[Seattle-editorial] FEATURE PROPOSAL: Iraq

[Jason Reep]

argh, yes


At 11:57 AM 8/14/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>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.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial