[Seattle-editorial] FEATURE PROPOSAL: Iraq

[jonathan lawson]

subtitle: PROPAGANDA AND THE MEMORY HOLE
title: Media's Willing DistortionsPave Way for War

An August 8 <i>USA Today</i> article that described how Saddam Hussein is 
"complicating U.S. plans to topple his regime" repeated a common myth about 
the history of U.S./Iraq relations. Reporter John Diamond wrote that "Iraq 
expelled U.N. weapons inspectors four years ago and accused them of being 
spies." Diamond gives no evidence for this claim, which simply repeats 
commonly known facts about the relevant history. But the statement simply 
isn't true, by a longshot--as noted in this<a 
href="http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=16911">action 
alert</a> by <a href="http://www.fair.org">Fairness and Accuracy in 
Reporting</a>.

<p>Firstly, Iraq didn't expel the weapons inspectors-the U.S. leader of the 
inspections team made a unilateral decision to withdraw. Secondly, Iraq's 
accusation against the weapons inspection teams--that they were spying for 
the US--later <a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/9903/unscom.html">turned 
out to be true</a>. Corporate media like USA Today are happy to consign 
these actual facts to the memory hole, in favor of misstatements which make 
a fine accompaniment to the Bush administration's war drums, but don't do 
much for the health of our democracy.

<p>The Bush administration can be expected to soon launch a PR campaign to 
"sell" the idea of attacks on Iraq to the American public. You can bet that 
these facts will be omitted:
<br>
<font size=-2 color="white" face="verdana">
<ul>
<li>US corporations were Iraq's major source--perhaps only source--of <a 
href="http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/IraqHypocrisy.html">biological weapons 
materials</a> just prior to the Gulf War.
<li>International weapons inspectors were instructed <a href="">not to 
report</a> the nation of origin of any such weapons they found stockpiled 
in Iraq.
<li>Weapons inspectors in the late 1990s were satisfied that Iraq's 
capabaility to sustain a biological weapons program had been <a 
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4280517,00.html">effectively 
ended</a>.
<li>Iraqi weapons inspections were halted by the US government, not by Iraq.
<li>The Bush administration does not want Iraqi weapons inspections to 
resume; in fact they arranged <a 
href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/14/feature1.shtml">the ouster of 
Jose Bustani</a> (former head of the treaty-established Organization for 
the Prevention Chemical Weapons) in the midst of his promising negotiations 
to reopen Iraq to inspections.
<li>Iraq apparently poses <a 
href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/printable_version.cfm?objectid=11697201">no 
significant military threat</a> to the US or to its regional neighbors.
<li>The US government has produced <a 
href="http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0439.htm">no evidence</a> linking 
Iraq or the Saddam Hussein regime to 9/11 terrorist attacks (and not for 
lack of trying).
<li>A US military attack on Iraq, as an act of <a 
href="http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/aggression.html">aggression</a>, 
would be explicitly illegal under every relevant US and international law 
(See UN Charter sections <a 
href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter6.htm">VI and <a 
href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm">VII).
</ul>
</font>
<p>A government preparing for an unnecessary, immoral and illegal war can 
be expected to tell horrible lies to the public. We should require better 
from the nation's journalists.