Facts - Lies; Slogans - Truth
Saul Landau
Progreso Weekly, 7 October 2004
Instead of "sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth may be found,"
much of the media repeats distortions that flow from the mouths of
Administration officials. Bush, the worst President in US history - I
apologize to Ulysses Grant, James Buchanan and Warren Harding detractors
-must gloat when his proclamations make headlines. Editors don't subject
his continuing claims that Saddam Hussein threatened US security for
example, to the same criteria of accuracy, consistency or clear definition
that they do for "non-authorities." Indeed, the media routinely repeats lies
generated by the White House.
For example, The New York Times, "the paper of record" printed an op-ed
(September 26) by Mahdi Obeidi in which the former Iraqi nuclear scientist
repeats a Bush Administration myth. "By 1998, when Saddam Hussein evicted
the [UN] weapons inspectors from Iraq."
Was the Times fact checker on vacation? Had amnesia set in at the op-ed
section? A ten second Google search would have shown that the Times ran a
story on December 18, 1998, which stated that "the most recent irritant was
[UN Weapons Inspection Chief] Mr. Butler's quick withdrawal from Iraq on
Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council
permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the
American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with
Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh."
On February 2, 2000 the Times corrected its own previous front-page story on
Iraq "that misstated the circumstances under which international weapons
inspectors left that country before American and British air strikes in
December 1998. While Iraq had ceased cooperating with the inspectors, it did
not expel them. The United Nations withdrew them before the air strikes
began."
In other words, the Times like all other major news sources reported the
true story and then ignored it and began to echo Bush's lie. Yes, that the
United States asked the UN to withdraw the weapons team, which it did.
Saddam did not kick them out. Yet, on August 3, 2002, less than four years
later, as Bush beat the war drums, the Times editorialized that "America's
goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional
weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms
inspectors four years ago."
Did repeating the lie that Saddam kicked out the inspectors have the super
Goebbels effect: not only to the public believe it, but convince the Times'
editors as well? Bush and Dick Cheney continue to repeat this myth and other
Bushies like Bill "The Gambler" Bennett highlights it while defending the
invasion of Iraq.
The august press screamed over Dan Rather's use of "forged" documents (60
Minutes, September 8) concerning Bush's National Guard record. But it has
not insisted that Cheney find the forger of the paper alleging that Saddam
Hussein tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger - one of Bush's now
discredited claims that led him to invade Iraq. Nor does the media demand
that Cheney reveal who faked the document he refers to in his claim that
Saddam had tight links to Al-Qaeda, which 9/11 Commission investigators
found to be concocted. Indeed, Cheney travels the country repeating these
prevarications. Perhaps Defense Secretary Rumsfeld will claim that someone
faked the 1983 photo of him shaking hands with Saddam Hussein?
Without mass media to inform the public that the President and Vice
President routinely lie, the "rally round the flag" gang that the Bushies
promote has grown to sickening proportions. "Support Our Troops" bumper
stickers proliferate. But do the carriers of these red, white and blue
decals define soldiers of fortune as troops?
Under Bush, the privatized military sector has grown and salaries for these
mercenaries - the old fashioned word for them - have risen. So, I conclude
that Bush includes mercenaries as troops. And, according to the June 14,
2004 Washington Post, the US government has engaged between 20,000 and
30,000 "contractors" in Iraq, more than four army divisions.
These hired guns and administrators govern Iraqi daily life and sometimes
torture and kill Iraqis. This behavior pays up to $200,000 a year - in the
case of retired generals, who now head these semi-covert profit operations.
Financing for this "how to become a millionaire in Iraq" scheme comes from
secret CIA and DOD budgets, paid for by ignorant taxpayers.
A Pentagon report accused two of these "troops" of illegally abusing Iraqi
prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Steven Stephanowicz of Arlington Virginia's
"CACI International," and John B. Israel of San Diego's "Titan Corp." have
not faced criminal charges as some of the regular "troops" have for
torturing prisoners.
Jonathan Turley (LA Times September 16, 2004) describes MPRI as yet another
contracting company with "dozens of former generals and 10,000 former
soldiers in the field, including many former members of the Special Forces."
Such contractors have fielded armies in Croatia and Bosnia, where they were
"linked to abuses ranging from ethnic cleansing . to the trafficking of sex
slaves."
Privatizing war circumvents congressional limits. Congress authorized only
20,000 troops for Bosnia. So, the Pentagon contracted with private mercenary
companies to get an additional 2,000.
These higher-paid troops face similar dangers to those confronted by
reservists or volunteers. Indeed, more than 120 have died in Iraq since May
2003, when Bush "accomplished his mission."
Mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan have - like some other troops - also
tortured and murdered. On September 15 Afghan judges sentenced three members
of one private army to 8 to 10 years in prison for running a private jail
and torturing prisoners. They claimed they worked for a Pentagon
counterterrorist group led by Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy
undersecretary of defense for intelligence, who last October called Bush's
wars a clash between Christianity and Islam. Muslims, according to Boykin
worship an idol, not a ''real God.''
Jonathan K. Idema, 48, a former Special Forces operative, provided
journalists with taped conversations to show that the convicted men had at
least General Boykin's acknowledgement of - if not blessing for - their
actions. Videos taken in Kabul by one of the team showed Idema with Boykin's
staff on two occasions, discussing rounding up terrorists. Should we give
full support to Idema, who remained in fax and phone contact with high
Defense officials and went on missions with NATO forces in Kabul?
The government didn't deny that another former Special Forces operative, now
working as a mercenary, used a flashlight to beat an Afghan prisoner to
death. On June 19, 2003 David Passaro, a contractor working for the CIA" got
orders to extract information from Abdul Wali, and in the process murdered
him. (Los Angeles Times September 16, 2004.)
As Passaro awaits trial, should we make bumper stickers offering support to
him as one of our troops? Should we offer full support to the Abu Ghraib
officers, soldiers and mercenaries who tortured?
Or take MPRI, yet another beneficiary of the privatization of Bush's war. A
score of ex generals earn healthy six figure salaries and thousands of
Special Forces veterans make more than they could as security guards at a
local Safeway. Deregulation has accompanied privatization of military
operations in recent years. The Pentagon finds them convenient, however, to
circumvent federal restrictions on the size of military operations. Should
we offer full support for these troops?
Bush has certainly fulfilled his promise to privatize public affairs. His
invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq have rescued the declining
mercenary sector from oblivion. Idema, who occupies the gray area between
official and semi-official "contractor," actually showed how effective
mercenaries can be at showing what democracy means to the idol-worshipping
heathens. Did he try to prove General Boykin's assertion and use torture and
murder to show that our God was at least as tough as Saddam's idol?
Jonathan Turley correctly observed that the US public has never held "a
national debate on the use of mercenaries or on the rules governing their
conduct. And, if some powerful forces in Washington have their way, there
never will be." The mercenaries-for-hire corporations receive billions of
the taxpayers' dollars, and employ tens of thousands. "Like many nations in
history, we may find that it is far easier to hire mercenaries than to be
rid of them.
Perhaps "SUPPORT OUR MERCENARIES" or "I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS MORE THAN YOU DO"
bumper stickers might provoke the public into at least discussing what the
mainstream media hasn't told them about Bush's vanity wars.
Copyright 2004 Progreso Weekly
|
