Ayoon wa Azan (Pretexts For A Lying War)

Jihad Al Khazen     Al-Hayat     2003/07/15

Would the U.S. and the UK have sent their young men to fight in Iraq, had they known that the regime in Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction?

I don't need to answer this question, because the lie that was used to justify war has blown in the faces of those who made it up, and each day we are hearing yet a new story, or one that contradicts the other.

We all wanted Saddam Hussein to fall, and we all rejoiced during his collapse. But the war was waged because the Israeli gang in the U.S. administration planned it for purely Israeli reasons, sacrificing the lives of Americans, British and Iraqis.

As I was reading the details about the lies that Washington and London set jointly, and I was not one bit surprised to find out that two Sharonist advocates, Michael Ledeen and Barbara Amiel were launching a counter attack, as the first one attacked Reuters and the second attacked the British Radio council.

But that was some sort of a blinding smoke as the real issue is the following:

George Bush lied in his State of the Union address last January. His Secretary of State Colin Powell also lied in his report to the Security Council last February. The British government lied in its report about the banned Iraqi weapons last September, and once again in its second report issued last February.

Before I continue, I shall mention that President Bush did not lie personally, but was lied to, and so was Powell. I also believe that British Premier Tony Blair faced the same situation, and hence I am not attacking them in person. President Bush said that his talking about uranium was an "honest mistake."

The American lie was about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger, knowing that the information was proven wrong before President Bush's speech in this regard. I shall not get into the details, but I will however choose some of the latest news, as CIA director George Tenet convinced the White House to remove the part about uranium from Bush's speech last October, because there was only one, uncertain, source of information. Nevertheless, this part figured in the President's State of the Union address three months later. Who put this lie in the speech? Once again, I accuse Israel's supporters and remind the reader of the substitute Intelligence Services that they established in the Department of Defense as to provide fake information regarding the danger of Saddam's regime, knowing that the CIA never submitted what they really wanted to hear. President Bush accused Tenet last week, and then withdrew his accusation. Then the CIA replied to the President. The question is, who lied to whom, why and when?

On the other hand, both British reports were silly to the extent that they were the work of amateurs. In fact, the first report issued last September relied on old intelligence information, some of which was two years old. As for the second one, it contained plagiarized information from the Internet and from a graduate thesis. Facing the American lie about uranium, the British came up with their own lie, as the second report stated that Saddam Hussein could start his weapons of mass destruction machinery within 45 minutes, which is absurd considering the war results. Actually, it turned out that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction in the first place.

Still, Secretary of State Colin Powell displayed recordings made by the Americans, before the Security Council, to show that there were weapons of mass destruction. He even determined their chemical and biological weight as well as their locations. Once again, Powell did not deliberately lie, as he was lied to just like his boss was. The American troops rushed to the alleged locations and found nothing.

Shall I add more about these lies, or about their repercussions? U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted last week before the Congress that the expenses of the American military presence in Iraq have reached 3.9 billion dollars per month, meaning the double of the first estimates. It turned out that the war has so far cost 100 billion dollars, as in almost four times the primary estimates, knowing that those who sought war tried from the beginning to make it look like a low budget picnic that should be made to kill the danger that Saddam represented to the region and the world peace.

Today, the U.S. is paying the lives of its youth as the price of the Israeli gang's conspiracy to serve Israel, while General Tommy Franks told Congress last week that violence would go on for the time being in Iraq. The American civil governor in Iraq, Paul Bremer, wrote an article on Sunday in the New York Times, in which he asserts that the attacks are of no strategic danger to the U.S. or to democracy in Iraq.

Why would the U.S. make a mistake in setting the reasons for war, with the UK for an ally, and then the claimed "allies" (the U.S. and some followers) would still pay the price? British newspapers published last week the results of surveys showing a decrease in supporters for the war in Britain, while American newspapers also said that Bush's supporters fell 9 points in 18 days, reaching hence 59 per cent according to the last survey, knowing that it was once 90 per cent.

It would only be fair for those who planned the war to pay the price with Saddam Hussein and with the innocent Iraqi, American and British victims who were absurdly dragged into this battle, even though I personally am in favor for Saddam's collapse.