One must consider the currently running MSNBC
documentary, " How the Bush administration sold the
Iraq war" (1), based on a book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, to be a
rather remarkable document, given that it comes to us from an element of the
mainstream media (NBC), as relatively liberal as that element may be. Most (if
not all) of the readers of this column-series and the journal(s) in which it
appears know that the whole premise upon which the invasion was based was
totally false. Neither were there Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" nor was
there any connection between the Saddam Hussein regime and Osama bin Laden's
al-Qaeda. In approximately 50 minutes of air time, one can hardly expect that
all of the details of the Grand Deception and Big Lie can be covered. It is
very possible that many of those details that I retell below are to be found in
the book. Nevertheless, here a few additional facts and observations.
First, the documentary very justifiably
notes the later proved-to-be-false "Tonkin Gulf Incident" that President Lyndon
Johnson used to vastly expand the War on Vietnam. That war actually found its
origins years before in work done by the Dulles Brothers, John Foster (State)
and Allen (CIA), to undermine the Geneva Accords of 1954 which had brought the
French-Indochinese War to its conclusion. Nationwide elections were to have
been held by 1956. "Everyone knew" that the Communist leader, Ho Chi Minh,
would win in an overwhelming landslide. The Dulles Brothers, very concerned
about that happenstance, in collusion with the reactionary forces in Viet Nam,
made sure that the elections were never held. We all know what happened
subsequently.
What is not generally acknowledged is
that, in terms of the US objective of making sure that there would not be a
peaceful, electoral, victory for Communism in southeast Asia, with its
implications for the rest of the region (yes, the Domino Theory was real and of
real concern), the US did not lose the Viet Nam War. Rather, given what has
happened and not happened to Viet Nam and the rest of Southeast Asia since
then, in the context of the Dulles' original goals, the US won it. In contrast,
we do not yet know whether the US achieved the primary objective of the
Cheney/Bush regime, which was the creation of a state of Permanent War (2).
As for Iraq, as to the supposed "weapons
of mass destruction," not mentioned in the program (and again, this important
detail may very well be in the book) is the fact that during the whole run-up
to the War the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was on the ground, with a
large team (3). Under considerable pressure from the UN and Mr. Blix, Hussein
had given the latter access to just about any site that he wanted to inspect.
He repeatedly found nothing and made that fact public on a repeated basis. With
the CIA claiming that they had evidence of Iraqi WMD, Blix said that he would
be happy to see it, and then go inspect. Until the time he and his team pulled
out of Iraq in the face of the obvious US/UK invasion preparations for the
March 20, 2003 attack, Blix never heard from the CIA.
Much has been made of the supposed
"meeting in Prague" between representatives of Hussein and bin Laden and whether
or not it actually occurred. At the time it supposedly did occur, war hawks
like the former Nixon propagandist and later New York Times columnist William
Safire were trumpeting it as evidence of collusion between Hussein and bin
Laden/al-Qaeda, and so linking Hussein to 9/11. At the time, many on the Left
spent time trying to prove that the meeting did not/could not have taken place.
The documentary spent some time on the subject. My suspicion was at the time
(and still is) that the meeting did take place, and that in it Hussein's
representative told bin Laden's man that the last thing that he (Hussein)
wanted to do was to give the US another reason for attacking Iraq. Furthermore,
it was in any case well-known that Hussein (a secular Muslim) and bin Laden
(highly religious) cordially hated each other.
As for the supposed "drive by the US and
the UK" to get a UN Security Council resolution supporting an invasion, and the
supposed UN resistance to doing so, in the end that resistance was mainly
limited to the proposal by the French (right-wing) President Jacques Chirac to
give Hans Blix more time. (As I recall the date proposed was April 30, 2003.)
Then if WMD were discovered, an invasion, under UN sanction, would be
authorized. Of course that was the rub for Cheney/Bush/Blair and their already
planned invasion. The last thing they wanted was to have it be under UN
auspices in any way. So, rather than trying hard to get a UN invasion
resolution and failing, US/UK policy, which was already clear at the time, was
to set their demands upon the UN so high that there would NOT be a forthcoming
UN resolution at any time.
Finally, as to the whole question of Iraqi
WMD, Blix faulted Cheney/Bush for a "lack of critical thinking" (3). Given the
capabilities of the CIA and US military intelligence, it is very difficult to
believe the Cheney/Bush did not know that there were no WMD. Furthermore, the
"neocons" at Defense, etc., had been clamoring for such an invasion since the
mid-90s. Recall that at the first briefing for the new Administration, Jan. 21,
2001, the then outgoing national security advisor Richard Clark had told Bush
himself on that day that they should be very concerned with al-Qaeda, to which
Bush constantly responded "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq." The Bushites were just looking
for an excuse to attack Iraq. And they made them up as they went along, from
the "Niger yellowcake" story which they had to know was a falsehood based on an
easily detectable forgery (plus the French had all of that ore fully under
control and committed well in advance through five-year contracts, hardly a
secret) to the "aluminum tubes" which, they had been told by a US scientist two
years before, were for missile weaponry, not uranium centrifuges.
Finally, there were just too many
later-to-be-proven falsehoods. Bush/Cheney and their whole team must have known
what the truth was. They didn't just "make a mistake" or lack in "critical
thinking." And that is the most monstrous conclusion that one is forced to draw
from the whole horror, of the War on Iraq, which is still hardly over for the
people of Iraq (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References :
1. Isikoff, M., "How the Bush
Administration Sold the Iraq War," http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/ 16/how-the-bush- administration-sold-the-iraq- war/
2.
Jonas, S., "Dr. J's Commentary: The CheneyBush War Policy: Connecting the Dots
for Permanent War," BuzzFlash, Feb. 27, 2007.
3.
"U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush administration for lack of
"critical thinking" in Iraq," http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml
4.
Sweet, D., "The American War Isn't Over for the Iraqi People," The World
Can't Wait, http://debra.worldcantwait.net/2013/03/the-american-war-isnt-over-for-the-iraqi-peop le/