Lies, lies and more lies

Remember the bullshit spouted by Blair and Bush in the run up to the invasion of Iraq? The spoof dossiers and documents, the photos and false testimony from exiles? Remember Colin Powell’s speech to the UN, in which he outlined the case for military action against Saddam? Yeah, that’s right, the lies about WMDs, Iraq’s mobile labs, the Niger connection, the aluminium tubes, Iraqs link to Al Qaeda.

U.N. inspectors have now complained to Washington and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear programme. The inspectors have labelled parts of the report "outrageous and dishonest”.

When there are profits to be had - in this case from oil – truth is not only the first casualty in war, truth is in fact stamped into the ground long before the first salvo is fired and trodden further into the dirt when the last shell casing hits the ground.

As the US makes the case for sanctions against Iran, as a prelude to widening Middle East war, expect the bullshit machine to go into overdrive.

Lies, Half-Truths and WMD

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." George W. Bush, September 12, 2002

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” George W. Bush, January 28, 2003

“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction and is determined to make more.” Colin Powell, February 5, 2003

“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.” George Bush, February 8, 2003

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” George Bush, March 18, 2003

“I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.” Kenneth Adelman, US Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

“We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.” Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

“We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.” George Bush April 24, 2003

“Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.” Tony Blair, 28 April, 2003

“I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.” Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

“I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago - I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago - whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.” Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

“Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.” Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 26, 2003

“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.” Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons." Donald Rumsfeld, May 14, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003

In the months leading up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush-Blair regimes produced reams of documents to prove Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and how Saddam could realistically fire them within 45 minutes. As they geared up for ‘war’ they reiterated time and again that their intention was solely to rid Iraq of its WMD and make the world a more stable place for decent and god-fearing people to live in. They campaigned long and hard for their war – for the support of their peers in governments and for the backing of the US and British electorates and, convinced they had the mandate for war, invaded Iraq in March. Three months after the end of the fighting no ‘illegal’ weapons have been found and the odds of finding any diminish greatly as the days go by.

The recent admission from a British security chief that the 50 page "intelligence" report on Iraq's WMD presented by Tony Blair to Parliament on 24 September last year - and used as the Labour government’s evidence for Iraq’s illicit weapons inventory - was spiced up on the government’s instructions came as no real surprise for those who have scrutinised the unfolding of the US-UK war with Iraq and the Labour government’s desperation to be part of it. Since the transatlantic plan to invade Iraq was hatched it was apparent that Truth would again be the first casualty of war.

For their part, the CIA and their British counterparts have tried to distance themselves from their respective governments these past few weeks, with unprecedented briefings and leaks to the press, desperate to avoid the backlash that has lead to some serious questioning in London and Washington.

On a visit to Poland on 30th May, Tony Blair told a press conference that finding the weapons in Iraq was "not the most urgent priority". And yet, according to the claims of the dossier that he defends, Saddam Hussein "has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability" and that his "current military planning specifically envisages the use" of these weapons. For months we had the Blair government ramming the WMD issue down our throats, pleading for our support for his war with Saddam, who threatened the civilisation we cherished Yet as Saddam and his military top brass, who presumably know about these WMD, which are yet to be found, are still on the run, we are told that finding the weapons is not is not an urgent priority?

Also now discredited by the CIA is the evidence US Sec of State Colin Powell eagerly displayed to the UN Security Council at the beginning of February. Powell provided explicit particulars of the key players in Iraq’s WMD programme as well as the sites that are now under US military control. Nevertheless, the biologically-armed "missile brigade", which he claimed was situated outside Baghdad has proved to be a figment of his imagination and the weapons scientists he informed the world were afraid of talking because of Saddam’s reach have not yet disclosed any secrets. As with the alleged "poison camp" near Khurmal, its labyrinth of tunnels and complex chemical communication network, so too with the photos of twenty or so Baghdad-based al-Qaeda members the UN was presented with. No evidence whatsoever.

In spite of every quality newspaper demanding answers from Blair in the wake of the secret services admission, Blair, it seemed, was learning nothing. Rather than running for cover he began blurting more lies, claiming that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from the African state of Niger. The documentary evidence this fresh allegation was based on has since been confirmed a forgery by the International Atomic Energy Authority. Indeed, the Bush administration was aware that this evidence was bogus a year earlier – something Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have since admitted. Moreover, early last year Vice President Dick Cheney sent a former US ambassador in Africa to Niger to look into the story. Although the latter brought back word that the documents were not genuine, this was not sufficient to prevent the use of these documents as part of Bush’s rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

The sorry situation becomes more pathetic. US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld has lately offered that the reason Saddam’s WMD can’t be found is because they were destroyed before the war started. In other words the US-Britain invaded Iraq to rid the region of weapons Saddam never had and indeed that Saddam claimed he never had and which the UN weapons inspectors suggested he never had. If this was the case, then Saddam could never have been in breach of the famous resolution 1441, which was the justification for war.
Critics might consider that in light of recent revelations Blair should resign and that Bush should be impeached. Surely politicians should not be allowed to lie like this! But hold on. Lying is the trade of politicians under capitalism.

Back in 1925, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “This broad mass of a nation…will more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one. ” Blair and Bush are fully aware of the power of the big lie, so little wonder they thought they could get away with it. Moreover, they are fully aware their support base swallow lies every living moment of the day. For the workers’ part they are lied to from the cradle to the grave: at school with distortions of history and the myth about a God up above; in the workplace, as producers, lied to by their bosses and at home as consumers bombarded with the myths perpetuated by the advertising industry.

To be sure, the entire capitals edifice depends for its continued survival on the promotion of lies, half truths and the distortion of facts. So powerful is the capitalist distortion machine that it takes all our powers of concentration, memory recall and skills of research just to separate the simplest of lies from fantasy. This constant digest of misinformation perhaps explains the amnesia the majority of workers appear to suffer from. And what is exasperating is that in spite of all the evidence revealing the architects of war to be the conniving and scheming rapscallions we always knew them to be, it is a fair bet that workers will again be ready to believe their lies when Iran is found to be stockpiling WMD, to be aiming for a nuclear capacity and harbouring al-Qaeda terrorists.

It’s a fair bet now that WMD will be found in Iraq – planted there by corrupt western regimes desperate to justify their invasion of Iraq. And this evidence will likely be used not only to prop up the discredited Messrs Bush and Blair but also to malign the anti-war movement - which claimed this was a war for oil - and to further strengthen their case for a continuation of the “war on terror”.

In the months ahead be careful what you swallow

The Logic behind that UN Resolution on Iraq

After weeks of debating, the UN Security Council hammered together a unanimous resolution setting harsh terms for Iraqi disarmament, and cautioning there would be brutal consequences for any further defiance.


Bluntly, cleverly, the UN has crafted a situation where Iraq not only has to prove that it has eradicated all of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it also has to verify that it never possessed certain WMD. This seems something of a Catch 22 - for if Iraq never possessed the alleged WMD in the first place, then how can it prove that it never possessed them? And woe betides Iraq if it can’t prove that it never had something others say it has had. All Globocop has to do is affirm it does not believe Iraq or declare the findings of the weapons inspectors invalid and begin an attack on the grounds that Bush and his fellow hawks were right all along, that the scheming and devious Saddam is just extra clever at hiding the evidence.


For Saddam’s part, he has insisted he will move to defuse the crisis by complying with the resolution and cooperating fully with the UN inspectors. The level of compliance and cooperation he will afford the inspectors will undoubtedly determine future events. As before, this weapons inspectorate will be acting on CIA intelligence and will undoubtedly be seeking to manipulate a situation that will lead to a US response. What is less certain is just what will transpire if Saddam really complies 100% with the terms of the UN resolution and cooperates wholeheartedly with the weapons inspectors. As far as the UN is concerned he will have honoured the UN resolution and can stay in power – no regime change!


But could the US really stomach a situation in which Saddam stays in power, an obstacle once again to Bush’s ambitions to make this century – as his father once prophesised – ‘another American century?; a barrier to the corporate interests of US oil giants? How would such a situation be squared with the ambitions of US capitalism as evidenced increasingly in the belligerent and imperialistic tone of foreign policy documents these past ten years?


We had, cause recently to report on the Bush administration's foreign policy objectives outlined in "National Security Strategy" document, (also known as the "Bush Doctrine" even though it was penned by National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice). It states quite brusquely: "The President has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago." The document goes on to say: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States."


We have also commented how the "Bush Doctrine" resembles a similar document, (which we have also reported on) - a1992 Pentagon paper written by hawks Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz that announced that the United States will aim to "prevent the re-emergence of a new rival…This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defence strategy and requires that we endeavour to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."


Lately, The New York Times ran a story outlining how "the White House is developing a detailed plan ... to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein. ... In the initial phase, Iraq would be governed by… [someone who would]… assume the role that Gen. Douglas MacArthur served in Japan. ... In contemplating an occupation, the administration is scaling back the initial role for Iraqi opposition forces in a post-Hussein government." The article continued: "as long as the coalition partners administered Iraq, they would essentially control the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world." Which is what really concerns the US. Allowing a coalition a say in the distribution of Iraqi oil? Think again, Chirac, Putin and Blair. There’s profits to be had.


Writing in The Guardian, November 5th, George Monbiot reported on the recent findings of the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre:


“As available reserves decline, the world's oil-hungry nations are tussling to grab as much as they can for themselves. Almost everywhere on earth, the United States is winning. It is positioning itself to become the gatekeeper to the world's remaining oil and gas. If it succeeds, it will both secure its own future supplies and massively enhance its hegemonic power… In the Middle East, the only nation which could significantly increase its output is Iraq.”


Monbiot further highlights a 2001 a report sponsored by the US Council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute for Public Policy which outlines some of the implications of this decline for US national security. The report states: "The world is currently precariously close to utilizing all of its available global oil production capacity." It also states that the looming crisis is increasing "U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption". During the preceding year, it says, Iraq had "effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest". If world demand for oil continues to rise, world shortages may possibly reduce the prominence of the US to that of "a poor developing country".


The report maintains that this crisis demands "a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy ... Such a strategy will require difficult trade-offs, in both domestic and foreign policy. But there is no alternative. And there is no time to waste." By assuming "a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game", the United States will put a stop to the strategic ambitions of its competitors.


When the ‘Bush Doctrine’ is considered with similar US foreign policy reports, it becomes clear that the US is determined to scupper at the outset the plans of any commercial rival, whoever they may be, particularly where oil is concerned. The US is well aware that Baghdad has already awarded $1.1 trillion in oil contracts to Europe, China and Russia and, naturally, all are anxious that their contracts will not be honoured by a US-dominated Iraq should Saddam be ousted. Thus, the recent UN resolution on Iraq can be viewed from a new angle. The long drawn-out diplomatic wrangling over the precise wording of the UN Security Council resolution has less to do with Saddam’s WMD and far more to do with who will have access to the second largest oil reserves on the planet. European ‘doves’ are not so much concerned with the morality of an attack upon Iraq, or with any related humans rights issues. Their bickering over the finer points of the UN resolution is simply a desperate attempt to ensure they do not lose out in the scramble for Iraq’s oil reserves.


In the meantime, be assured that if the oil-crazed Bush administration has its way, Saddam will be found to have breached this new UN Security Council resolution and the perfect pretext will have arisen for the US invasion of Iraq and the next stage in US global domination.