Ding Dong - Saddam is Dead!

Published By: FreeMind

Reprinted - 12/30/06

______________________________________________________

Highlights of the article:

(...)

Harry Brandon, a former senior counterterrorism official at the FBI, says the Iraq war "serves as a real rallying point". Al Qaeda has been "using the Iraq war for recruiting... The Iraq War is a public relations bonanza for Al Qaeda and a public relations disaster for us the longer it goes on."

(...)

________________________________________________________

[The following is an excerpt of an article I wrote in july 2004 after Saddam had been captured and was put on trial. While our leaders will hail Saddam's death a glorious day, we should also stop and look ourselves in the mirror. I should also note that the quotes from terrorists and government officials at the bottom of the article are also from 2004 - as many more are now widely known].

I think everyone can agree that Saddam committed atrocities during his rule of Iraq and that there are some Iraqis who would like to see him go to trial for his crimes. But we should also understand how our own leaders use war to excuse law-breaking. It's much in the same way Bush continues to make changes in the laws , using the "war on terror", to fit what he wants to do

....So now we have Saddam on trial, facing charges on crimes dating up to 1991. The AP press reports the charges as the following:

" The seven broad charges against Saddam are the killing of religious figures in 1974; gassing of Kurds in Halabja in 1988; killing the Kurdish Barzani clan in 1983; killing members of political parties in the last 30 years; the 1986-88 "Anfal" campaign of displacing Kurds; the suppression of the 1991 uprisings by Kurds and Shiites; and the 1990 invasion of Kuwait."

That is strange because all the charges seem to fall during a time that Saddam was a ally of the United States. In fact, up until weeks before the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. supplied many of the weapons used in these past crimes and found it easy to look away while Saddam gassed the Kurds in the 80's.

A few months before Saddam invaded Kuwait it is reported that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq met with Saddam to discuss some PR work... It seems that Saddam's "image" needed some work. If Saddam was going to be a friend of the U.S., he was going to need some good PR. Some say that this "pat on the back" by the United States government gave Saddam the false impression that the U.S. might be inclined to look the other way if he went ahead and invaded Kuwait, (after all, the U.S. didn't seem bothered when he was killing members of political parties, the Kurds, and religious figures).

Ahh, but that is where Saddam made his mistake! You don't mess with Texas... and Saddam was messin' with something very close to Bush Sr.'s heart, (and wallet)... black gold. In the book, "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You", (featured on this site), I learned how a huge U.S. PR firm helped Kuwait, and therefore Bush, convince the american people that Kuwait was a victim of a now evil Saddam. Kuwait was no pleasure dome any more than Iraq was, and Bush knew he had a huge task ahead of him.

Bush needed to convince the american people that Saddam, who had been our ally for at least a decade, was now an evil dictator who killed his own people if they dissented. The PR firm Hill & Knowlton hired by the Kuwait government was run by Craig Fuller, close friend and advisor of President Bush and his administration. Using pre-taped "news reports" released to the media, the PR firm flooded the news with stories of the evil doings of Saddam, and talked as though we never knew of Saddam and his activities prior to the invasion...

Another question comes to mind when looking at the charges brought against Saddam... what about our own leaders? What about Bush and the illegal wire tapping? Or the atrocities at Abu Ghraib? What about Nixon, for example? Does anyone remember the My Lai Massacre?

"On March 16, 1968, a company of American soldiers went into the hamlet of My Lai 4, in Quang Ngai province. They rounded up the inhabitants, including old people and women with infants in their arms. These people were ordered into a ditch, where they were methodically shot to death by American soldiers." [Zinn, Howard "People's History Of The United States"]. The army desperately tried to cover up this atrocity and failed. While many of the officers were brought to trial, only Lieutenant William Calley was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Nixon later ordered that "he be under house arrest rather than a regular prison", and he was later paroled.

And what about the charge against Saddam dealing with "the suppression of the 1991 uprisings by Kurds and Shiites"? Does it mention anywhere that our president at the time, George Bush, encouraged the uprisings against Saddam's rule, and in response to Bush and his "support" the Kurds and Shiites bravely rose up against Saddam expecting support from the Americans which never came. Instead they were hunted down and imprisioned... in many cases killed.

Would the Kurds and Shiites ever have tried an uprising if it were not for the false security of support by the U.S. and it's military? Where was Bush and all his "caring" about the Iraqi people when they were being rounded up and killed because of something he encouraged? Bush got his precious Kuwaiti oil back into "friendly" hands and was out of there. (I am sure that the friends and families of those Iraqi's left out to die by Bush and the U.S. in 1991 have nothing but warm feelings for our troops today... and what a surprise it is that those same Iraqi's may not trust our reasons for being in their country to begin with).

Was Nixon or Bush ever tried for this crime to humanity like Saddam is now? Is this crime any different than the crimes charged against Saddam? The My Lai Massacre was defended by many "patriotic" americans as a necessary action against the "communists". [Zinn, Howard "People's History Of The United States"].

Here I will repeat, nobody will argue whether or not Saddam has done truly bad things, but you'll notice that all of the charges predate 1991... none of the charges brought against him took place in the last fourteen years. So why, one might ask, was Saddam such an "immediate threat" after 9/11? Might we have used our resources, (meaning the lives of our brave soldiers, among other things), to methodically track down the terrorists that we know of instead of going into Iraq?

Our invation of Iraq was opposed by most nations worldwide every step of the way. And remember, most of those same nations, including Arab and Muslim, supported the war on the Taliban following 9/11. Might we have used the global outcry and compassion after the tragedies of 9/11 to join with other nations to track down terrorist plots? Instead we did what the terrorists wanted... brought many more nations together in their hatred of the U.S., to our policies and to our arrogance. The NY Times reports that terrorism is at it's highest level ever, with more attacks these last two years than at any other time.

Believe me when I say that these statements are not just "20/20 hindsight". Everyone that I know opposed going into Iraq from the very beginning and were taking to the streets to let Bush and the world know that we felt that there was no "immediate threat" from Iraq. There were, and still may remain, other ways to fight terrorism... the first being to understand why we were attacked to begin with, and to work closely with other nations to create a global watch for terrorist activities. If we can understand what triggered the attacks, then we can begin to take the correct steps to prevent it happening again.

We are a great Nation. We are powerful and sit on this earth as a role model for the rest of the world. But if our example is to be an arrogant military power who treads upon the world with weapons of mass destruction, dividing Nations and people into simple-minded catagories of "good" and "evil" - is it really any surprise that another Nation or group should follow the lead and treat us in the same manner?

Didn't it bother you that nobody had a discussion of "why" we were attacked during the whole 9/11 media frenzy? For example, do you think it was just a random choice that Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? To them, The World Trade Center, even in it's name, represents America's financial power world wide. The Pentagon represents our Military power. The attack was not on the american people, but against the U.S. government and it's big corporations that "terrorize" their world in the Middle East. Yes, the attack used massive death and terror of the american people, but only to put pressure on the U.S. government to use it's financial and military arrogance against other Middle Eastern countries. Thereby feeding their cause to fuel a rising resentment to the U.S., and to finally eject the U.S. and it's influence over the Middle East. [Don't believe me? Scroll down a tad to read statements made recently by Al Qaeda leaders and U.S. officials].**

Just to make sure oil remains a big issue in our lives, it is no surprise that the best selling automobiles, (if that's what you can call these massive structures), are SUV's and Hummers which get about 10 - 20 miles per gallon. While this may not be the place for me to get into an argument for alternative energies, let me just say that the more we are dependent on oil, the more our country will feel the need to seek authority in oil bearing lands around the world. And that goes for whoever might be President, (but having Bush in office doesn't help. His daddy gave us Iraq war I... and this sequel is worse than the original).

While we may have done wonders for securing our Middle Eastern Oil supply, at the same time we've done nothing for the "war on terror". In fact, the facts will show that we have done the opposite... we have created more hatred and more opportunity for terror than ever before.

+++++

**Are we doing exactly what the terrorists want us to do?

Read for yourself...

These are quotes from Al-Qaeda leaders describing their stance on European Nations and the July 15th truce deadline, [as reported by the AP and printed in newspapers around the world]:

Truce or war

"I offer a truce to them (Europe) with a commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs," bin Laden said. "Whoever rejects this truce and wants war, we are its (war's) sons and whoever wants this truce, here we bring it."

"The race now is between you, time and European governments which refused to stop their attacks against Muslims. So do not blame us for what will happen, and we apologize to you in advance if you are among those killed."

The group also said it planned attacks in Yemen to "drag America into a third quagmire after Iraq and Afghanistan."

"We tell the brigade of Abu Ali al-Harthi: The leadership decided that Yemen will be the third quagmire for Americans."

You may notice that the group claims to be planning to "drag America into a third quagmire after Iraq and Afghanistan". In other words, they are saying that they can continue to easily predict what the U.S. government will do to busy itself, while allowing Al Qaeda to strive. And yet another "quagmire" can only deepen Al Qaeda's hold on more and more Nations as hatred for the U.S. will grow with each unnecessary invation. The group uses the word "quagmire", the same description that was finally given to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, because they can see that the American people will grow tired of watching their young soldiers die overseas as each invation drags on and on without much result... that is, without slowing down Al Qaeda or terrorism.

You also will notice the group said that they "apologize to you in advance if you are among those killed", referring to the people who must die if they are to make a statement to their government. Much like the 9/11 attacks were not meant for the american people as much as they were meant to make a statement to the U.S. government. This is the same process Al Qaeda is using in Europe, with attacks like the Madrid bombing, to get those governments to vow to stop interfering in the Middle East, as well. Why haven't we tried just getting ourselves out of the Middle East? Could things possibly have gone any worse? Maybe things would be better? We will never know, since we use violence first... and in that case, I guess so must they. How do you suppose this can end?

U.S. authorities had this to say, as quoted in the July/August 2004 issue of Mother Jones :

Judith Yaphe, who was the CIA's senior analyst on Iraq during the first Gulf War, says Iraq is "open to terrorism in a way that it was not before".

Harry Brandon, a former senior counterterrorism official at the FBI, says the Iraq war "serves as a real rallying point". Al Qaeda has been "using the Iraq war for recruiting... The Iraq War is a public relations bonanza for Al Qaeda and a public relations disaster for us the longer it goes on."

Military Advisor, Larry Johnson, says: "Prior to 2003 and our invasion, Iraq rarely figured on the international terrorism charts. Now Iraq has the third-largest number of terorist fatalities after Israel and India." Kathy Gannon, who has covered Afganistan for the past 16 years for the Associated Press, says that the security situation in "as bad as it's ever been"- and that includes the years during and before the Taliban reign.