english.daralhayat.com 2008/12/04 17:39 GMT

A Very Independent Investigation

Abdulwahab Badrakhan Al-Hayat 2004/02/5

Undoubtedly they are great and developed countries, and certainly democratic, they are even states of law. However, they keep giving the bad example of what is supposed to be essentially democratic and legal. Perhaps because it is related to foreign policy, however, public opinion showed exasperation and rejection of what this policy stands for, and the sick mentality, which seeks war just for the sake of war. Since, it must affect internal policy as well. Britons realized this early. Americans are still accepting the game, reluctant, one day with, another against.

Rogue states now have a thousand reasons to say that the superpowers are emulating, even competing with, them. While the "rogues" avoid what is called investigations, questioning, or inquiries or resorting to the judiciary or appealing to intelligence information, because they do not see a necessity for these practices, the "powers" are making every effort to avoid all this, and if they have to, they ration them to achieve the same result. The rule is that the "regime," "government," or "administration" does what it sees fit. Justifications are created later.

A quick look at what is going on: George W. Bush succumbs to pressures and decides to investigate the claims about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). These weapons were his pretext with which he convinced the Americans of the "necessity" of the war on Iraq. He told them that the danger is imminent, and that Saddam Hussein's regime is about to drop a nuclear bomb over the United States. He ridiculed the UN inspectors before the war. He could not disrespect American inspectors after the war. Hence, he should settle this issue before his elections campaign. Why? Because the war's cost was heavier than it was supposed to be. Undoubtedly, the voter would have accepted this high price had he sensed that he is paying it to ward off an imminent threat. However, to be told that the WMDs evaporated and did not exist in the first place, as David Kay did, it only means that there is someone who created the deception and directed it.

Tony Blair seemed adamant to be the only one, in Britain at least, if not in the world, who believed, and is still does, that the weapons exist. He said that repeatedly, aware that no one believes him anymore. Now, with the change in Washington's tone, he too had to succumb, although he was just cleared by a judge who exaggerated his [Blair] honesty to the extent of exposing him.

Contrary to the American game, which began by considering the president to be above suspicions and accusations, Blair supported a British investigation bound with conditions. Like Bush, his "faithful ally," they both blamed the intelligence agencies. Here and there, nothing is easier than getting rid of a few people, who originally are to be changed, at the top of these agencies. Hence, not only the investigation is going to report to the public, but also heads will be rolled.

Here and there, the investigation is labeled "independent," but it is subjected to much restrictions. It is possible to scrutinize the information and its sources; however, how the government chose to use this information is off limits. New conclusions could be reached, but no reminding of the agencies' warnings at that time. Which means that the agencies are invited to prove that it was they who erred, without accusing anyone of falsifying the facts.

This is the proposed game to keep the lie afloat, since it protects Bush and Blair. Hence, any inquiry is not expected to tell the truth, which would lead to an endless cycle of inquiries.

In any case, the collapse of the former Iraqi regime, along with its president, seems to be the last refuge for the American president and the British Prime Minister to justify the war. The funny tearful thing is that the agencies themselves are using the "former Iraqi opposition's information" as a pretext to weasel out of responsibility. As a matter of fact, the agencies clashed with a political decision, already taken, to wage the war and were asked to find justifications, and they did. On the other hand, the opponents realized that the agencies need help so, in turn, they worked hard, and what happened happened.

Before the British inquiry got underway, Blair announced that he would not accept condemning him of the war decision. He also went far in setting a ceiling for this investigation, to the extent that he formed the decision in advance. The most that the new British Judge, Lord Butler can aspire to is to advise the government not to repeat its manipulation and exaggeration of the information. In Washington, what Bush cares about most is for the investigation not to affect his elections campaign. That is why he approved of it within the framework of a "deal" with his Democratic opponents. That is how "independent" investigations should be, or let them not to be.

<h1>A Very Independent Investigation</h1><h4>Abdulwahab Badrakhan     Al-Hayat     2004/02/5</h4>Undoubtedly they are great and developed countries, and certainly democratic, they are even states of law. However, they keep giving the bad example of what is supposed to be essentially democratic and legal. Perhaps because it is related to foreign policy, however, public opinion showed exasperation and rejection of what this policy stands for, and the sick mentality, which seeks war just for the sake of war. Since, it must affect internal policy as well. Britons realized this early. Americans are still accepting the game, reluctant, one day with, another against.Rogue states now have a thousand reasons to say that the superpowers are emulating, even competing with, them. While the "rogues" avoid what is called investigations, questioning, or inquiries or resorting to the judiciary or appealing to intelligence information, because they do not see a necessity for these practices, the "powers" are making every effort to avoid all this, and if they have to, they ration them to achieve the same result. The rule is that the "regime," "government," or "administration" does what it sees fit. Justifications are created later.A quick look at what is going on: George W. Bush succumbs to pressures and decides to investigate the claims about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). These weapons were his pretext with which he convinced the Americans of the "necessity" of the war on Iraq. He told them that the danger is imminent, and that Saddam Hussein's regime is about to drop a nuclear bomb over the United States. He ridiculed the UN inspectors before the war. He could not disrespect American inspectors after the war. Hence, he should settle this issue before his elections campaign. Why? Because the war's cost was heavier than it was supposed to be. Undoubtedly, the voter would have accepted this high price had he sensed that he is paying it to ward off an imminent threat. However, to be told that the WMDs evaporated and did not exist in the first place, as David Kay did, it only means that there is someone who created the deception and directed it.Tony Blair seemed adamant to be the only one, in Britain at least, if not in the world, who believed, and is still does, that the weapons exist. He said that repeatedly, aware that no one believes him anymore. Now, with the change in Washington's tone, he too had to succumb, although he was just cleared by a judge who exaggerated his [Blair] honesty to the extent of exposing him.Contrary to the American game, which began by considering the president to be above suspicions and accusations, Blair supported a British investigation bound with conditions. Like Bush, his "faithful ally," they both blamed the intelligence agencies. Here and there, nothing is easier than getting rid of a few people, who originally are to be changed, at the top of these agencies. Hence, not only the investigation is going to report to the public, but also heads will be rolled.Here and there, the investigation is labeled "independent," but it is subjected to much restrictions. It is possible to scrutinize the information and its sources; however, how the government chose to use this information is off limits. New conclusions could be reached, but no reminding of the agencies' warnings at that time. Which means that the agencies are invited to prove that it was they who erred, without accusing anyone of falsifying the facts.This is the proposed game to keep the lie afloat, since it protects Bush and Blair. Hence, any inquiry is not expected to tell the truth, which would lead to an endless cycle of inquiries.In any case, the collapse of the former Iraqi regime, along with its president, seems to be the last refuge for the American president and the British Prime Minister to justify the war. The funny tearful thing is that the agencies themselves are using the "former Iraqi opposition's information" as a pretext to weasel out of responsibility. As a matter of fact, the agencies clashed with a political decision, already taken, to wage the war and were asked to find justifications, and they did. On the other hand, the opponents realized that the agencies need help so, in turn, they worked hard, and what happened happened.Before the British inquiry got underway, Blair announced that he would not accept condemning him of the war decision. He also went far in setting a ceiling for this investigation, to the extent that he formed the decision in advance. The most that the new British Judge, Lord Butler can aspire to is to advise the government not to repeat its manipulation and exaggeration of the information. In Washington, what Bush cares about most is for the investigation not to affect his elections campaign. That is why he approved of it within the framework of a "deal" with his Democratic opponents. That is how "independent" investigations should be, or let them not to be.