[Seattle-editorial] FEATURE PROPOSAL: Iraq

[Lance Larkin]

The last link on this article was not closed
correctly. The link runs to the end of the text of the
article. Sorry don't have time to fix it myself at the
moment.

Lance

--- jonathan lawson <jonathan at indymedia.org> wrote:
> yeah, removed that link--couldn't find a resource.
> if you do, please insert!
> 
> At 02:22 PM 8/14/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >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
> > >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seattle-editorial mailing list
> Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com