[Seattle-editorial] FEATURE PROPOSAL: Iraq

[Jeremy Kahn]

Yes. Was there an intended link about the inspectors' gag order WRT the
origin of the weapons?  Even without this, this is a great article.

Thumbs up!
--j

------------------------
Veeble a rebel you shun!
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, jonathan lawson 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
>