Saturday :: Apr 30, 2005

Fooled Him Once, Shame On Saddam! Fooled Him Twice, ...

by pessimist

Back in the Gulf War, the news came out that Saddam was sucker-punched by the US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, who told Saddam "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

We know what happened next.

I guess the idea is that if something worked once, then it would have to work again, right?

Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan

A SECRET document from the heart of government reveals today that Tony Blair privately committed Britain to war with Iraq and then set out to lure Saddam Hussein into providing the legal justification. A separate secret briefing for the meeting said Britain and America had to “create” conditions to justify a war.

Just as it was necessary to allow a terror attack on US soil so that 'a second Pearl Harbor' would rally the American people to support a war without questioning its legality?

The Nuremburg Trials of former Nazi German officials were based on accusations of participating in these crimes:

* 1. Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace
* 2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression
* 3. War crimes
* 4. Crimes against humanity

The case can now be made that charges should be brought on at least the first two of these counts against officials of the Bu$h and Blair governments. This isn't to claim that they are guilty - I'm not their judge or jury at their trials. But I believe that trials on these charges should happen. The evidence demands it.

The document reveals Blair backed “regime change” by force from the outset, despite warnings from attorney-general Lord Goldsmith that such action could be illegal. The minutes show Goldsmith warned Blair eight months before war started on March 19, 2003 that finding legal justification would be “difficult”.

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said the case for war was “thin” as “Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran”.

Iraq's neighbors are extremely concerned NOW - thanks to Bu$hCo miscalculations - Fear Ethnic Tensions, Violence Will Spread. But who even took that into account when they were so busy cooking up an excuse to go to war?

Straw suggested they should “work up” an ultimatum about weapons inspectors that would “help with the legal justification”. Blair is recorded as saying that “it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors”.

[Saddam, not willing to play the fool again, bent over backwards to cooperate with UN inspectors in an effort to stave off the invasion. There were no weapons says expert witness Hans Blix, which leads one to conclude that the desired cassus belli could not be manufactured:]

[Hans Blix, the former chief weapons inspector to Iraq, claimed that he had not found compelling evidence that Iraq had failed to comply with United Nations Resolution 1441, after newly revealed legal advice showed that such a finding was central to the legal case for the war.]

Back to the Times Online article:

Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said the leaked minute showed Blair had “agreed to an illegal regime change with the Bush administration. It set out to create the justification for going to war. It was to be war by any means.”

The attorney-general only ruled unambiguously war was lawful a few days before the war started after Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of the defence staff, demanded unequivocal written confirmation. Boyce was never shown Goldsmith’s more equivocal advice to Blair of March 7, 2003, and says today ministers failed to give him protection from prosecution at the International Criminal Court. “I have always been troubled by the ICC,” he says, adding that if British servicemen are put on trial, ministers should be “brought into the frame as well”.

Asked if that should include Blair and Goldsmith, he tells The Observer: “Too bloody right.”

The evidence grows:

Revealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war

A document obtained by [The Independent] reveals the Foreign Office legal advice given to Mr Blair in March 2002, before he travelled to meet Mr Bush at his Texas ranch. It contains many of the reservations listed nearly a year later by the Attorney General in his confidential advice to the Prime Minister, which the Government was forced to publish last week, including the warning that the US government took a different view of international law from Britain or virtually any other country.

The document ended with the admonition: "We must not ignore the legal issues", adding that "the Attorney General would consider legal advice". The Government has consistently refused to say when the Attorney General was first asked for an opinion on the legality of war.

Lord Goldsmith drew up his 13 page legal opinion, released by Downing Street last week, which echoed many of the doubts expressed in the earlier Foreign Office brief. The Attorney General echoes the Foreign Office paper, rejecting US claims to be able to decide whether Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions. The Americans were alone in this position, he said, before dramatically altering his opinion 10 days later.

King George has recently attempted to claim that things are going well in Iraq, and that control by the new 'government' is being established. Is that why Iraqi guerillas were able to set off 17 bombs on Friday which killed at least 41, including three GIs; several more bombs on Saturday which killed 17 more?

Is it not bad enough that the heroin trade is back in operation in an Afghanistan under US puppet Hamid Karzai after being almost totally eradicated under the Taliban?

Is this supposed to be an improvement for the Afghans?

Koenig Georg Kriegsfuehrer's 'War on Terra' has also had other consequences. Perhaps influenced by events in Iraq, Eqypt has been the site of two attacks against tourists. "The attacks deepened fears that militants are launching a new round of violence in Egypt, which saw a bloody campaign by Islamic extremists in the 1990s." These attacks are probably aimed at toppling US ally Hosni Mubarek by crippling vital tourism income.

But the only income that concerns King George and his Court Jesters is that of American Multinational Corporations - especially if they are involved in oil production.

But income generation - even legitimate efforts - can be costly, and these costs aren't being borne by those who are benefitting:

Sending A Second Son To War

John Pernaselli of Brighton is going through an especially difficult time as his oldest son, a soldier, arrives in Iraq exactly one year after youngest son died there. On April 24, 2004, Michael Pernaselli was serving in the Navy when he was killed by a suicide bomber. On April 24, 2005, his brother, John, who is in the Army, landed there on a 6-to-8 week mission. Life has changed a lot for the elder Pernaselli. While he and his wife worry about John, they're also raising his Michael's two young daughters, Nicki and Dominic.

Michael Pernaselli's daughters

He says the pain of what war did to his family and what it can do again is with him always. "It's on my mind everyday--it's on my mind constantly. If I have time to sit and think--that's when the worst time hits," John said.

But Commander-in-Chief Bu$h - unlike the Queen Mother during the Blitz - gets hidden in one of Unka Dick's Secrit Lowcashuns every time a big, black cloud rears on the horizon. He wouldn't know anything about the personal costs of the war. He gets to avoid them any way he can while he sends others to do what he would not.

But these costs are becoming more clear to the American people as time goes on, as even GOP-stooge Gallup can attest:

Poll: U.S. To Bush: Pull Out of Iraq

The top piece of advice Americans would give President Bush is to pull out of the war in Iraq. Nearly a quarter of respondents to a Gallup Poll said that if they had 15 minutes to talk to the president they would tell him to end the war in Iraq, making it the No. 1 response.

Ronald Reagan liked to crow that America had 'gotten over Vietnam', and yet our schools still don't teach about that war. Are we taking the same road to denial that Japan just began to abandon? Are we attempting to deny that our defeats ever happened, or that bad things occured during those defeats?

We were told lies about the reason for getting into that war - have we not learned that without a clear AND VERIFIABLY TRUE justification for war is vital to its successful conclusion?

Americans don't like to be attacked, or else King George would not have been given such a free hand after 9/11. It is truly a shame that Americans are not equally angry about being lied to by our leaders - even those who steal elections and who lie that they would have won anyway. For if they were to be so outraged, there is no place on this Earth that would be secret enough for these criminals to hide.

Copyrighted source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.


This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

pessimist :: 6:58 PM :: Comments (4) :: Digg It!