(Weapons of Mass Deception)
Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq
an apology to its authors Sheldon Rampton and John C. Stauber)
the promise made in the last episode, my thoughts on the trophies
and traumas of being a cabinet minister (full, ½ or ¼)
must wait, as we have an update on someone who already is.
Military Writer Robert Burns reports from Washington that US
Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on February 4 he is
not ready to conclude that Iraq did not have weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) before U.S. troops invaded to depose Saddam
Hussein last year. But, Rumsfeld, with that pretext you have
already killed thousands of innocent civilians, women and children
told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. weapons inspectors
need more time to reach final conclusions about whether chemical
and biological weapons existed in Iraq before the war, as the
Bush administration had asserted before sending American troops
into battle. Did the men, women and children who were indiscriminately
murdered by US forces under your command, Rumsfield, have any
now admits that pre-war intelligence was possibly flawed in
some respects. Would it not be amusing if Al-Qaeda comes up
with a similar statement that their pre-9/11 intelligence was
possibly flawed in some respects? That they thought the twin
towers were unoccupied and derelict?
David Kay of the Iraqi Survey Group told Congress last week
that he believed it was now clear that U.S. intelligence on
Iraq's weapons programmerimarily, vitally) flawed. These are
Americans talking, not some 'illiterate and fanatic' Muslim,
and therefore 'terrorist' in the eyes of the bigoted.
PM Tony Blair conceded on Feb 4, according to AFP, that there
was no sign in Iraq of the banned weapons he had expected to
be found. But Blair, you cannot possibly find something that
goes on: "I am not ashamed of taking the decision to go
to war." You did not decide to go to war, Blair. You blindly
followed a somewhat blimpish Bush and now even he is blaming
the British intelligence for the emerging flaws, because his
corner is tightening.
Labour leader goes on: "... this country and its armed
forces should be proud of what we have achieved". Proud
of killing innocent civilians? Even Al-Qaeda, alleged to have
plotted the 9/11 massacre, have not come up with such a tactless
and thoughtless claim. All you have achieved is to overthrow
a dictator in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Surely for
that you need not have killed so many of your men and that of
us analyse WMD.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition 2000 defines "weapon" as, 'An instrument of
attack or defence in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword'. Microsoft
Encarta defines "weapon" as a "device designed
to inflict injury or death on an opponent ". The American
dictionaries have been chosen lest you warmongers question its
is a large but unspecified number or quantity of people either
in Afghanistan (GNP $1.86 billion), Iraq (GNP $42.3 billion),
UK (GNP $1040.5 billion) or USA (GNP $5880.7 billion).
is described as the act of destroying or the condition of having
by employing instruments of attack on a large body of people,
number unspecified, in Afghanistan and Iraq to partake in an
act of destroying, inflicting injury or death on their chosen
opponent, Bush and Blair are guilty of being WMD. Together the
couple has perhaps killed more people in Afghanistan and Iraq
than terrorism has worldwide.
B&B alliance are saying their intelligence was wrong. Some
grammatical correction is in order. It was not wrong. It IS
wrong. One wonders why people with such low intelligence wish
to vie for top political posts in the UK and the USA. I thought
that was our prerogative.
us assume that the dreaded Al-Qaeda comes up with similar crap,
that their intelligence was wrong. Would you Bush, Blair, Rice,
Straw, Rumsfeld... exonerate this unseen factor/threat/terrorist
entity from their alleged involvement in 9/11? So why do you
assume the future will let you off?
Rumsfeld tried to explain why no weapons have
been discovered in Iraq, starting with the possibility that
banned arms never existed. (AP) "I suppose that's possible,
but not likely," he said. So will you go on your hands
and knees door to door to the weeping parents (in the USA, UK,
Iraq and Afghanistan) who have lost their children and beg to
be excused? Will it be acceptable if the perpetrators of the
terrible destruction of the World Trade Centre explained likewise
about not finding, say the guy they were looking for because
he never existed? Imagine Bin Laden saying: "I suppose
that's possible, but not likely."
Other possibilities cited by Rumsfeld as to
why no weapons have been discovered in Iraq: (AP)
"Weapons may have been transferred to a
third country before U.S. troops arrived in March," opined
Rumsfeld. Believing in that will give the US and their English-speaking
chamchas the hallowed excuse of attacking yet another third
country. So watch out any poor, defenceless nation.
"Weapons may have been dispersed throughout
Iraq and hidden," says Rumsfeld. But pray where, Mr. Rumsfeld,
where? It's sheer rum that you have not found even an iota of
Said Rumsfeld, "Weapons existed but were
destroyed by the Iraqis before the war started". So can
you at least show us some remnants of that act of destruction?
Or, possibly produce someone who had heard something? Or smelt
it? Or saw dead animals lying around in the raam fields (meaning
big as in raam-chagol) that you have scoured.
Or, Rumsfeld postulated, "small quantities"
of chemical or biological agents may have existed, along with
a "surge capability" that would allow Iraq to rapidly
build an arsenal of banned weapons. Commenting on that possibility,
Rumsfeld said, "We may eventually find it in the months
ahead." You should have been a spy thriller novelist instead
of a politician, not that there is much difference between the
two. That's a one too many 'may' in the statement of a statesman.
Rest assured you will find them as soon as you manage to plant
them. But don't tell them you did it because I told you. See
how the British Intel is being blamed!
Lastly, Rumsfeld offered the possibility that
the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction "may have
been a charade" orchestrated by the Iraqi government. It
is even possible, he said, that Saddam was "tricked"
by his own people into believing he had banned weapons that
did not exist. Saddam believed? You did too. That's why you
attacked, remember? Tricked were the US and the UK government
for that matter. Sly Saddam made you believe months before what
you now believe he was made to believe.
Unfortunately, Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat
from Massachusetts, and other Democrats on the committee reminded
Rumsfeld that in September 2002 he said "we (Rumsfeld)
know" where weapons of mass destruction are stored in Iraq.
Explaining that remark, Rumsfeld told the panel that he was
referring to suspected weapons sites, but he acknowledged that
he had made it sound like he was talking about actual weapons.
You need to lie many times to cover one lie.
The Kay team, known as the Iraqi Survey Group,
did confirm one thing, Rumsfeld said: "The intelligence
community got it essentially right" with regard to Iraq's
ballistic missile programs. It found that Iraq was working on
missiles of longer range than was permitted under U.N. sanctions.
"Was working" is a lame excuse when dealing with innocent
human lives. And since when have large self-propelled projectiles
been classified as WMD? In that case what number does the USA
possess of the same? You are not bound to answer that question
on account of State secrecy.
Rumsfeld also said he saw a possibility that
Iraq managed to hide some banned weapons of mass destruction.
Is seeing a ''possibility" good enough reason for indiscriminate
killing? He said that it took 10 months to find Saddam Hussein
and that the hole in which he was found on Dec. 13 "was
big enough to hold biological weapons to kill thousands"
I shall now confront you with a dhaada, a quiz,
Rumsfeld. What gets bigger the more you take out? As an American
you may see some quick profit in that venture, but the answer
is 'a hole'. Taking out Saddam from one can only make it bigger.
The threat to US and British soldiers is definitely bigger since.
"Such objects (biological weapons), once
buried, can stay buried," Rumsfeld said. So also should
the alleged threat of WMD because you seem to have embarked
on scripting an unholy crusade to destroy humankind.
Till date the American and British soldiers
have killed thousands of innocent people on false pretence.
Hundreds of American and British men have died since Bush declared
the war over in Iraq. In fact, fewer died in the so-called war.
After all this, Bush, quickly and predictably followed by Blair,
has the impertinence to come up with the derogatory proposal
of calling an inquiry. That's it! It's that simple! The lives
of non-Americans and non-Brits are just that? To the Lord it
is not! You will be punished most severely for Allah does not
On the other side of the coin, humanity is proud
of the more than 80 percent of TV channel Sky News viewers in
the UK who voted to say they believed the BBC as opposed to
Blair's government. More and more principled Americans and Britons
are raising their voice against two derailed leaders who have
ruined their country's reputation, credibility and integrity,
values that their forefathers have cultured (so they believe)
for centuries. Do not let two mere mortals destroy humanity
In one protest march, I am sure I saw a big
spelling mistake. The marcher, possibly in a hurry, spelt B-LIAR.
Even Blair, propped up briefly after his government was cleared
of the Kelly killing connection, should start thinking who they
As far as the very poorly written Hutton report
goes, I thought only one Bangladeshi judge had taken a bribe
to bend his judgement.