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for someone else’s lie?’
Still, why are the parents of US soldiers silent, why are the professors of politics silent? Why is the world not erupting in revulsion? Maybe Saddam was bad! But many historians and political analysts people do not fall for this – they know the facts – and know of far worse people. Why are they also silent?
What is keeping us silent? Is it the unthinkable, the unspeakable? The war on Islam? The subjugation of a proud religion and faith, through all means possible, even lies and deception? A blatantly racist tacit understanding between people of Anglo-Saxon extraction? A nod, nod, wink, wink! – like the Anglo world political intrigues during the period of the British Raj? I am not sure, but this scenario is becoming even more plausible.
I have one piece of advice for the US. Lies are the biggest weapon of mass destruction. It eats away societies and empires at their very core. I had a hard time explaining to my daughter and I did not mince words. If parents of children in the US are explaining these lies as acceptable, then the mighty US empire is terminally ill.
I am sure many in Canada appreciate Jean Chretien’s wisdom now. One of the benefits of the French influence in Canada. No further comments!
In England, where ministers resign for much less deception, the Prime Minister of England, Mr. Blair, is not – despite the fact that he based his entire case for war on WMDs. He still enjoys substantial popular support. Nod,nod – wink wink!