RW ONLINE: Powell's Pretext\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nPowell's Pretext\r\n<\/p>
Revolutionary Worker #1187, February 16, 2003<\/i>, posted at rwor.org<\/p>\r\n<\/i>
\"Much of what we know is akin to an impressionist painting. It's a \r\ncompilation of several different strands of information that are then \r\ntriangulated to draw a conclusion.\"<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
Top U.S. government official, New York Times <\/i>, January \r\n25<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell stood in front of the United Nations, \r\nand the TV cameras of the world, to \"make the U.S. case for war\"--again.<\/p>\r\n
It reminds us of the way Senator Trent Lott kept \"apologizing\" for his public \r\nracism, because no one believed him. On the global stage, U.S. officials keep \r\n<\/i>having to \"make the case\" for this war because they have no believable \r\nargument.<\/p>\r\n
They claim they <\/i>are threatened by a small, battered third world \r\ncountry half a world away--a country that has been body-searched like a \r\nsuper-max prisoner. They claim Iraq might give weapons it doesn't have, to \r\npeople who aren't named, for attacks that are not yet planned. They claim to \r\n\"know\" about huge stockpiles of weapons that no one can find.<\/p>\r\n
And meanwhile, everyone knows that Iraq floats on a sea of oil--and everyone \r\nsuspects that this <\/i>is a big part of the unspoken <\/i>real reasons why \r\nthe U.S. government is so eager to take over.<\/p>\r\n
Powell is considered the best \"face\" for the final pre-war arguments.<\/p>\r\n
But on February 5, this mask of the \"reasonable imperialist\" dropped. General \r\nPowell is the guy who conquered the Persian Gulf once before for the U.S. and he \r\nwas there at the UN to press for a new war to \"finish the job\" (as hawks \r\nsay).<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
Consider the Source<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
Powell played recordings that (he claimed) were conversations between Iraqi \r\nofficers about banned weapons. He presented pictures that (he claimed) were \r\nmobile trailers filled with different war materials--being \"evacuated\" for \r\nplaces unknown.<\/p>\r\n
Powell himself said, \"The photos that I am about to show you are sometimes \r\nhard for the average person to interpret--hard for me.\"<\/p>\r\n
The Iraqi government's chief scientific advisor, Amer Al-Saadi, made the \r\nobvious point: \"Any third-rate intelligence outfit could have produced such \r\nrecordings.\" To accept this \"evidence\" you have to assume it was not fabricated \r\nby the CIA.<\/p>\r\n
Why would any reasonable person support invading a small country based on \r\nsuch assumptions?<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
Charges of Evacuation<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
Powell claimed Iraq has an elaborate network of moving stockpiles. In direct \r\ncontradiction to this the head of the UN weapons inspection team, Hans Blix, \r\nsaid that there is no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of \r\nIraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived.<\/p>\r\n
Powell claimed the Iraqis were moving weapons out the back door as inspectors \r\nwere coming in the front. UN inspector Blix said that his inspection teams had \r\ntaken extensive and sensitive tests with air, soil and water samples at such \r\nsites. If forbidden materials had been produced and recently moved, they would \r\nhave known. In only one case has the U.S. asked Blix to investigate specific \r\ntrucks--these proved to be food-inspection vehicles with no trace of military \r\nmaterials.<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
Waving Receipts<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
Powell charges that the U.S. knows how many weapons Iraqi had years ago and \r\nsays he doesn't accept Iraq's explanations about the destruction of those \r\nmaterials. On TV, a \"military expert\" quipped: \"We know they have this stuff, \r\ncuz we have the receipts.\" (The U.S. is threatening to bomb Iraq for weapons \r\nthat the U.S. itself sold the Hussein regime.)<\/p>\r\n
It is hard to know exactly what the Iraqi government has or doesn't have--but \r\nthis much is <\/i>clear: the U.S. claims are flimsy and disputed. Many of the \r\nweapons they are discussing were used up in the 1991 Persian Gulf war or \r\nincinerated in the last inspections round. Some experts (including former \r\ninspector Scott Ritter) estimate that this accounts for as much as 90 to 95 \r\npercent of these materials.<\/p>\r\n
Hans Blix summed up after Powell's speech: \"I don't think there was clear-cut \r\nevidence that they have weapons of mass destruction.\"<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
The Strange Caseof the Aluminum Tubes<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
The U.S. has claimed that Iraqi military officials traveled the world seeking \r\nspecial \"aluminum tubes\" to build centrifuges that create nuclear weapons \r\nmaterial. UN inspectors investigated the tubes and concluded these tubes were \r\nreally intended as the casings of rather typical battlefield rockets.<\/p>\r\n
Powell specifically rejected the inspectors' evidence. And it is no \r\nmystery why <\/i>: These aluminum tubes are the only <\/i>\"evidence\" for an \r\nIraqi nuclear program. And much of the U.S. war hysteria rests on the scenario \r\nthat Iraq may soon have nukes.<\/p>\r\n
So Powell argued at the UN that the inspectors were overlooking the \r\nsuspicious increase in Iraqi specifications for the aluminum tubes they \r\npurchase. Powell said, the last batch detected by U.S. intelligence included an \r\n\"anodized coating\" on their surface. If the Iraqis are building battlefield \r\nrockets, he asked, why do they need \"anodizing\" (rust proofing) on them.<\/p>\r\n
Experts quickly pointed out that anodizing makes the tubes unusable \r\n<\/i>for nuclear centrifuges. When Iraqi battlefield weapons were stored for \r\nyears, they corroded. The anodized coating was to solve that problem. Powell, a \r\nexpert in stockpiling and using modern weapons, knows all this perfectly \r\nwell.<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
The Case of the Missing Links<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
To frighten people in the U.S., Powell has to paint a picture of Iraq \r\nthreatening the American \"homeland.\" Powell produced a map of Iraq's missile \r\ncapabilities--which showed a range limited to a few hundred miles from Iraq's \r\nborders. Iraq (unlike General Powell) does not have any means of bombing a \r\ncountry halfway around the world. So to create fear of \"threat,\" Powell must \r\nsuggest that Iraq may give biological poisons to al-Qaida operatives to deliver \r\nin some U.S. city.<\/p>\r\n
The problem is that there is no evidence of such \"links.\" (Though there is \r\nlots of evidence of al-Qaida ties within the Pakistani and Saudi \r\ngovernments--close allies of the U.S.)<\/p>\r\n
So Powell must invent evidence for the \"missing links.\" He claimed, first, \r\nthat there is an Islamist group Ansar al-Islam in northeastern Iraq and, second, \r\nthat people \"linked\" to al-Qaida passed through Baghdad, Iraq's capital.<\/p>\r\n
These charges prove nothing. Ansar al-Islam is not in al-Qaida, and it is \r\nbased in parts of Kurdistan that are outside <\/i>Iraqi government control. In \r\nfact, Ansar al-Islam's base is inside the U.S.- <\/i>patrolled \"no fly \r\nzone.\"<\/p>\r\n
Furthermore, if Islamist forces \"passed through\" Baghdad or got medical \r\ntreatment there, it does not necessarily mean that the Iraqi government is \r\nallied with them. Iraq's Ba'athist Party is a secular movement--much hated by \r\nthe Islamists, including specifically Osama bin Laden.<\/p>\r\n
Powell admits that his main source for his charges are the detainees that \r\nwere seized by the U.S. in Afghanistan or other countries and handed over to \r\nallied governments for interrogation. What reasonable person accepts as \r\n\"evidence\" the forced confessions of unnamed captives brutalized in the growing \r\nglobal network of sub-contracted U.S. torture chambers?<\/p>\r\n
The week of Powell's speech, his British allies were embarrassed when a \r\nBritish intelligence document surfaced: it dismissed any relation between the \r\nIraqi regime and al-Qaida. Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, then vaguely \r\naccused Iraq of creating a \"permissive environment\" where al-Qaida could move in \r\nand out of their country.<\/p>\r\n
The U.S. government charges that 60 different countries <\/i>have al-Qaida \r\nforces operating within them. Are all of these countries supposed to now to be \r\naccused of a \"permissive environment\" and threatened with \"regime change\" by \r\nthese imperialists?<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
Violating Resolutions?<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
The argument that Iraq is violating UN resolution 1441 is a figleaf legal \r\nargument.<\/p>\r\n
First of all, that UN resolution itself reeks of imperialism and \r\nhypocrisy--Iraq, a besieged country, is condemned if it acquires weapons which \r\nits major accusers (the U.S., Britain, France and Russia) have in huge \r\nstockpiles.<\/p>\r\n
If countries are now to be bombed and occupied for ignoring UN resolutions \r\nthen U.S. allies like Turkey and Israel are far bigger offenders. Iraqi spokeman \r\nAmer Al-Saadi made the interesting observation: Resolution 1441, Para. 10 calls \r\nupon member states to submit \"all evidence in their possession\" if they suspect \r\nIraq has committed violations. The U.S. has refused to give its so-called \r\n\"evidence\" to be checked by the UN. So, perhaps the U.S. should include itself \r\namong those refusing to cooperate with 1441.<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
No to This Unjust War!<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
This speech was a smokescreen--not a \"smoking gun\"--it was designed to hide \r\nthe real reasons and motive of this war. Nothing in Powell's disinformation was \r\nbelievable, and even if some of it were true, it would not justify the massive \r\nwar crime about to pound down on Iraq's people.<\/p>\r\n
At one point, Powell held up a small vial of powder, and said this much \r\nmilitarized anthrax had been enough to paralyze the U.S. Congress in the fall of \r\n2001.<\/p>\r\n
But Powell did not mention that it was the U.S. military's own secret \r\nbioweapons <\/i>used in the attempt to assassinate Democratic senators and \r\nliberal news anchors with anthrax--and it was widely suspected that whoever had \r\nplanted the anthrax was connected to the U.S. military.<\/p>\r\n
If the world wants to inspect and disarm the most dangerous stockpilers of \r\n\"weapons of mass destruction\" it would be wise to start with the U.S. \r\nsuperpower.<\/p>\r\n
As the U.S. government ruthlessly prepares to start this war, people need to \r\ncut through this smoke, and expose the lies that portray this imperialist \r\nconquest as a way to make people safer.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n<\/p>
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker \r\nOnline
rwor.org
Write: Box 3486, \r\nMerchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: \r\n773-227-4497
<\/p>\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"www.rwor.org","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell stood in front of the United Nations, and the TV cameras of the world, to "make the U.S. case for war"--again.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2003\/02\/rw_online_powell\\_s_pretext.htm","filesize":"11.2 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2003\/02\/28674.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}