Return to main page

Return to Fahrenheit 911

 

The War in Iraq

<SNIP>

   Moore claims that the real target all along was Iraq and that the US bungled the Afghan invasion, after all, we weren't there to get terrorists, just to build the pipe line! This omits the amazing military victory the United States achieved. At the time, America's newspapers, notably the New York Times, left their readers with the impression that the the effort was fading and that Afghanistan would be the next Vietnam. Sound familiar? With two thirds of the Al Qaeda senior leadership dead or captured, and the rest dodging US and Pakistani special forces in the treacherous tribal regions of Pakistan, it made little sense to swamp the country with US troops. 

    So what was the next step? As previously mentioned, President Bush and his advisors were faced with a stark choice: to continue to respond to each act of terrorism as a symptom, or to try to cure the body of the disease: 

    ...the threat posed to the United States came less from Al Qaeda per se than from the environments allowing such groups to form. As the Bush administration gauged the impact of Sept. 11, policymakers split into two camps: those who argued that the US must respond narrowly against Al Qaeda and its supporters, namely the Taleban in Afghanistan; and those who sought a broader mandate to reshape Middle Eastern countries regarded as terrorist breeding grounds. (26)

    We now know what path the President choose. To argue with the policy would be legitimate, but debating issues is not what this film is about. How do the terrorists view the struggle in Iraq? According to a 54 page Al Qaeda handbook intercepted and verified by western intelligence agencies:

"This would be (for the US) the first step toward the eradication of hardline Islam in the entire world," it said. (60)

   The most ridiculous point in the movie occurs when Moore shows slow motion shots of Iraq kids singing and dancing and families laughing together in harmony. This is supposed to represent Saddam's peace loving Iraq. It's a small detail, but it might be worth mentioning the 290,000 [low end] estimated Iraqis buried in mass graves, the thousands of Kurds and Shittes killed and gassed, the 1-2 million casualties from the Iraq-Iran war, Saddam's support for terrorism and the raping of Kuwait. (32) Even some hardcore liberals were uneasy with the logic used by some on the left as arguments against the war. (33) (Great article. If you get a chance;  read it)

    Even more outlandish is Moore's claim that Saddam was never murdered a single American death! My boisterous laughter at this led to reproachful looks from those in the rows in front of me. Moore forgets that 147 Americans were killed in battle and 145 in non combat deaths for a total of 292 dead in the first gulf war and 467 wounded. (37) He neglects to mention that Iraq fired daily on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, violating a cease fire agreement that Iraq signed. Also left out are Saddam's payment of $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, which directly or indirectly resulted in a number of US citizens killed in Israel, and his harboring of Abu Nidal and other terrorists who engaged in and financed terrorism around the wold, including the slaying of US diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan. (38), (39)

    Moore than hits us with the footage of Bush saying, "..remember, this is a man who tried to kill my dad". To my surprise, there was scattered laughter throughout the theater. Saddam's attempt to assassinate the President of the United States is no laughing matter. During testimony before the September 11th commission, Judith S. Yaphe, considered to be one of the most respected authorities on Iraq (40) said:

    Iraq's security services and surrogates showed little success, however, in planning or ordering operations against foreign targets. Baghdad ordered its Palestinian dependents to launch terrorist operations against the United States and its coalition partners in the fall and winter of 1990; they refused to comply. Iraq made an apparently singular effort to send terrorist teams abroad prior to the initiation of hostilities with the U.S.-led coalition in 1991; it failed. One of the Intelligence Community's reported successes in the period of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm was the arrest of the teams on landing outside Iraq. They were caught by their fake passports, all of which were in consecutive sequence. The attempt to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in Kuwait in April 1993 was a botched job, using apparently ill-trained operatives in an ill-planned operation. (39)

    On June 9th 2004 Russian President Vladimir Putin said that, 

"..Russian agents had received information that Iraq's special forces were preparing terrorist attacks on the United States, and on its military bases around the world." (27)

    Putin's comments were portrayed by some as just an attempt to bolster Bush. This is a charge that cannot be proved or disproved.

    Attempting to prove Saddam's collaboration with Al Qaeda has proved more difficult, although it has been established and verified that there has been a lengthy relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda stretching back into the early nineties. Exactly what occurred in these contacts does not seem to be known with certainty. A recent article in the Weekly Standard offers interesting insights not found in the mainstream media (41), which, for unknown reasons, constantly downplays the possibility of an Iraq Al Qaeda connection, much to the ire of administration officials. (42) 

    The 9/11 commission played the middle ground and described the connection as the following in a staff statement:

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring  weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States. (120)

 

The news media has built up this vaguely worded statement as being in direct conflict with the rhetoric of the Bush administration. It is true Cheney's assertion that it was "pretty well confirmed" that a meeting between lead hijacker Mohammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent occurred in Prauge is beginning to look dubious[his mistaken characterizations of his past statements haven't helped] and some say Bush misleads when he speaks of Iraq and Al Qaeda in the same breath. Well why shouldn't he speak of sworn enemies of the United States in the same breath? Is it not true that we were battling Al Qaeda militants and suicide bombers almost as soon as Baghdad fell? How can terrorism be defeated without changing the corrupt and brutal despots that rule the landscape of the Middle East?

 

               Imagine you are President of the United States and you hear that senior Iraqi intelligence officials are meeting with the head of Al Qaeda. Do you sit and ponder if the relationship is "collaborative" or just a "contact", or perhaps they are just high school buddies. This was about preemption. This was about eliminating dangerous regimes that in the future could and/or would fund, harbor or supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. This aim was stated clearly, directly and forcefully before, during and after the war.

          Doubts continue to build about the motives of Clinton terrorism Czar Richard Clarke. The 9/11 Commission's final report questions Clarke's constant assertion on television talk shows that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda:

Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”135 Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. (128)

          Clarke then tells the Commission how the only terrorist not captured after the first World Trade Center Bombing was an Iraqi:

Most of the people directly involved in that conspiracy were identified and tracked down by the FBI and CIA and arrested or snatched and brought back to the United States. Mr. Yasin was the one who wasn't. And the reason he wasn't was he was an Iraqi. He was the only Iraqi in the group. There were Egyptians, there were other nationalities. He was an Iraqi, and therefore, when the explosion took place and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq. And we were obviously, for obvious reasons, unable to either snatch him or get him to be extradited to the United States. But the investigation, both the CIA investigation and the FBI investigation made it very clear, in '95 and '96 as they got more information, that the Iraqi government was in no way involved in that attack. And the fact that one of the 12 people involved in the attack was Iraqi hardly, it seems to me, is evidence that they were, that the Iraqi government was involved in the attack. The attack was al Qaeda, not Iraq. The Iraqi government, because, obviously, of the hostility between us and them, didn't cooperate in turning him over, and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists; but the allegation that has been made that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was done by the Iraqi government I think is absolutely without foundation.(129)

           In 1999, during the Clinton Administration, Clarke defended the launching of cruise missles at a factory in  Sudan and linked Al Qaeda to Iraq. Since this Washington Post article (below) was written, uncertainties have developed. Today it is still unknown what this factory produced and if the intelligence was correct:

     While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas. (130), (P)

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan. (130), (P)

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility." (130), (P)

            I hate to repeat myself, but this seems to be a point of contention for many. Imagine again you are President of the United States. You know Iraq ordered it's Palestinian dependants to launch terror attacks against the United States in the first Gulf War and attempted to send special forces abroad. Iraq harbors the head of the group which recently killed the US ambassador to Jordan. Iraq harbors Abu Abbas [terrorist who planned the hijaking of an American cruise liner in which a wheelchair bound American Jew was shot and thrown overboard] (131). Iraq fires at US warplanes everyday. Iraq obstructs and hinders U.N. weapons inspectors. Iraq attempted to kill an ex President of the United States. Iraq has twice attempted to build nuclear weapons. Iraq has used chemical weapons. Iraq has built long range missiles in gross violation of treaties it signed. Iraq has committed genocide against it's own people. Iraq has invaded two of it's neighbors. Putin says "Iraqi special forces are preparing terrorist attacks". Saddam Hussein praised the September 11th attacks. And to top it off, you are told that there exists, at minimum, high level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda - a group that blew up the basement of the World Trade Center, blew up two embassies, blew up a US battleship, blew up a good bit of the Pentagon, blew up the Twin Towers and would have blown up the Capitol building had they not been 'rolled' by some old fashioned hardnosed American citizens who decided not to 'wait and see' if their hijackers promises of safety could be trusted (126), (127) . Do you think, in all this, you just might conclude that we could not afford to wait, contain, and in the President's words, "trust, a madman"?

 

    Moore then shows gruesome footage of Iraqi civilian deaths, burn victims in the hospital and wailing civilians denouncing the United States. Some quick mathematics, using low end estimations, provides some perspective. According to most sources, it is estimated that there were between one and two million total casualties with at LEAST 300,000 killed in the Iran Iraq war of the 80's. (43) Sources indicate a reasonable low end estimate of Iraqi military deaths from the first gulf war is 15,000 and civilian deaths around 2,000 (44). Saddam personally initiated both these wars. It's claimed that as a result of sanctions and post war chaos many more died. According to a March 17 briefing at the State Department by Andrew Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development:

...took place in waves, over a 25-year period. Methodically, Saddam's forces destroyed villages, transferred women and children to detention camps and took away the men in trucks, some of them barefooted and naked, never to be seen again. Tens of thousands of people were taken far from their homes to distant camps in the deserts where they were killed, buried by bulldozers under tons of sand. (46)

This is not some random violence by out of control troops. This was systematic mass murder. The death tolls rival the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the killing fields of Cambodia under Pol Pot. (46) 

How many died in these mass murders? Some say 300,000, some say 400,000. There are estimates of upwards of   a  million. We are helping the Iraqis as they begin the terrible task of counting. (46)


    The lowest estimate available of these internal killings is 290,000 dead(137). When we add 290,000 internal deaths to 300,000 deaths from the Iraq-Iran war and 17,000 deaths from the first gulf war [ignoring the estimates for deaths due to sanctions] we get a grand total of 607,000 deaths over a 25 year period, which gives us 24,280 deaths a year. Remember, these are low end estimation averages and don't include wounded. Now, comparing this with the high end estimates of 13,000 Iraqi soldiers, 1,000 American soldiers and 4,300 civilians estimated killed during the major combat phase of most recent invasion (45), or even taking a higher estimate of 10,000 total civilian deaths up to present day (46), (48), we arrive at a high end number of 24,000 deaths in a period of 15 months or 19,200 a year. Ironically, at least some of the insurgents being counted as dead are foreign terrorists, including Al Qaeda operatives. We are also (most generously) absolving Saddam from all culpability for deaths in this war and blaming them all on the United States.

      The most ardent skeptic must see that even if one agrees with these shaky premises and accepts only the lowest and highest end estimates respectively and even throws in a few more thousand Iraqi deaths for good measure, the situation in Iraq is no different than it was under Saddam! But of course it clearly is better. We may have already "saved" about 10,000 people from dying if we use more reasonable average estimates instead of high and low. And it appears, despite a growing resentment of the American military presence, the Iraqi people agree (49), (50), (51). To portray happy dancing Iraqis and then burned corpses and wailing widows as symbolic of before-and-after the invasion is pure idiocy.

    Sometime in all of this, Moore shows footage of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein on December 17th 1983. Using the same tactic he used with Bin Laden, Saudi officials and the CIA in Afghan war, Moore accuses Rumsfeld, the Bush administration and the United States in general of having double standards in dealing with Saddam; again implying that we created Saddam for our own uses and continuing his theme that all problems stem from America.

    The position of the United States on the Iran-Iraq war was that there should be no winner. Initially Iraq pushed deep into Iran and Iran was aided, largely by weapons shipments, loans and purchases through third countries such as Israel. But Iran's huge and fanatical population began to turn the tables and as Iran came closer to winning the war the United States began sending limited advisers and aid to Iraq and sent an increased naval presence to limit Iran's aquatic maneuverings. Cruel? Perhaps. Necessary and practical? In retrospect it seems the answer is yes. If either Iran or Iraq would have prevailed in this conflict a monstrous entity would have been created that would have threatened the stability of the entire region and the world. Iran's  radical anti-American government was and still is the most prolific state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Saddam, at least, was secular and it was worried that the large Shiite population in the south of Iraq would be easily assimilated and converted to radicalism by Iran. But, Moore, as usual, would rather question the character and intentions of Rumsfeld and others than analyze the facts on the ground. 

    Did America create Saddam's powerful military machine? It can be argued we went too far in preventing an Iranian victory, but Saddam had more generous supporters. The Sunni gulf states, fearful of an Iranian victory, lent Saddam billions and funneled arms and military supplies to him. One of the main points of contention between Iraq and Kuwait was Kuwait's refusal to forgive Iraq's huge war debt to it. Europe and the Soviet Union were Iraq's main source of military hardware. German engineers constructed elaborate underground bunkers and France even sold Iraq a nuclear reactor! Luckily this was destroyed by the Israelis in 1981 (53), although, of course, condemned by the entire world, including the United States in a UN resolution:

The UN Security Council, in Resolution 487 of June 19, 1981, condemned the attack and said that “Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered.” (55)

    Of all the newspapers in the United States, only the Wall Street Journal editorial sided with Israel (56). We now know this action probably stopped Saddam from constructing a nuclear weapon. After the first gulf war, it was found that Saddam had a crash program for developing a nuclear weapon. (57)

    Moore then pretends our "coalition of the willing" consists mostly of Polynesian island countries and shows clips of half naked tribesmen with spears dancing around to bongo music. It was very cute and all, but in actuality there are over 30 countries with forces in Iraq including Great Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Italy, Spain [until recently (60)], Denmark and Norway just to name the larger ones. On June 30th, Rumsfeld said in a radio interview:

Well, we’ve got I think it’s 32 countries currently helping us in Iraq and I think that of those, probably 16 or 17 are NATO countries.  And any numbers of others are NATO Partnership for Peace countries -- countries that are loosely affiliated with NATO. (65)

    The fact that so many nations sent supporting forces and/or troops is revealing considering the rising Anti-Americanism mixed with public oppostion to the war that currently permeates the globe. Conservatives have suggested that the public support for the war among Eastern European populations as compared to the opposition of Western Europeans is because Easterners have an appreciation for freedom, having lived under the tyranny of communism. This is just speculation, but it is revealing that the governments of so many countries, especially Italy and Spain where opposition to the war consistantly polled higher than 70-80%, supported the war when their populations were against it. Even those against the war can admire the fortitude of these leaders standing for what they thought was right. But, instead of praising the great political risks these leaders took when siding with the United States, Moore and others, including the Democratic presidential nominee, slam them. Vice President Dick Cheney echoed Kerry's words in a speech:

Senator Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed." (116)

Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Senator Kerry describe Great Britain - coerced, or bribed? Or Italy - which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf - was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. (116)

         Senator Kerry now claims that Bush alienated allies and "unilaterally acted" and that he would bring more nations in to assist us in Iraq. On March 17th the USA Today reports the Senator said:

"....Europe and the Middle East have an interest in Iraq's success and that "this administration has failed utterly to bring all of those parties to the table." (117)

         Most European countries have sent troops. Turkey and Jordan have offered to send troops if the intern government requests them and almost all of the Gulf States are supporting US troops or bases, often over their populations objections. It's not clear to me how Kerry reconciles these two opposing statements. Moore's contradictory criticisms fail in the same way. Remember, the last United Nations security resolution (passed unanimously)  promised "serious consequences" if Saddam did not fully disclose his unaccounted weapons and cooperate with the weapons inspectors. He did neither. The United States then went back to the Security council to get a final resolution, but could not garner the votes.

       The only significant nations to actively lobby against the second resolution were France, Germany and Russia. (58) Interestingly, despite Moore's charge that the United States invaded for corporate and oil profit, the breaking oil for food corruption scandals suggests that these nations opposing the war may have had their own nefarious reasons for doing so as documented by Middle Eastern Research Institute (59). It would be interesting to ask Mr. Moore why the United States would topple Saddam if the Saudis were so opposed to the war? According to a recent Foxnews story:

.....spells out that Russian and Saudi Arabian companies were the big winners in the scheme, which was beset by bribes and kickbacks:  109 Saudi Arabian companies are listed on a document titled Exempted Arab and Foreign Companies for importing all items. (106)

    Saudi Arabia obviously didn't have that much pull if they couldn't prevent the war (all Arab countries including Saudi Arabia strongly opposed the war). Moore didn't even cover the usual leftist rants about Israel and the "Zionist lobby". At least we can be thankful Israel doesn't have oil, who knows what they would come up with then! Kopel (87) ponders that this may be because Jews tend to vote and contribute heavily to the Democrats. Bringing up these issues might interfer with Moore's stated aim of defeating Bush in the November elections. On a separate issue, it is illuminating that the BBC is reporting that France is opposed to sanctions against the Sudanese:

    Some one million people have fled their homes and at least 10,000 have been killed in what the UN calls "the world's worst humanitarian crisis." (107)

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan. (107)

Mr Muselier [the French ambassador] also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur. (107)

"I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women," he said. (107)

Human rights activists say the Janjaweed are conducting a genocide against Darfur's black African population. (107)

Those who have fled their homes say the Janjaweed ride on horses and camels into villages which have just been bombed by government aircraft, killing the men and raping the women. (107)

          According to Voanews, France's buddy Russia is also contributing to a stable situation in Darfur:

In recent days, Sudan is believed to have received the last of 12 MiG-29 fighter jets it had ordered from Russia. Although the deal was signed three-years ago, the timing of the delivery - five-months ahead of schedule - sparked deep concern about their potential use. (138)

Human-rights groups say refugees in Darfur have testified that their villages were bombed by Russian-made MiG jets belonging to the Sudanese air force. Many activists fear the new jets may be used in a renewed bombing campaign in Darfur. Sudan's threats against foreign intervention in Darfur have also raised fear they could be used against peacekeepers. (138)

      The Associated Press adds:

The top Russian and American diplomats discussed the humanitarian crisis in Sudan by telephone, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Monday, and were believed to have touched on Moscow's opposition to a U.S. call for U.N. sanctions against the Sudanese government. (139)

The ministry said Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Colin Powell dwelled on the crisis in the Darfur region during their talk Sunday. As many as 30,000 people, mostly black Africans, have been killed over the past 15 months, and an estimated 2.2 million are in urgent need of nutrition and medical attention. (139)

Last week, Russia was among Security Council members that moved to block efforts to threaten sanctions against Sudan for failing to prevent atrocities against civilians, objecting to the use of the word in a U.S.-drafted resolution. (139)

    And these are the countries that Moore and others seem to believe holds veto power over our attempts to stabilize the world, stop human rights violations, bring about political reform and defend our national security? It seems the exact charges that Moore and others level at the United States are actually most true when applied to our diplomatic opponents! 

   On Dec. 16 the New York Times ran a story describing Iraq's new foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari delivering his harsh verdict to the United Nations:

"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people," Mr. Zebari said in language unusually scolding for an occupant of the guest seat at the end of the curving Security Council table. (136)

"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure." (136)

He declared, "The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again." (136)

It was not immediately clear how the accusatory tone of Mr. Zebari's speech affected the closed-door discussion over the United Nations' role in Iraq that followed, but Secretary General Kofi Annan, the first to emerge from the hall, appeared taken aback. (136)

    It is also notable that during the first gulf war Saddam was not removed because of international and Arab opposition. Former President Bush Senior and former National Security advisor Brent Scrowcroft write they didn't remove Saddam because it:

.....would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. (108)

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. (108)

    However, some blame does lie with the first Bush administration for it's lack of boldness and leadership and preservation of the status quo. This is a clear example of what happens when one bends to the will of the international community and doesn't act decisively. I am sure Reagan and Bush Jr. would not have made this mistake. Funny that the awkward closure of the first gulf war is somehow used as an argument against this war. 

    Of course, Moore repeats the same charge that the media loves to misreport: that we haven't found weapons of mass destruction. This ignores the toxic botulism bacteria found in an Iraqi scientists home, hidden weapons programs, buried nuclear components and chemical weapons. On June 25th the Washington Times reported:

On the chemical munitions, Mr. Deulfer, who replaced David Kay as the head of the Iraq Survey Group earlier this year, said that the group has uncovered 10 to 12 bombs filled with blistering mustard gas or the nerve agent sarin. (61)

Earlier on May 7, another improvised explosive device was found containing mustard agent. All such weapons were supposed to have been destroyed by Saddam's regime under U.N. sanctions and the terms of the cease fire from the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war. (61)

    On July 6th the Associated Press reported that:

In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday. (104)

Also ferried out of Iraq was 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, the department said. (104)

''It speeds up the process,'' Oelrich said, adding that 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb. (104)

    It is unclear what if any of these radioactive sources were in violation of U.N. inspections, or how pure the Uranium was. 


    So Moore's statement that no WMD have been found is false. What does seem to be true is that Saddam did not possess the great cache of chemical and biological weapons that the United States, the United Nations and almost all countries, including France, Germany and Russia thought he possessed (113). However, even small amounts of Sarin and mustard gas, if used creatively by terrorists, could kill large numbers of people. Of course, it is still possible that larger caches of weapons remain hidden in Iraq or, according to some unsubstantiated rumors, may have been shipped off to Syria or Lybia. 

<SNIP>

Articles

Syria Struggles to Stay afloat - 11/10/04 Strategy Page reports Syria may be the first of the Arab regimes to fall after the invasion of Iraq. A reverse Domino effect? 

Jordan to Introduce Democratic Reform - 1/26/04 Associated Press describes how Jordan is encouraging Iraqis in Jordan to vote in Iraq's elections and is expanding elections in Jordan for Jordanians. 

BUSH TO SYRIA: SCRAM (posted 3/4/05)

3/4/05 The New York Post interviews President Bush who says of Syrian troop withdrawal from Lebanon:'This is non-negotiable. It is time to get out'. This is in response to massive demonstrations after the assassination of anti-Syrian Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. ABC news reports: With shouts of "Syria out!" 25,000 protesters massed outside Parliament in a dramatic display of defiance Monday that forced out Lebanon's pro-Syrian prime minister and Cabinet. <..> It is the first victory, but it will not be the last," opposition leader and former information minister Ghazi al-Areedh told the crowd in a scene broadcast live around the Arab world.

    Even more amazing, an Israeli paper reports: Lebanese opposition members have asked Israel to encourage the United States to pressure Syria into withdrawing its troops from Lebanon. <..> Lebanese figures contacted Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz's advisor, Uri Lubrani, among other officials in Jerusalem, and indicated they were determined to keep struggling against the Syrian presence in Lebanon but need American support. An Arab nation asking for Israel's help for the first time in modern history for the purpose of securing the only real pressure that can protect the demonstrators and actually force Syria out: pressure from the United States of America! This is reminiscent of the recent Ukraine protestors, who, again backed by the United States, overthrew the corrupt establishment after a rigged election. 

    In other news, President Bush's push for freedom across the Middle East continues to jolt, albeit slowly, tyrants into action. The autocratic dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt recently gave a speech Touting "freedom and democracy," Mubarak told an audience at Menoufia University, north of Cairo, that he asked parliament and the consultative Shura Council to amend the constitution's Article 76 on presidential elections <..> and said multiple candidates could run in the nation's presidential elections, a scenario Mubarak hasn't faced since taking power in 1981. This (2/26/05) article, especially it's headline, is biased because Mubarak really isn't changing anything because of restrictive stipulations around who can run. Laughably, Ayman Nour, who is one of the strongest proponents of an open election and who was arrested by Egyptian police last month, praised Mubarak's announcement in a statement from jail. Nour called it "an important and courageous move" toward "comprehensive constitutional reform," in a statement read by his wife, Gamila Ismael. Horray!

   In Libya (3/2/05), Dictator Muammar Gaddafi blathered: let "freedoms blossom" "The people power and the direct democracy in Libya came to give an alternative to the worsening political crisis in the world where everywhere outside Libya dictatorship rules," he declared. <..> Gaddafi said the people of the United States, Britain and Italy were living "under the yoke of dictatorships" and invited their politicians, scholars and intellectuals to visit Libya to learn how "the only genuine democracy works".

 

At least they are running scared. :)

 

Posted 12/20/06 (By Travis)

Iraq's Economy is Booming

12/25/06 Newsweek

    Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. "The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private enterprise could blossom," says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight. "In a sense, they've succeeded."

 

Return to Fahrenheit 911

Return to main page