[Peace-discuss] Stop the Crime of the century

[ppatton at uiuc.edu]

Stop the Crime of the Century
by David Michael Green
 
In Iraq, there is a crime of breathtaking proportions taking
place. Breathtaking, but not necessarily surprising. We know
from the historical record that governments will lie and
deceive, and we've rarely seen one as immoral and venal as the
Bush administration.

What has turned this crime into an astonishing demonstration
of the depth of American democracy's decay is the complicity
of the media establishment in hiding the original crime, and
in thus doing so, ripping a gaping hole in the fabric of our
political system.

Did you know that there now exists in the public domain a
'smoking gun' memo, which proves that everything the Bush
administration said about the Iraq invasion was a lie? If you
live in Britain you probably do, but if you live in the United
States, chances are minuscule that you would be aware of this.

Think about that for a second. Apart from 9/11, has there been
a more important story in the last decade than that the
president lied to the American people about the reasons for
invading Iraq, and then proceeded to plunge the country into
an illegal war which has alienated the rest of the world, lit
a fire under the war's victims and the Islamic world
generally, turning them into enemy combatants, locked up
virtually all American land forces in a war without end in
sight, cost $300 billion and counting, taken over 1600
American lives on top of more than 15,000 gravely wounded, and
killed perhaps 100,000 Iraqis?

Could there be a bigger story? "How Do Japanese Dump Trash?",
perhaps, which ran on page one of today's (May 12) Times?

Of course not. But then how is it that this is not being
reported in the American mainstream media? How is it that the
two organs most responsible for coverage of political
developments in this country - the New York Times and the
Washington Post - have failed to splash this across their
front pages in bold headlines, despite the fact that they
clearly know of the story? How, especially, could these two
papers sit on a story like this after both recently issued mea
culpas for their respective failures to critically cover
administration claims of bogus Iraqi threats during the period
leading up to the war, thereby contributing to the war themselves?

>From the Bush administration and the current generation of
Republicans, I expect nothing but the most debased and vile
politics. And, of course, ditto for Fox News and the rest of
the overtly right-wing media. But I have been naive enough,
until now, to believe that at least some of the American
mainstream media has not climbed completely into bed with
those destroyers of all that is decent about American
democracy. Apparently I've been a fool.

Here is the story we are not being told.

Several days before their election last week (May 5), a
patriot within the highest circle of British government leaked
to the Times of London a memo, which proves the degree of
deceit to which both the Americans and British publics have
been subjected on the subject of the Iraq war. You were never
supposed to see this document
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html).
It is headlined in bold with this warning: "This record is
extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It
should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its
contents."

The memo provides minutes from a meeting of Tony Blair's most
exclusive war cabinet, held in July of 2002. In the meeting,
two of Blair's top officials report on discussions they had
just held in Washington with officials at the top levels of
the Bush administration.

Before describing the contents of the memo, it is important to
note that nobody in the British government has denied to even
the slightest degree the authenticity of this document. A
highly placed American source has verified, off the record,
that it is completely accurate in its recounting of the events
described. And Tony Blair's only comment has been that there
is 'nothing new' contained in the memo. This could not be more
false. The memo proves beyond doubt the following:

* The Bush administration had decided by July 2002, at the
latest, to invade Iraq. The memo says that "Military action
was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam,
through military action..." Later in the memo it notes that
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take
military action". This means the claims that the president did
not have a war plan on his desk at that time are now proven
lies. It means that the whole kabuki dance of going to
Congress, going to the UN, sending over weapons inspectors,
pulling them out before they could finish their work,
requiring Iraq to report to the Security Council on its
weapons of mass destruction, then immediately rejecting their
report as incomplete and deceitful - all of this - was a
completely counterfeit exercise conducted for public relations
purposes only. It also means that when former Treasury
Secretary Paul O'Neill and former terrorism czar Richard
Clarke reported that Bush had planned to attack Iraq from the
beginning, they - rather than the administration which was
personally savaging them as loonies - were telling the truth.

* The Bush and Blair administrations knew that the argument
for war against Iraq was weak. As Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
notes in the meeting, "But the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less
than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran". This is proof that
Iraq was never anything like the serious threat it was
portrayed to be before the war, and that both administrations
knew that it was no threat, but knowingly and completely
oversold the necessity for the war with their massive phalanx
of lies and distortions.

* Because the case was thin, the war would have to be
"...justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD". This
proves that former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
wasn't kidding when he let slip that the weapons of mass
destruction argument was decided on by the administration for
"bureaucratic reasons", meaning a rationale that all the
leading actors within the administration could agree on as the
most effective public relations device for marketing the war.

* Both the Bush and Blair administrations manipulated
intelligence to get what they wanted in order to justify the
war, and knew that they were doing precisely that. As the memo
states, "...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around
the policy". This is the most remarkable statement of all, as
it makes clear that the decision to invade had nothing to do
with facts or any sort of real threat. Rather, it was simply a
preference of the Bush administration (and probably just a
personal one for Bush), which then became its policy, for
which they then twisted and fabricated information and
disinformation in order to sell the war to a rightly skeptical
public.

* The war was illegal. Kofi Annan and the international
community clearly believed that the war was a violation of
international law. But we now also know that the British
Attorney-General, who has to rule on this point (the question
of the legality of launching a war is far less significant,
unfortunately, in the American political tradition), "said
that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for
military action. There were three possible legal bases:
self-defense, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorization
[which was never ultimately obtained from the Security
Council]. The first and second could not be the base in this
case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be
difficult. The situation might change of course." Yes, of
course. Then, again, if it didn't, one could always just lie
about it.

* Knowing that the war was neither legal nor morally
justifiable, the American and British governments therefore
sought to find a way to make the war politically acceptable by
baiting Saddam. As the memo notes, "We should work up a plan
for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons
inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification
for the use of force". And, "The Prime Minister said that it
would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam
refused to allow in the UN inspectors". And, "If the political
context were right, people would support regime change".

* Well before the war was 'justified', even in the bogus sense
of Washington's and London's inspections and UN resolutions
game, it had already begun. The memo states that the "US had
already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime".

* Finally, it is worth noting that, even putting legal and
moral questions aside, the memo also substantiates the sheer
strategic incompetence of the administration, a failure which
has, of course, produced excessive loss of life. It states
that "There was little discussion in Washington of the
aftermath after military action".

Let's review the bidding here.

We now have definitive, verified and undenied evidence
documenting a panoply of lies told to the American and world
publics about the invasion of Iraq, a bloody war which was
neither legally nor morally justified, despite overt attempts
to make it so by those who wished to launch it.

On top of that crime, we can now also add that of America's
fourth estate, which has completely abdicated its role and
responsibility to present this crucial bombshell of
information to the public.

It gets worse, however. Eighty-nine members of Congress have
taken note of the items described above, as well as a separate
secret briefing for Blair's meeting, in which it was agreed
that "Britain and America had to 'create' conditions to
justify a war", and have sent a letter to the president
(http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf),
demanding a response.

And, yet, still there is no coverage from our press. It
appears that demanding that the government respect the will of
the people is no longer enough in American democracy. We must
now also carry the burden of demanding that the media do its
job and cover developments which are unfavorable to the
national kleptocracy of which these giant media corporations
have become a part.

That noise you hear? It's the sound of America's Founders
spinning in their graves. And well they should, for this
scenario is precisely the massive concentration of power they
most feared. All branches of the government are now in the
hands of the same party (meaning, effectively, there virtually
are no branches any longer).

The so-called opposition party facilitates Republican rule
through the flattery of imitation, when it hasn't gone into
hiding instead. The public is frightened and ill-informed. And
now this. To this hall of shame list must be added a
mainstream press which a week ago seemed only biased and
intimidated, but now appears entirely complicit. We are now
living precisely the nightmare of Washington, Jefferson,
Madison and the rest. It must stop. We cannot have a prayer of
an informed public curbing the worst excesses of American
government if, in fact, that public is not informed. Sad as it
is, if we ever hope to reclaim American democracy, it appears
we must now fight for outrageous news to be aired, if we ever
expect that news to outrage.

Notwithstanding our worst horrors and fears these last four
years, American democracy is in deeper trouble than we knew.
Now is the time for patriots to act.

We must begin by demanding coverage of this explosive evidence
by the leading organs of American journalism. If the American
people remain too jaded or frightened to demand the heads of
those who deceived them so thoroughly, they're entitled to
inherit the consequences of their own failures. However, they
cannot make that choice until they know the facts.

Please therefore, for the sake of innocent Iraqis, for the
sake of American soldiers, and for the sake of American
democracy, do two things 'write now':

* First, send a message to the New York Times and the
Washington Post, demanding that they cover this most
significant of stories. Top brass at the New York Times can be
emailed at the following addresses: Executive Editor Bill
Keller at executive-editor at nytimes.com, and Managing Editor
Jill Abramson at managing-editor at nytimes.com. For the
Washington Post, try National Editor Michael Abramowitz at
abramowitz at washpost.com, and Associate Editor Robert Kaiser at
robertgkaiser at yahoo.com.

* Next, forward this article on to everybody you know, and ask
them to write the Times and the Post as well, and then to
forward this article in turn to everyone they know. With some
luck, perhaps we can achieve a critical mass which can no
longer be ignored by these papers, with the electronic media
then to follow.

In any case, we are evidently going have to take this country
back ourselves, without even the benefit of a competent media
to report the news.

Fortunately, we possess the greatest weapon of all, the truth.

David Michael Green (pscdmg at hofstra.edu) is a professor of
political science at Hofstra University in New York.