U.S. and U.N. Policymakers
Secretly Grateful for Saddam


caricature by Pritchett

"There is no parallel between bombs and bulldozers.... We cannot have an environment in which
people believe the way to get what they want is to kill innocent people...."

United States President William Jefferson Clinton, August 8, 1997

Hypocrite hyp'o-crite, n., (see hypocrisy} one who plays a part on the stage, a feigner, for the purpose of winning approbation or favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.
(Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913)

Even though the current crisis in the standoff between Iraq and United Nations arms inspectors appears to be winding down and backing away from the precipice of war, the United States has still assumed the lead among "free world" nations in escalating the potential risk of a first strike nuclear attack. In taking the next step toward a limited unilateral nuclear assault, the Pentagon, in January, announced for the first time since the Gulf War that the use of atomic weapons against Iraq would not be ruled out. The apparent success of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's diplomatic journey to Iraq has, in reality, changed nothing in America's posture toward the Arab country.

In a Washington press conference Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon, responding to media questions, made an ominous and historically portentous statement. [1]

Reporter: I just wanted to check: has the President ruled out a response to weapons of mass destruction with our own weapons of mass destruction?

Bacon: The Administration's policy on this is very clear. We will respond decisively with devastating force.

Reporter: The reason I ask is because if some of these targets are buried targets, the best weapons to get after them are the nuclear penetrating bombs. Has that been ruled out?

Bacon: I don't think we've ruled anything in or out in this regard. Our position is that we would respond very aggressively.

GOVERNMENT-SPEAK TRANSLATION: We will use nuclear weapons if we want to.

Mr. Bacon, in an apparent unconscious oxymoron, later announced that the USS "Independence" had joined the carrier battle groups of the USS George Washington and USS Nimitz.

A recent article in The WINDS entitled, Nuclear Genocide Much Nearer Now documented the United States' departure from its historical cold war policy and how it is now willing to use atomic weapons on a first strike initiative. In an even greater departure from this nation's longstanding nuclear doctrine, the Presidential Decision Directive issued in November indicated that that willingness included possible first strikes against countries possessing no nuclear capabilities and no practical ability to retaliate.

On the advisability of using "smart" weapons on Iraqi targets Air Force Col. Bob Gaskin, ret., "who helped plan the 1991 air campaign and who has analyzed potential targets in North Korea," said, "'I'm not so sure bombing these things is the smartest thing in the world....The only way it won't be a problem is if you nuke it.'" [2]

Ramsey Clark, Former Attorney General under President Lyndon Johnson, and a longtime opponent of U.S. Iraqi policy says, "The 'First Strike' option is in direct violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which both Iraq and the U.S. have signed. The plans to use nuclear weapons against Iraq were reported in the February 1st issue of the New York-based Newsday."

In his press conference Kenneth Bacon stated something of which the Pentagon, State Department and White House have rarely missed an opportunity of re-reminding the American public. "We know," the Department of Defense spokesman said, "that Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past against its own people and against people in Iran." That information, repeated to mind-numbing redundancy, is somehow never accompanied by any reminder that this nation is the only one to have ever used nuclear weapons in combat--when, by a preponderance of current historical evidence, the enemy against which they were applied were ready and willing to surrender. [3]

U.S. ADMINISTRATION FEIGNS ANGER OVER SADDAM
The New World Order and its globalist organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), have a not-so-hidden agenda for Iraq and its usefulness to the UN (U.S.). That agenda was very clearly outlined in Time Magazine, Sept. 16, 1996 in an essay entitled, "Thank Goodness for a Villain" by Fareed Zakaria. Mr. Zakaria is managing editor for Foreign Affairs, the official publication of the CFR. In his Time essay, Zakaria lays out the Council's reasoning behind why Saddam Hussein is the best thing that has happened to American foreign policy. His first statement, sub-headlining the piece, is "Yes, it's tempting to get rid of Saddam. But his bad behavior actually serves America's purposes in the region."

Zakaria goes on to address the most frequent complaint; that the U.S. did not bring "closure" to the Gulf War by ending Saddam's reign--and that this fact erroneously represents "the failure of American diplomacy in the Middle East. Nothing," the CFR's chief editor claims, "could be further from the truth. If Saddam Hussein did not exist, we would have to invent him. He is the linchpin of American policy in the Mideast. Without him, Washington would be stumbling in the desert sands."

For all of America's beating the drum of human rights, the real reason for this nation's involvement in Iraq is made clear when Mr. Zakaria explains that it's the economy, stupid--that is, of course--money. "The Persian Gulf is an area of vital interest to the United States, with vast reserves of oil--the lifeblood of the industrialized world...."

In maintaining "allies abroad and public support at home," Zakaria claims, "...Saddam Hussein immeasurably helps both tasks. If not for Saddam," he asks, rhetorically, "would the Saudi royal family, terrified of being seen as an American protectorate (which in a sense it is), allow American troops on their soil? Would Kuwait house more that 30,000 pieces of American combat hardware, kept in readiness should the need arise? Would the King of Jordan, the political weather vane of the region, allow the marines to conduct exercises within his borders?"

This managing editor of the "linchpin" organization for globalism and the New World Order in America clearly presents the position this country takes with respect to the "global village". If the U.S. had "finished the job" by removing Saddam, Zakaria points out, it would be necessary to govern that country for some time until a western-style democracy could be installed. We would not, he explains, be able to manage the Kurdish rebellion in the north nor the Shiite rebellion in the south because, he implies, we have an image of a kinder, gentler nation to maintain.

"Saddam is able to manage because he is a rapacious dictator who runs a police state. We could not be similarly unconstrained by decency." As seen in Latin American countries, our method is to allow our supported--or tolerated--dictators accomplish this brutal work for us. In that manner, our hands remain clean but the job still gets done.

"Above all," Zakaria drives home the point, "the end of Saddam Hussein would be the end of the anti-Saddam coalition. Nothing destroys an alliance like the disappearance of the enemy." And it has become most obvious that this "enemy" fortuitously provides the U.S. the continuing opportunity to control the political direction of the Middle East.

"With all its problems," Zakaria concludes, "a Middle East with a defanged, but still threatening, Saddam helps secure American interests."


AT WHAT COST, AMERICAN INTERESTS?

The United Nations Charter states as part of its mandate, "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace...."

Syncretism (syn'cre-tism), n. Attempted union of principles irreconcilably at variance with each other.
(Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (1913)

UN sanctions have resulted in:

the deaths of 560,000 Iraqi children since 1990
12% of surviving children suffering severe malnutrition
28% exhibiting stunted growth from malnutrition
diarrhea and dehydration resulting from contaminated water or food.
epidemics from primitive sanitary conditions
[Source: The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)]
The use of economic sanctions in maintaining an unsettled, non-unified Middle East has resulted in the genocidal extermination of fully five per cent of Iraq's total population of what used to be twenty million. According to the United Nations' commentary on its own Genocide Treaty, to which the U.S. is a signatory, "...the 1948 adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide....states that genocide, 'whether committed in time of peace or in time of war', is a crime under international law and should be punished by a States tribunal or by an 'international penal tribunal'". [4]

Ramsey Clark, in a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan concerning the sanctions against Iraq said, "They are genocide as defined by the Convention Against Genocide and take several hundred more lives each day. There can be no link between these sanctions which afflict the weakest members of society and any acts of the government of Iraq. International law prohibits the use of starvation as a weapon even in times of war."


ALBRIGHT SAYS STARVING CHILDREN TO DEATH IS WORTH IT

In addressing the deaths of 1.5 million souls, nearly half of whom are children, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gave America's official response. A 60 Minutes interview with Secretary Albright being questioned by Leslie Stahl brought the following question and response:

Lesley Stahl: "We have heard that half a million children died, I mean that's more children than died at Hiroshima [by a factor of more than 10 to 1] and, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice but the price, we think, the price is worth it."

Commenting on his visit to Iraq, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton exclaimed, "I have never seen such devastation and suffering." [5]

The man who directed plans and operations at the Pentagon during Desert Storm, retired Lt. Gen. Thomas Kelly, confirmed the U.S. posture toward Iraq in a January 29th interview on National Public Radio. Commentator Robert Segal asked General Kelly how he "would design a bombing campaign that would achieve its intended result." Gen. Kelly's response carried an air of almost machismo arrogance:

Gen. Kelly: "...We would take out the suspected locations [of weapons of mass destruction].

"The second thing I would take out is all of his palaces.

"The third thing I would take out is his Republican Guard and air force as the greatest power projection enhancers that he has. And I'd also do a little bit to his army.

"Number four I'd take out his depots--his ammo depots, repair parts depots--the things that give his military machine any kind of sinews, which I don't believe they have many of them left.

"I would take out the electrical generation capability he has. We did that during the Gulf War.

"Then I would take out his oil refining capability that fuel his engines inside the country. And then on a program basis I'd start taking out his oil wells."

The NPR commentator argued that neither "the very extensive air campaigns in Desert Storm [the largest air warfare campaign in history] nor the occasional strikes...or several years of sanctions--none of this so far has loosened Saddam Hussein and the Ba'thist's grip on power in Baghdad--nor would this wave of attacks you're describing." Then Segal asked, "What would you say to that?"

"That may be true," Gen. Kelly replied, "but you don't have a right to do nothing."

Simply stated, the general's position and, by all indications, that of the current administration and the majority of American people, is that even if it does no good at all, it is better to kill and destroy than "to do nothing". It must be remembered that these military men do not make policy. They only receive it.

Kelly then went on to say that his plan for military intervention would be "a new ball game with a real bombing campaign. I'm talking about going in there and," Kelly emphasizes, "breaking things and hurting people." This is a modification of the old military saying that the real purpose of war is to "break things and kill people." Are the bombs that General Kelly would drop on Iraqis calibrated to just "hurt" them?

Most columnists and, especially, conservative pundits are claiming that the victor in this most recent standoff is Saddam Hussein. With his economy in shambles, five per cent of his population dead from UN sanctions, his electrical power distribution and communications systems still dwelling partly in the Stone Age--is this some strange new definition of the word "victor" with which Webster is unaware?

In light of other comments he made during the NPR interview, why would Gen. Kelly take such an intransigent position? "Remember [Saddam Hussein] had an army that refused to fight," Kelly said. "Remember that the defeat that he was administered was so severe that he no longer had the power to project himself outside Iraq."

If Saddam "no longer had the power to project himself outside Iraq" and concerning his parts and repair depots about which Gen. Kelly said, "I don't believe they have many of them left"; and if Saddam is incapable of managing a destroyed economy and a starving population, why is Kelly so adamant about inflicting further damage upon an already intensely suffering people?


WILL THE REAL "BUTCHER OF BAGHDAD" STAND UP ?

In his aforementioned letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Ramsey Clark outlined a reprehensible history of slaughter directed toward Iraq and its citizens and the inevitability of further civilian casualties.

"There is no chance that such an assault would not kill innocent civilians. While then - U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger proclaimed it 'was impossible' that civilians were killed by surprise U.S. air strikes against the sleeping Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986, we now know hundreds of civilians were killed. It is impossible to bomb cities without killing civilians.

"In the last three days of his presidency January 17-19, 1993, George Bush ordered hundreds of cruise missiles and air strikes to be launched against Iraq causing scores of civilian deaths. One cruise missile struck the Al Rashid Hotel killing two hotel service employees. U.S. intelligence agencies believed Saddam Hussein was to attend an international Islamic meeting in the Al Rashid at the time.

"When President Clinton ordered 23 cruise missiles to be launched toward Baghdad on June 26, 1993, justifying his acts by citing the right to self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, they managed to kill dozens of civilians including the internationally known Layla al-Altar, artist and Director General of Iraq's National Center for Arts, and her husband when a missile hit their home.

"The United States has made a shooting gallery of the 'Cradle of Civilization.' People live there. Their lives are threatened and some are lost every time the U.S. decides, for its own political interests, to attack. When the Security Council authorizes, or condones, such attacks, it, too, is guilty of crimes against humanity."

In spite of the apparent endless verbosity put forth concerning the intense evils of the "Butcher of Baghdad," where is the evidence to warrant the nearly Carthaginian peace thrust upon the Iraqi people? Where is all the evidence of weapons of mass destruction? When UNSCOM and UN chief arms inspector Richard Butler were challenged by Russia and China to present such evidence to the Security Council, a letter from Butler appeared in the January 30th issue of the New York Times, in which Butler declared that he "had no such knowledge".

Mr. Clark adds, "The Security Council should announce that after seven years no credible evidence has been found that Iraq is manufacturing or possesses new nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons..." and that the "food for oil" agreement thrust upon Iraq is "the one crime against humanity in this last decade of the millennium that exceeds all others...."


WHAT DOES THE "CHURCH" HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE MATTER?

The WINDS conducted a non-scientific straw poll of Christian ministers of various denominations. Each was asked simply, "Are you for or against U.S. military intervention in Iraq should they continue to resist UN arms inspection?" In this random sampling 81% of these "men of God" were in favor of bombing Iraq and 19% against. One minister, who polled "against," gave as his reason that there are large numbers of Christian congregations in those areas to be targeted. He indicated that, were they not there, he would have answered in favor of the bombing. Nearly all ministers opposed to military assault were not against it for any expressed humanitarian reasons, but rather for political concerns such as lack of support from other countries or America's unwillingness to "finish the job".

These men, representing by profession, the One whom the prophet Isaiah calls the Prince of Peace, are apparently in harmony with the majority of their clerical brethren. The Washington Post reported Sunday, Feb. 22nd on President and Mrs. Clinton's attendance of a worship service at a D.C. church. In his sermon at the Foundry United Methodist Church, Bishop Felton May "urged the president to face up to 'the bullies of the world.' But when the Clintons walked out, several dozen protesters chanted, 'Mr. Bill, thou shall not kill.'"

Here indeed is an ominous spectacle--the secular world finding it necessary to remind the church and a professed Christian president that there is a universal Law among which is one called the Sixth Commandment. A serious rhetorical question begs itself at this juncture. What is this nation?--what has it become that it could be our national policy--such as has been just expressed by General Kelly and the prevailing opinion of American Christian ministers?


AN AMERICAN HISTORY OF MEDIA MANIPULATION AND ABUSE

This nation has a considerable historical precedent for its actions against Iraq in the persons of Native Americans. The media has always been used to preparing public acceptance for that which would normally be unacceptable to a citizenry fixated on the idea that its own concept of morals should be the standard for the world.

The media is called the "fourth estate" for more than just a convenient title. It simply means that, in addition to the other three estates of government--executive, legislative and judicial--the media is no more than an unofficial branch of the government. And like the others it, for the most part, "dances with the one that brung it."

The media cooperation given the government in its propaganda assault on Iraq's moral position seems strongly reminiscent of another such "information" blitz in American history.

"They are a dissolute, vagabondish, brutal, and ungrateful race and ought to be wiped from the face of the earth"
--Rocky Mountain News editorial March, 1863.

In that same year, of 27 articles dealing with Native American Indians, 20 called for their extermination. The white American citizenry of that time was thoroughly indoctrinated by the media with the concept that death was the only viable solution to resolve government problems with the Cheyenne and Arapaho nations.

The Rocky Mountain News also published the editorial comment in August 1864, "go for them, their lodges, squaws and all." [6]

L. Frank Baum, author of The Wizard of Oz, was the editor of the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer at the time of the massacre at Wounded Knee, South Dakota in 1891. Ten days prior to that infamous occurrence Baum, in an editorial, urged a campaign of genocidal extermination against all Native Americans. "The nobility of the Redskin is extinguished," Baum wrote, "and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians." Here is a respected American editor damning the Indians for defending themselves and their ancestral lands, and then damning them when they stop and want peace. Will the Iraqis suffer the same excoriation because they have now bowed the knee to the United Nations?

"Why not annihilation?", Baum continues his assault upon the Indian. "Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they should die than live, miserable wretches that they are." A week and a half later the Sioux would lie dead on the snow-covered ground of Wounded Knee. Baum, later expressing his approval of the slaughter said, "we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up...and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth."

And where were the "Christians" during this part of American history? The most infamous massacre of American Indians, next to the incident at Wounded Knee, was the 200 killed and mutilated, mostly woman and children, of a largely disarmed Cheyenne village at Sand Creek, Colorado. The Massacre was led by a Methodist minister, Col. John Chivington, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS).

"Ironically, Chivington not only received a commendation for his attack on these people but was honored both by Coloradans and Methodists at his death in October 1894 as a hero and pioneer." (ibid.)


HISTORICAL REVISIONISM OR REVEALED TRUTH?


"He who writes a nation's history also controls its future."
--George Orwell

One of the most execrated sects of today's American society, in the mind of the conservative patriot, are those they call "historical revisionists". While it is true that some sacrifice accuracy in their re-writing of history to suit their particular agendas, the fact remains that those who have established the current view of this nation's past were equally guilty and, perhaps even more so, of tailoring history's power to suit themselves.

The motives of those so noisily bringing attention to this obfuscated history is irrelevant. What is relevant is the overruling of man's purposes by the One who proclaimed,


"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." Luke 12:2&3


REFERENCES:

1. Pentagon Press Briefing: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 - 1:45 p.m. Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA,

2. The Washington Post - Feb. 1, 1998

3. "The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb--and the Architecture of an American Myth", Gar Alperovits, Knopf N.Y., 1995.

4. United Nations Press Release L/2819, 7 February, 1997.

5. The Washington Post, January 21, 1998.

6. American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World, David E. Stannard, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.


Written 1/30/98
Copyright © 1998, The WINDS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. http://www.TheWinds.org

Images Copyrighted © Noel Mollon. Used with permission.


Wisdom And Freedom produced by WORLD NEWSSTAND
Copyright © 1999. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


Send this article to a friend!

NameEmail
You:
Friend:


Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.


Copyright© 2003, 2010
All Rights Reserved

H O M E