Search This Blog

Translate

Blog Archive

Middleboro Review 2

NEW CONTENT MOVED TO MIDDLEBORO REVIEW 2

Toyota

Since the Dilly, Dally, Delay & Stall Law Firms are adding their billable hours, the Toyota U.S.A. and Route 44 Toyota posts have been separated here:

Route 44 Toyota Sold Me A Lemon



Showing posts with label Saddam Hussein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saddam Hussein. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

FOCUS: Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Hussain | The Iran Cables: From the Rubble of the US War in Iraq, Iran Built a New Order




Reader Supported News
19 November 19

There is no way this organization can survive and function with out reasonable support - from our readership. Right now we are not getting that.
What will you do?
We need a grand total of 700 donations/mo. So far we have 183.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News


If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611




Reader Supported News
19 November 19
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


FOCUS: Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Hussain | The Iran Cables: From the Rubble of the US War in Iraq, Iran Built a New Order
A U.S. Marine in front of a burning poster of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, April 10, 2003. (photo: Alex Majoli/Magnum Photos)
Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Hussain, The Intercept
Excerpt: "About a month before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam Hussein's most trusted comrades, sat in his office in Baghdad in an olive green uniform, cigar in hand, wearing house slippers."

EXCERPTS:
“The U.S. can overthrow Saddam Hussein,” said Aziz, an Iraqi Christian and one of the most senior figures in Saddam’s government. “You can destroy the Baath Party and secular Arab nationalism.” But, he warned, “America will open a Pandora’s box that it will never be able to close.” The iron-fisted rule of Saddam, draped in the veneer of Arab nationalism, he argued, was the only effective way to deal with forces like Al Qaeda or prevent an expansion of Iranian influence in the region.
When the U.S. invaded, Aziz was the eight of spades in the card deck the Pentagon created to publicize its high-value targets. He was ultimately captured, held in a makeshift prison at the Baghdad airport, and forced to dig a hole in the ground to use as a latrine. He died in custody of a heart attack in June 2015. But Aziz lived long enough to watch exactly what he warned of come to pass, accusing U.S. President Barack Obama of “leaving Iraq to the wolves.”
The 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq marked the moment when the U.S. lost control of its own bloody chess game. The chaos unleashed by the U.S. invasion allowed Iran to gain a level of influence in Iraq that was unfathomable during the reign of Saddam. Secret documents from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security, obtained by The Intercept, give an unprecedented picture of how deeply present-day Iraq is under Iranian influence. The sovereignty once jealously defended by Arab nationalists has been steadily eroded since the U.S. invasion.
The Disaster of De-Baathification
A little over a decade before George W. Bush decided to overthrow the Iraqi government, his father’s administration had taken a very different path. After mercilessly destroying Iraq’s civilian and military infrastructure in a bombing campaign during the 1991 Gulf War, George H.W. Bush was persuaded that it would be too dangerous to march on Baghdad. Not because of the potential human costs, or deaths of U.S. soldiers in combat, but because Saddam was a known quantity who had already proven valuable in the 1980s when he attacked Iran and triggered the brutal Iran-Iraq War. During that eight-year conflict, the U.S. armed both countries but overwhelmingly favored Baghdad. More than a million people died in trench warfare reminiscent of World War I. Henry Kissinger put a fine point on the U.S. strategy in that war when he quipped that it is “a shame there can only be one loser.”
Even after the war had ended, the American fear of Iran outweighed any appetite for regime change in Iraq. So Saddam remained.
Bush’s son took a different view. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, high-ranking figures in his administration began falsely connecting Saddam’s regime to Al Qaeda. In reality, the religious extremists were mortal enemies of the Baathists. But the process for Saddam’s removal had already been determined by neoconservatives who had been bent on waging war against Iraq years before 9/11.
For more than six decades, the U.S. has played a central role in fomenting disasters that have destroyed the lives of entire generations in Iraq and Iran. Any criticisms of Iran’s role today cannot efface this ugly record. How Iraqis respond to the information about Iran’s secret dealings in their country is their business. Perhaps there are international organizations and countries whose advice and counsel would be welcome. But given its atrocious legacy in Iraq, the United States should not be among them.









Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Declassified CIA Document Reveals Iraq War Had Little Justification







About this website

The justification for going to war in Iraq thirteen years ago, was based on a 93-page classified document that allegedly contained “specific information” on former Iraqi leader President Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs he was apparently running.

Now that document has been declassified and it reveals that there was little justification for the Iraq war. 
Vice.com reports:
The CIA released a copy of the NIE in 2004 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, but redacted virtually all of it, citing a threat to national security. Then last year, John Greenewald, who operates The Black Vault, a clearinghouse for declassified government documents, asked the CIA to take another look at the October 2002 NIE to determine whether any additional portions of it could be declassified.
The agency responded to Greenewald this past January and provided him with a new version of the NIE, which he shared exclusively with VICE News, that restores the majority of the prewar Iraq intelligence that has eluded historians, journalists, and war critics for more than a decade. (Some previously redacted portions of the NIE had previously been disclosed in congressional reports.)
For the first time, the public can now read the hastily drafted CIA document [pdf below] that led Congress to pass a joint resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, a costly war launched March 20, 2003 that was predicated on “disarming” Iraq of its (non-existent) WMD, overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and “freeing” the Iraqi people.
A report issued by the RAND Corporation last December titled “Blinders, Blunders and Wars” said the NIE “contained several qualifiers that were dropped…. As the draft NIE went up the intelligence chain of command, the conclusions were treated increasingly definitively.”
An example of that: According to the newly declassified NIE, the intelligence community concluded that Iraq “probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant” to manufacture biological weapons “but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed.” The NIE also said Hussein did not have “sufficient material” to manufacture any nuclear weapons. But in an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, then-President George W. Bush simply said Iraq, “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons” and “the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”
One of the most significant parts of the NIE revealed for the first time is the section pertaining to Iraq’s alleged links to al Qaeda. In September 2002, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed the US had “bulletproof” evidence linking Hussein’s regime to the terrorist group.
“We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad,” Rumsfeld said. “We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior-level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical- and biological-agent training.”
But the NIE said its information about a working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq was based on “sources of varying reliability” — like Iraqi defectors — and it was not at all clear that Hussein had even been aware of a relationship, if in fact there were one.
“As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training and support are second-hand,” the NIE said. “The presence of al-Qa’ida militants in Iraq poses many questions. We do not know to what extent Baghdad may be actively complicit in this use of its territory for safehaven and transit.”
The declassified NIE provides details about the sources of some of the suspect intelligence concerning allegations Iraq trained al Qaeda operatives on chemical and biological weapons deployment — sources like War on Terror detainees who were rendered to secret CIA black site prisons, and others who were turned over to foreign intelligence services and tortured. Congress’s later investigation into prewar Iraq intelligence concluded that the intelligence community based its claims about Iraq’s chemical and biological training provided to al Qaeda on a single source.
“Detainee Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi — who had significant responsibility for training — has told us that Iraq provided unspecified chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qai’ida members beginning in December 2000,” the NIE says. “He has claimed, however, that Iraq never sent any chemical, biological, or nuclear substances — or any trainers — to al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan.”
Al-Libi was the emir of the Khaldan training camp in Afghanistan, which the Taliban closed prior to 9/11 because al-Libi refused to turn over control to Osama bin Laden.
Last December, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified summary of its so-called Torture Report on the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program. A footnote stated that al-Libi, a Libyan national, “reported while in [redacted] custody that Iraq was supporting al-Qa’ida and providing assistance with chemical and biological weapons.”
“Some of this information was cited by Secretary [of State Colin] Powell in his speech to the United Nations, and was used as a justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq,” the Senate torture report said. “Ibn Shaykh al-Libi recanted the claim after he was rendered to CIA custody on February [redacted] 2003, claiming that he had been tortured by the [redacted], and only told them what he assessed they wanted to hear.”
Al-Libi reportedly committed suicide in a Libyan prison in 2009, about a month after human rights investigators met with him.
The NIE goes on to say that “none of the [redacted] al-Qa’ida members captured during [the Afghanistan war] report having been trained in Iraq or by Iraqi trainers elsewhere, but given al-Qa’ida’s interest over the years in training and expertise from outside sources, we cannot discount reports of such training entirely.”
All told, this is the most damning language in the NIE about Hussein’s links to al Qaeda: “While the Iraqi president “has not endorsed al-Qa’ida’s overall agenda and has been suspicious of Islamist movements in general, apparently he has not been averse to some contacts with the organization.”
The NIE suggests that the CIA had sources within the media to substantiate details about meetings between al Qaeda and top Iraqi government officials held during the 1990s and 2002 — but some were not very reliable. “Several dozen additional direct or indirect meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources over the same period,” the NIE says.
The RAND report noted, “The fact that the NIE concluded that there was no operational tie between Saddam and al Qaeda did not offset this alarming assessment.”
The NIE also restores another previously unknown piece of “intelligence”: a suggestion that Iraq was possibly behind the letters laced with anthrax sent to news organizations and senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy a week after the 9/11 attacks. The attacks killed five people and sickened 17 others.
“We have no intelligence information linking Iraq to the fall 2001 attacks in the United States, but Iraq has the capability to produce spores of Bacillus anthracis — the causative agent of anthrax — similar to the dry spores used in the letters,” the NIE said. “The spores found in the Daschle and Leahy letters are highly purified, probably requiring a high level of skill and expertise in working with bacterial spores. Iraqi scientists could have such expertise,” although samples of a biological agent Iraq was known to have used as an anthrax simulant “were not as pure as the anthrax spores in the letters.”
Paul Pillar, a former veteran CIA analyst for the Middle East who was in charge of coordinating the intelligence community’s assessments on Iraq, told VICE news that “the NIE’s bio weapons claims” was based on unreliable sources such as Ahmad Chalabi, the former head of the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group supported by the US.
“There was an insufficient critical skepticism about some of the source material,” he now says about the unredacted NIE. “I think there should have been agnosticism expressed in the main judgments. It would have been a better paper if it were more carefully drafted in that sort of direction.”
But Pillar, now a visiting professor at Georgetown University, added that the Bush administration had already made the decision to go to war in Iraq, so the NIE “didn’t influence [their] decision.” Pillar added that he was told by congressional aides that only a half-dozen senators and a few House members read past the NIE’s five-page summary.
David Kay, a former Iraq weapons inspector who also headed the Iraq Survey Group, told Frontline that the intelligence community did a “poor job” on the NIE, “probably the worst of the modern NIE’s, partly explained by the pressure, but more importantly explained by the lack of information they had. And it was trying to drive towards a policy conclusion where the information just simply didn’t support it.”
The most controversial part of the NIE, which has been picked apart hundreds of times over the past decade and has been thoroughly debunked, pertained to a section about Iraq’s attempts to acquire aluminum tubes. The Bush administration claimed that this was evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapon.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated at the time on CNN that the tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs,” and that “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
The version of the NIE released in 2004 redacted the aluminum tubes section in its entirety. But the newly declassified assessment unredacts a majority of it and shows that the intelligence community was unsure why “Saddam is personally interested in the procurement of aluminum tubes.” The US Department of Energy concluded that the dimensions of the aluminum tubes were “consistent with applications to rocket motors” and “this is the more likely end use.”
The CIA’s unclassified summary of the NIE did not contain the Energy Department’s dissent.
“Apart from being influenced by policymakers’ desires, there were several other reasons that the NIE was flawed,” the RAND study concluded. “Evidence on mobile biological labs, uranium ore purchases from Niger, and unmanned-aerial-vehicle delivery systems for WMDs all proved to be false. It was produced in a hurry. Human intelligence was scarce and unreliable. While many pieces of evidence were questionable, the magnitude of the questionable evidence had the effect of making the NIE more convincing and ominous. The basic case that Saddam had WMDs seemed more plausible to analysts than the alternative case that he had destroyed them. And analysts knew that Saddam had a history of deception, so evidence against Saddam’s possession of WMDs was often seen as deception.”
According to the latest figures compiled by Iraq Body Count, to date more than 200,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, although other sources say the casualties are twice as high. More than 4,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands more have been injured and maimed. The war has cost US taxpayers more than $800 billion.
In an interview with VICE founder Shane Smith, Obama said the rise of the Islamic State was a direct result of the disastrous invasion.
“ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion,” Obama said. “Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”
This article was originally published in 2015 and is frequently updated



LINK

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

They Had Already Decided They Wanted to Invade Iraq’ - CounterSpin interviews with Robert Dreyfuss and Diana Duarte on media and the Iraq War





FAIR

‘They Had Already Decided
They Wanted to Invade Iraq’ -
CounterSpin interviews with
Robert Dreyfuss and
Diana Duarte on media and
the Iraq War

view post on FAIR.org

The CounterSpin episode for March 22, 2019, reaired classic interviews with Robert Dreyfuss (2/27/04) and Diana Duarte (3/22/13) about media’s Iraq War roles.
MP3 Link
Janine Jackson:  Welcome to CounterSpin, your weekly look behind the headlines. I’m Janine Jackson. This week on CounterSpin: Many in media were critical of Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for George W. Bush, who used the March anniversary of the US’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, based on what Americans were told was the threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, as an opportunity to launch a Twitter tirade to say, “It’s a myth that Bush lied.” He and Bush “faithfully and accurately reported” intelligence community assessments, Fleischer maintained.
Media seemed concerned that Fleischer was insufficiently respectful of the toll of the Iraq War, including what the Washington Post modestly estimated as “thousands of dead Iraqis”—researchers would put that number at, minimally, half a million.
But Fleischer’s revision isn’t just wrong in emphasis or in sentiment. And we didn’t have to wait 16 years to know that. In February 2004CounterSpin spoke with investigative journalist Robert Dreyfuss about that pre-war intelligence on Iraq, and the role of a secret and largely unaccountable organization inside the Pentagon in manufacturing and publicizing it. We’ll hear that interview again today.
Also on the show: There is the way elite media gin the US public up for war, ofttimes against countries most Americans couldn’t find on a map, like Venezuela. That involves cartoonish demonization of leaders, and feigned outrage at human rights concerns that are not of interest in other places. With the Iraq War, elite media were, after the fact, willing to say “mistakes were made” around evidence of weapons, but, as we discussed with Diana Duarte, on the war’s 10th anniversary in March of 2013, there is little ongoing curiosity about the other justifications media endorsed, including that toppling Saddam Hussein would advance human rights in Iraq, and especially the rights of women. We’ll also hear that conversation again today.
Corporate media’s role in the run-up to—and the ongoing aftermath of—the war on Iraq, this week on CounterSpin.
***
Janine Jackson: The toll of the US war on Iraq, following years of devastating sanctions, can hardly be reckoned. At least half a million people killed, millions displaced, made ill, their homes and communities destroyed, of course the political repercussions in the region, and thousands of US servicemembers killed and wounded—all of it based on falsehoods, peddled to the US public by warmongering politicians enabled by the press.
After months of coverage dominated by pro-war pundits and former generals—Iraqis themselves rarely heard from—many Americans likely accepted the official story that the invaders would be welcomed as liberators in the streets of Baghdad. But vast numbers did not. Millions marched in the streets in opposition to the war before it started. But that viewpoint was sidelined and worse in corporate media, whose current rehabilitation of the author of the nightmare, George W. Bush, is only the latest sign of their eager amnesia about the role they played in leading us to an illegal war based on lies.
In February of 2004, CounterSpin spoke with investigative journalist Robert Dreyfuss about pre-war intelligence on Iraq, and the role of a secret and largely unaccountable organization inside the Pentagon in manufacturing and publicizing it. Dreyfuss co-authored an article for Mother Jones on the matter called “The Lie Factory.” This is CounterSpin’s Steve Rendall in early 2004, speaking with journalist Robert Dreyfuss.
Mother Jones: The Lie Factory
Mother Jones (1–2/04)
Steve Rendall: Robert, when David Kay announced that he didn’t think they’d find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he was adamant that the administration was misled by the CIA, and that intelligence was not shaped or distorted by the Bush administration. Much of the media discussion followed that same line, but your article suggests that there’s a lot more to the story. Tell us a little bit about what you found.
Robert Dreyfuss: I think the most important thing is that while the CIA probably did not get very much right about Iraq, they were at least convinced, most of the intelligence agencies, that there was a lot of doubt, that there were a lot of things they didn’t know. The doubts got completely erased in the policymaking circles, and in particular the Pentagon—which set up its own little sort of rump intelligence unit called the Office of Special Plans, under Douglas Feith at the Pentagon bureaucracy—not only was responsible for deleting these doubts, but they had some value added, too.
They added in their own spin and their own intelligence, part of which came from Iraqi exiles, part of which came from their own staff, which was doing its own intelligence. And they created talking papers that ended up wildly exaggerating the threat that Iraq allegedly posed to both the United States and to its neighbors, and that information went directly to Vice President Cheney’s office and to the White House, and it led the administration in the direction of going to war, because that was a war they already wanted.
In other words, the idea that they were invading Iraq based on faulty intelligence has it exactly backwards. They had already decided they wanted to invade Iraq. So the intelligence was then used to justify a pre-existing policy.
And so for Bush to argue, or anyone else to argue, that the administration went to war based on faulty intelligence is just plain silly. They would have gone to war in any case, but they were afraid to make the argument that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy and therefore, for reasons of national strategy, for reasons of oil, for reasons of Middle East policy and protecting Israel, for all of these reasons, we’re going to invade Iraq. That probably wouldn’t have sold, either to the American public or to Congress, so instead they picked on this “Iraq is a threat” argument.
SR: So, Robert Dreyfuss, can I assume that the “lie factory” referred to in the title of your piece refers to this internal Pentagon Office of Special Plans?
RD: Yeah. It started right after 9/11; within a month of 9/11, they set this unit up. It wasn’t called the Office of Special Plans then; it had a different name. It went from being something like two or three people, and it expanded, and brought in contractors and consultants, and eventually took the name Office of Special Plans, which incorporated this intelligence unit. That’s what became, basically, the war planning office at the Pentagon.
SR: And from what you report, they pushed out analysts that weren’t going along with the program to some degree.
RD: They really purged anybody who wasn’t part of the zealous team of missionaries that believed in the war. These people were forced into retirement, they were transferred to other offices, some of them just quit in disgust. And they brought in people, ironically, who were not intelligence experts, people who were ideologues, but who were not particularly skilled at either intelligence collection or analysis.
So what they did is they took these piles and piles of information, with thousands of little data bits, and they picked out the ones that supported the case for going to war, and they discarded all the rest.
And any intelligence conclusion is based on evaluating all of the information, a lot of which is going to be contradictory. Some of it’s based on forged documents, on lies, on misinformation, on just plain old honest human mistakes. So all of that information isn’t going to agree, and the job of an intelligence analyst or a professional is to look at it all and say, “Here’s my conclusion, and here’s the reasons why my conclusion isn’t 100 percent, so I give this a certain percent validity.”
Well, this office didn’t do that at all; they just basically said, “We’re gung ho for war, and Iraq is an enormous threat to American national security.” And all of the junk that we heard about unmanned aerial vehicles striking the United States, and Iraq building its nuclear program and importing WMD-related materials, all of that was a crock.
SR: In your reporting of this, you conducted a lot of interviews, and one that was particularly compelling was one you did with a certain former Air Force colonel. Tell us about that story, briefly.
RD: Her name’s Karen Kwiatkowski. She was a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, and she worked inside the Pentagon in the Near East/South Asian Affairs Office, which is where this Office of Special Plans took shape. And so she watched it all, week by week, taking shape, and she was horrified by it. She is a tremendously courageous whistleblower, in fact, because she’s a conservative, not someone who’s some sort of fuzzy-minded liberal. She was, however, shocked by what she calls the “neoconservative cabal” that was shaping the way this office operated and, in particular, by the intervention of people like Dick Cheney’s staff director Lewis Libby and others, who were tasking, or assigning, jobs and missions to this unit, which is highly unusual. It’s an office that should work down deep in the bowels of the Pentagon, and here’s the vice president’s office operating on a day-to-day basis in touch with them.
SR: Robert Dreyfuss, at this point, it seems that some very good reporting has come out of mainstream media, particularly from the Washington Post. But some critics suggest the Post hasn’t pushed its reporting to the front page often enough. Even Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler wroterecently, “Make sure you read Page A17, or wherever the next piece of the puzzle appears.” What do you think of the priority the media has given to this story so far?
Robert Dreyfuss
Robert Dreyfuss: “The core of the problem is the media is unwilling to look at the government and say that there’s conscious malfeasance happening. They much prefer to say this was a mistake.” (image: Echo Chamber Project)
RD: I think it has gotten somewhat lost for two reasons. One is it got lost because the aftermath of the war was so catastrophically bad, with an insurgency and a complete mess and a seemingly completely bumbling US administration over there, that that’s become the main story.
And then, second, it’s sort of obvious that Bush and Cheney were saying “WMD” for months and months and months, and we got over there and they weren’t there. So what else can you say except, “Well, we didn’t find them, and they were wrong?” So I think they sort of lost the handle on how to investigate the wrongdoing.
I think the core of the problem is the media is unwilling to look at the government and say that there’s conscious malfeasance happening. They much prefer to say this was a mistake, or this was just, you know, incompetence or conflict of interest, or all kinds of other things that are more, I guess, easier to swallow, than to say that someone was out there deliberately manufacturing evidence.
I mean, one of the most obvious cases is, no one has really investigated who forged those uranium documents. There’s no argument that those documents were deliberately forged by someone. It wasn’t a mistake. And finding out what we know about who forged them—and I believe that somebody in the intelligence system here knows—is something that reporters ought to be just leaping into, and I don’t see that too many people are even asking the question.
And there are other questions like that that I think have just been ignored, and in part because reporters follow the official investigations, and now there have been several efforts by the Republicans in Congress to intimidate investigations and say, “Well, there’s nothing there.” The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has pretty much said that point blank. So I think to the extent that the official investigations are turning into coverups, then I think the media is finding it difficult to get these more explosive charges onto the front page.
SR: You’ve appeared on CounterSpin before, discussing Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi and his unreliability. A recent Knight Ridder story points out that, in spite of the fact that defectors and witnesses put forth by Chalabi’s INC “exaggerated what they knew, fabricated tales, or were coached by others what to say,” the US intends to continue funding the INC’s intelligence-gathering. The Knight Ridder story hasn’t received much attention in other media now. What are your thoughts on this part of the story? Bear in mind that we only have a few seconds left, Robert.
RD: Well, we’re not just funding him, we’re supporting him to become the next president of Iraq! I mean, here’s a guy who is a long-term, historic crook and bank-embezzler; now we know he’s also a liar about intelligence, and the Pentagon is still supporting him to become the leader of the nation, never mind a couple million dollars to fund his organization. So I continue to be stunned and amazed that Chalabi has any credibility whatsoever with anyone. Although apparently he’s been quite a valuable source for Judy Miller at the New York Times over the years, so I guess he’s got some friends in the media himself.
Janine Jackson: That was Robert Dreyfuss speaking with CounterSpin’s Steve Rendall. The article “The Lie Factory,” by Dreyfuss and Jason Vest, can still be found on MotherJones.com.
***
Janine Jackson: CounterSpin spoke with Diana Duarte, communications director at the international human rights group MADRE, in March of 2013, when corporate media were doing their annual looks back at the invasion and occupation of Iraq, largely limited, as ever, to consideration of the war as a “strategic miscalculation,” but not a grievous violation of international law and of human rights.
I started with a reference to a New York Times columnist:
NYT: The Meaning of a Skull
New York Times (4/27/03)
Thomas Friedman wrote in April 2003, “As far as I am concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war.” And even though all the talk now is about how we were “misled” about particular evidence of weapons, the truth is plenty of people said, “It’s really enough that we don’t like Saddam Hussein” (anymore, but that’s another story).
There was a human rights justification for the war, and that had a lot to do with liberating women. And I don’t know how much that idea is being interrogated, even today. What do you think we should know about the status of human rights for women in the Iraq of 2013?
Diana Duarte: It’s certainly the case that the justification of liberating women was mobilized very strongly in the early days of the war, and we still see that to this day, that it’s one of the strawmen that is still standing, and it’s so far from the truth.
The women that we work with, we partner with an Iraqi women’s organization on the ground that has told us, time and again, that conditions for women now are worse than they were before the war. Now women are facing wave after wave of violence, women are facing violence in the home and in the street, largely due to the fact that this war unleashed—and the US was implicated, and very strongly involved in fueling—militias that have targeted women, have used gender-based violence as a way to sustain a social vision that is based on subjugating women.
JJ: So it really is a systemic violation of women’s rights, and not simply women as civilians being caught up in the “sectarian strife” we hear about.
DD: Exactly. It’s a strategy. Their vision of the world, the vision of these repressive political forces, who have been allies of the US, is largely based on subjugating women, on keeping women in their place in the home, and of subjugating any kind of secular force in the society. And women have been at the frontlines of this kind of violence.
JJ: And this has affected, of course, even the drafting of the constitution in Iraq.
Diana Duarte (photo: MADRE)
Diana Duarte: “Women’s rights were quite easily and freely traded away by the US.” (photo: MADRE)
DD: Exactly. Women’s rights were quite easily and freely traded away by the US, in the hopes that it would create some kind of stability in the country. And stability is certainly the farthest from what we see on the ground nowadays.
JJ: There was a report in the Guardian recently, that was presented as new, about links between the Pentagon and these Iraqi militias responsible for torture and killing of civilians. But MADRE had written about this back in 2007, at least, based on experiences of those partner organizations in Iraq. Isn’t that true?
DD: Certainly I want to say that the story that is being told by the Guardian is an important story to tell, highlighting the role of the US and the Pentagon policy of organizing militias and paramilitaries,  purportedly to combat an insurgency, but with dramatic and terrible human rights implications for women and communities in Iraq.
But the thing about it is that it should be not be framed as some kind of revelation, or even as news at this point, as you were saying. We and other human rights organizations have been highlighting this as a policy for years. We did release a report in 2007, called “Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy,” which named people specifically who were involved in advancing this policy.
In that Guardian article that you mentioned, they even go so far as to say that this is the “first time” that US advisors are being implicated in these human rights abuses, which is certainly startling and strange for us to hear, given that we and other human rights organizations have been implicating those same US advisors—including James Steele, who’s mentioned in the article—for many years now.
Another thing that was sort of strange about the article is where they do mention the connection to James Steele in Central America, where he was very much involved in a policy of fueling paramilitaries in El Salvador to manage this counterinsurgency, but again with dramatic human rights implications. And they call it “an eerie parallel” to what happened in Iraq, as if it’s just a strange coincidence, as if he didn’t have a resumé, a background, in this kind of strategy, and as if that wasn’t part of the reason that he was brought to Iraq, to implement that same strategy once again, with similar effect.
JJ: The New York Times had a story on how the war’s anniversary was “barely noted in Washington,” and had comments from officials and former officials. But if they’d wanted to find people talking about it, right outside the White House was a group of veterans and human rights groups who were talking about the Right to Heal Initiative, calling for reparations for Iraq and treatment for veterans. So there are people calling for action today about the impact of this war.
DD: And the Right to Heal applies certainly to US veterans, who will be dealing with the implications of this war for years to come. But it also applies to communities in Iraq. One of the people who was standing outside of the White House, as you mentioned, was a woman named Yanar Mohammed. She’s our partner in Iraq, and we have been working with her to highlight and to bring support to one community in particular, called Hawija, that is dealing with the fallout of environmental contamination by a nearby US military base, which has resulted in rampant levels of birth defects and cancers among children who have been born in recent years. So the Right to Heal is something that we will need to be advocating for and pushing for for generations to come.
McClatchy: US Pledge to Help Iraqis Who Aided Occupation Largely Unfulfilled
McClatchy (3/14/13)
JJ: The last time we spoke to MADRE’s Yifat Susskind, she was talking about that increase in cancers. The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health said that in Fallujah alone, the rate of life-threatening illness and birth defects is “significantly greater than those reported for survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
I saw a piece by McClatchy’s Hannah Allam, about how thousands of Iraqis eligible for resettlement in the US, because they risked their lives helping the US in the war as interpreters and so forth, aren’t getting it—and there’s no appeals process. Patrick Cockburn wrote about how official corruption in Iraq is so deeply and particularly harmful to development there.
It just seems that there are so many stories that reporters could be telling, that are not looks back or navel-gazing, but are really today stories.
DD: And also the stories will continue to emerge, and  it’s important to connect the dots between what we’re seeing now and policies that went back all the way to the 1980s, as I was saying, but that we should be demanding accountability for at this point. It’s been 10 years, yes. But the US role in Iraq is something we still need to be talking about, and that we still need to be demanding justice for, and we’ll continue to do that with our partners on the ground.
JJ: And that reporters need to maybe change who they’re talking to, so they can stop talking about how no one’s saying anything about it.
DD: Exactly. And that government statements can be convenient covers for human rights violations on the ground, and that the partners that we’re working with, and the human rights activists throughout the region, have been really working hard to highlight these kinds of stories, and that they’re the ones whose stories should be told.
JJ: That was Diana Duarte from the human rights group MADRE, speaking with CounterSpin in 2013. And before that, Robert Dreyfuss from 2004.


FAIR/Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York NY 10001
USA










Friday, March 22, 2019

Robert Dreyfuss and Diana Duarte on the Media’s Role in Iraq War




FAIR

Robert Dreyfuss and Diana Duarte on the Media’s Role in Iraq War

view post on FAIR.org

MP3 Link
This week on CounterSpin: Corporate media’s role in the lead up to and the ongoing aftermath of the war on Iraq.
"Shock and Awe" in Iraq.
The US attack on Iraq.
Many in media were critical of Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for George W. Bush, who used the March anniversary of the  2003 US invasion of Iraq, based on what Americans were told was the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, as an opportunity to launch a Twitter tirade to say, “It’s a myth that Bush lied.” He and Bush “faithfully and accurately reported” intelligence community assessments, Fleischer maintained.
Media seemed concerned that Fleischer was insufficiently respectful of the toll of the Iraq War, including what the Washington Post modestly estimated as “thousands of dead Iraqis”—researchers would put that number at, minimally, half a million.
But Fleischer’s revision isn’t just wrong in emphasis or in sentiment. And we didn’t have to wait 16 years to know that. In February 2004CounterSpin spoke with investigative journalist Robert Dreyfuss about that pre-war intelligence on Iraq, and the role of a secret and largely unaccountable organization inside the Pentagon in manufacturing and publicizing it. We’ll hear that interview today.
MP3 Link

The US military pulls down Saddam Hussein statue.
Also on the show: There is the way elite media gin the US public up for war, ofttimes against countries most Americans couldn’t find on a map, like Venezuela. That involves cartoonish demonization of leaders and feigned outrage at human rights concerns that are not of interest in other places. With the Iraq War, elite media were, after the fact, willing to say “mistakes were made” around evidence of weapons, but as we discussed with Diana Duarte at the war’s 10th anniversary in March 2013, there’s little ongoing curiosity about the other justifications media endorsed, including that toppling Saddam Hussein would advance human rights in Iraq, and especially the rights of women. We’ll hear that conversation again today.
MP3 Link
Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look back at recent press, including the New Zealand mosque massacre and Fox News vs. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
MP3 Link


FAIR/Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York NY 10001
USA



Thursday, January 5, 2017

Saddam Hussein’s death was supposed to mark a ‘new era’ for Iraq. It didn’t last five minutes.


Recently, a TRUMP TROLL posted a facebook rant about Obama getting us into Iraq.


When so many Americans were dumb enough to believe PIZZAGATE and much other irrational 'fake news,' it's no longer a question of how dumb are Americans. 

   




"The Prisoner in His Palace: Saddam Hussein, His American Guards, and What History Leaves Unsaid" by Will Bardenwerper promises to be a great read. 










The PNAC Chicken Hawks who profited: 
















Saddam Hussein’s death was supposed to mark a ‘new era’ for Iraq. It didn’t last five minutes.

The embers of violence burning in Iraq flared in the decade since his execution.

  
Will Bardenwerper is the author of the upcoming "The Prisoner in His Palace: Saddam Hussein, His American Guards, and What History Leaves Unsaid."


Iraqi forces drive an infantry fighting vehicle as they hold a position in the village of Jarif, south of Mosul, on Nov. 12, 2016, after retaking it from the Islamic State. (Safin Hamed/AFP via Getty Images)


Ten years ago today, at 6:00 a.m. Baghdad time, Saddam Hussein was led up a flight of stairs in his old Istikhbarat military intelligence headquarters in Baghdad’s Kadhimiyah district. The site was rumored to have housed torture chambers where supposed “enemies of the state” had suffered during his rule. Masked executioners led the former president toward a large noose. He followed obediently, with no visible fear, refusing to wear a hood. As pro-Shiite shouts of “Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada” pierced the morbid stillness, cameras whirred and flashed, creating a spectral aura.
A voice shouted, “Go to hell.”
Hussein replied, “The hell that is Iraq?”
Midway through his recitation of the shahada, the Islamic profession of faith, the floor dropped from under Hussein, an audible crack echoing inside the warehouselike structure as his neck was broken. Within a few minutes, he was dead.
In a statement shortly after the execution, President George W. Bush said that while the execution wouldn’t immediately end the sectarian violence already tearing apart Iraq, it would mark “an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror.” Hussein’s death was supposed to give birth to a new era in Iraq and the region. But the new era didn’t last five minutes. A cluster of Shiites wildly celebrated beside Hussein’s body, creating a sense of an undisciplined lynching rather than a clinical state-sponsored operation. Within hours, at least 75 people were killed in bombing attacks across the country, in what were likely Sunni retaliatory strikes targeting Shiites. The U.S. military, meanwhile, announced the deaths of six more U.S. troops, making that December the most violent month for U.S. service members in two years.
Billowing smoke now obscures the sunrise in towns across the Middle East 10 years after Hussein’s execution, and 13 years after Bush’s promise that “a free Iraq is going to be one that will have an amazingly positive effect on its neighborhood.” The neighborhood is a now a charnel house.
At the time of the execution, the Arab Spring had yet to ignite — and be mercilessly extinguished. Though Syria and Libya remained repressive dictatorships, relations with Libya were the best they had been in decades, with the Bush administration moving to restore full diplomatic relations with Moammar Gaddafi’s regime. Egypt, too, appeared reliably stable, though critics of Hosni Mubarak remained unsatisfied by the scope or pace of the limited reforms he had agreed to. Always-volatile Yemen remained under the control of corrupt autocrat Ali Abdullah Saleh, who famously referred to the challenge of holding the fractious country together as “dancing on the heads of snakes.” The embers of violence in Iraq, already beginning to burn brighter in sectarian bloodletting that was growing worse by the day, had not yet flared into a conflagration that would spread across the borders.
They soon would, though. The region’s dictatorships would prove to be a tinderbox that, once lighted, would consume the lives of more than 400,000 in Syria, thousands in Egypt, Libya and Yemen, and eventually somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000 in Iraq itself. Millions would flee their homes, causing a humanitarian crisis for which the world was utterly unprepared. Within a few years, refugees would pose a threat to Europe’s social fabric, and a new terrorist organization named the Islamic State, even more lethal and barbaric than al-Qaeda, would be born. With Iran’s Sunni foe Hussein eliminated, the Shiite theocracy became ascendant, exercising a powerful influence over the new Iraqi government, expanding its reach into Yemen as Houthi rebels took over the capital, and positioning itself to help push Bashar al-Assad to victory in Syria.
Who can forget Donald Rumsfeld’s pronouncement — delivered with the unwavering confidence that characterized his leadership — that the Iraq War might last “five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that”? As it turns out, the current struggle to liberate Mosul — for the third time, this time from a terrorist organization, the Islamic State, that didn’t even exist when Hussein was killed — is now projected to last longer than Rumsfeld assured us the entire war would. Just this week, the first of 1,700 soldiers from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division hugged their loved ones goodbye before deploying to Iraq. The youngest were 5 years old when the United States launched the invasion to remove Saddam.
One wonders how anyone, most notably the war’s architects, can cling to the view that delivering Hussein to the gallows was worth the trillions of dollars spent, not to mention the 4,500 service members killed, the more than 30,000 wounded, or the hundreds of thousands of violent deaths across the region since his overthrow? That doesn’t even count the millions forced to flee the violence with little more than the clothes on their backs, or the terror threats that are now a routine feature of American and European landscapes. None of the American policymakers responsible for this have been held to account as their British counterparts were in the U.K.’s damning Chilcot Report.
All of this brings to mind something I learned while reporting my book on Iraq. Saddam had repeatedly expressed the same sentiment to some of the people responsible for him during his three years in captivity: You’ll wish you had me back.
It is disturbing even to entertain this notion, spoken as it was by a ruthless tyrant with so much blood on his hands. It is especially disturbing when I think about brave friends and fellow soldiers whose belief in their mission never flagged, some struck down in the prime of their lives. Yet when viewed in relation to the cataclysmic chain of events set in motion by the war to remove him from power, Saddam Hussein’s words seem perversely prophetic.




v