Dis-Mything 9-11 Supplement A: Iraq -- S.O.P.?
by L. Reichard White
[email protected]

Special to TLE

CNBCs MARK HAINES: "Should we go after Saddam Hussein now?" EDWARD PECK, Former. U.S. Diplomatic Chief to Iraq: "No. Not to be flip, but we do not talk to Saddam Hussein anywhere any place any time. This is not reasonable policy. We withdrew the arms inspectors, he didn't throw them out as the media constantly claims. We need to talk to him to find out what he'll do. We know Iraq has no nukes or large chemical weapons capacity because in this day and age such facilities can't be hidden effectively. Biological weapons are another thing. ... It would help to have inspectors on site in the country if you want to find them. The inspectors couldn't be American because of the problems they had before. [1] ... The world would say you have stopped sticking it to the people of Iraq. What we've been doing to Iraq for the last 11 years is, I think, why many people hate the policies of the U.S. government. ... He [Saddam Hussein] may be a thug, but we've worked with thugs for decades, and while he's a dirtbag, he's no worse than many others we've worked with -- and we worked with him before. ... I think you can get what you want from Saddam Hussein without violating all the principles that we stand for, but you have to talk to him if you're going to do that." -Edward Peck Fmr. U.S. Diplomatic Chief to Iraq, Chairman, Administration Task Force on Terrorism, CNBC, December 6, 2001, 09:25:59

My wife and I were visiting Poland when the Berlin wall came tumbling down. We watched footage via satellite on the TV of a disgustingly rich -- by Polish standards of the day -- business friend.

My wife and I joked about the U.S. not having the Soviet Union to kick around any more. Who will they find as a replacement?

Someone came up with Iraq. If you remember, it was promoted like a terminally mis-matched Monday Night Football contest: "The world's third largest army," "the Mother of All Battles" -- and other such baloney.

In the brief hiatus between Desert Shield and Desert Storm, George Bush the Senior was a few votes shy of "War Powers" in Congress. He assured the congressmen that he wouldn't jump the gun and actually start a shooting war with Iraq. He just wanted Congress to "Send Saddam a message."

More naive then, I told my wife "He needs too many votes. The congress critters won't go for it."

My wife said, "Yes they will."

History shows that Bush the Senior got six of his congressional votes thru constructed lies engineered by high-powered PR firm Hill & Knowlton. One Ms. Lauri Fitz-Pegado coached a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl calling herself "Nayira" at the time, to testify before Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers remove Kuwaiti babies from hospital respirators. That incident was cited by six senators as the reason they voted to go to "war" with Iraq. Desert Storm wouldn't have happened without Nayira and those six votes.

It was later discovered that "Nayira" was actually the daughter of Kuwait's Ambassador to the U.S. -- and she hadn't been anywhere near Kuwait at the time of the supposed respirator incident.

Then I told my wife, "Iraq was our ally just six months ago -- and they're beginning to stand down. George (Herbert Walker) Bush won't start shooting."

My wife said, "Yes he will."

Despite the fact the U.S. was still shipping munitions to it's ally Iraq as late as August, 1990 (and pathogenic microorganisms as late as October 13, 1993 ), and despite Bush's assurances to congress and the American people, on January 17, 1991, just five days after congress sent Saddam the message, (and 14 days after the U.S. Defense Department began to censor war reporting) Bush commenced Desert Storm at 3 a.m. Baghdad time.

Congress -- and the oft cited "American People" -- were railroaded into the Gulf "War" [2] by concocted information and false promises by George (Herbert Walker) Bush.

And as a matter of fact, it looks like America's erstwhile ally, Saddam Hussein -- and the reluctant "Iraqi People" -- were also railroaded into that "War" as well.

The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq at the time had a meeting with Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990, just eight days before Iraq invaded Kuwait. Satellite pictures and world news coverage of the situation made it certain United States authorities were well aware of what was about to happen. None the less the U.S. Ambassador, April Glaspie, told ally Saddam Hussein only that "we have no opinion on the Arab- Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. ... We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

If you had attended that meeting, what would you have concluded? It's clear the Gulf so-called War could have almost certainly been averted, even by bumbling bureaucrats. But it wasn't. Somebody wanted that war.

Now before you write me off for that assertion, consider that this type of operation, scamming nations into wars, is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). Head Nazi Hermann Goering at his Nuremberg War Crimes trial explains the strategy and tactics:

Why of course the people don't want war. ... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along ... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
- Hermann Goering

And here are an example or two of just such strategies and tactics applied by the U.S. Government. First take a look at the latest scholarship on the Vietnam War:

Thirty-eight years ago Sunday, network television was interrupted at 11:36 p.m. EDT so President Lyndon B. Johnson could tell the nation that U.S. warships in a place called the Gulf of Tonkin had been attacked by North Vietnamese PT boats. ... In response to what he described as "open aggression on the open seas," Johnson ordered U.S. airstrikes on North Vietnam. The airstrikes opened the door to a war that would kill 1 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans and divide the nation along class and generational lines. ... Recently released tapes of White House phone conversations indicate the attack probably never happened. Tonkin incident might not have occurred, By Bob Richter, Express-News Austin Bureau, Web Posted : 08/03/2002 12:00 AM

And Pearl Harbor:

Memorialized in McCollum's secret memo dated October 7, 1940, and recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the ONI [Office of Naval Intelligence] proposal called for eight provocations aimed at Japan. Its centerpiece was keeping the might of the U.S. Fleet based in the Territory of Hawaii as a lure for a Japanese attack. President Roosevelt acted swiftly. The very next day, October 8, 1940, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Fleet, Admiral James O. Richardson, was summoned to the Oval Office and told of the provocative plan by the President. ... Throughout 1941, FDR implemented the remaining seven provocations. ... On November 27 and 28, 1941, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were ordered to remain in a defensive posture for "the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act." The order came directly from President Roosevelt. [The Japanese "sneak" attack on Pearl occurred just seven days later, December 7, 1941 -- indeed "The Day of Infamy." -LRW] December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning, Robert B. Stinnett, [3] Honolulu Advertiser, December 7, 2000

In fact, this approach to getting the united States involved in war almost seems to be SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) in the sense described by Goering. The U.S. Government has rarely if ever gotten us into a "war" without such scamming, especially since the late 1800s. If you're skeptical -- and it's good to be skeptical -- you might want to check-out STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE? STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE? for a more comprehensive presentation.

There's another tactic that's used in the service of bringing the people to do "the bidding of the leaders." To understand the war- induction process as it's performed today, it's essential to understand this tactic:

"Well Jim, it is very important in a democracy that you have the support of the people. One of the reasons why George Bush [Sr.] had to demonize Saddam Hussein was to get the support of the people, and Bill Clinton has done the same thing, Vice President Gore has done the same thing with respect to [Serbian President] Milosevic." -Raymond Tanter, Fmr. Natl. Security Council Staffer, WATCH IT!, 2 Apr 1999, ~11:56:45 AM EST GAG, DEMONIZE & DESTROY
GAG, DEMONIZE & DESTROY

As per the clip above, that tactic is called "demonization" and it is explicit and consciously planned. Now Saddam probably isn't a very nice person -- for the simple reason that he's a head-of- state, and as per Carrie Keating's research, [4] the best liars usually end up as the leaders in the large super-groups (United States, Iraq, Great Britain, etc.) we consider ourselves members of today. Just think "Bill Clinton." [5]

Now I really don't want to find myself in the position of defending "Sad-man Insane," as one of my friends calls him -- or for that matter, other heads-of-state -- but since the man really has gotten one of the worst cases of "demonization" on record -- and since you've experienced the results yourself -- it's worth taking a look just to see how far it can go and how successful it can be.

Luckily for me, I won't have to do the dirty-work defending Sad-man myself -- someone with better credentials -- and more tolerant neighbors -- has done a better job. Check-out Saddam Hussein: From Ally to Enemy and JUDE WANNISKI TO THE U.N. from well-known supply-side economist and top Reagan advisor Jude Wanniski to see how Saddam was morphed and demonized from an ally into a bad-guy excuse for war.

So it's prudent to remember that what you hear from The Administration about Saddam is kind of like what your ex-wife might be telling everyone after your particularly nasty divorce. While there's probably some truth in it, you definitely want to hear the other side before you make up your mind.

There's a handy side-effect to a successful demonization: You distract people from the real victims. "We" weren't really bombing and killing the people of Kosovo, Serbia, and Iraq -- we were attacking those demons "Slobodan Milosevic" and "Saddam Hussein." While it's unlikely that either Hussein or Milosevic even missed a meal, we had our attention focused on them rather than on the innocent civilian men, women and children that not only missed meals but were killed by the bombing. There were at least 7,000 killed in the Serb-Kosovo bombing. As a result of the First Gulf "War," according to humanitarian organizations, there were 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties as a direct result of "collateral damage" -- including those dying of plague, dysentary, etc. from the bombing of electric plants, water plants and sewage treatment plants that couldn't operate without the electricity.

It's clear that THE question for us people being herded by misinformation, disinformation, out-and-out lies and demonization "to do the bidding of the leaders" is, "What are the real reasons the leaders are instigating war." In earlier wars, perhaps, the stated reasons were closer to the truth than today. Then again maybe not.

George the Senior went through a whole series of public excuses and trial balloons -- it seems public opinion polling showed that Iraq's invasion of Kuwat alone wasn't enough. One balloon was the oil issue, which it seems to me, was the closest to the truth. Finally after the fact, the Administration landed on the wimpy "Support our troops." [6] You can still see the faded bumper stickers on many older cars.

This is another Goering-like tactic: Start the war before anyone has time for careful consideration, then everyone gets behind the troops, now in harm's way. We find ourselves doing "the bidding of the leaders" despite more rational considerations. You can easily see this "bum's rush" being put on us right now by the Bush Administration's full-court press for an attack on the people of Iraq - - - NOW!

Why is this push for another "war" with Iraq by the George W. Bush Administration so frenetic? Are there things he's not telling? Do the official trial balloons hold water? Or are they just full of hot air? Does Iraq have nuclear weapons? Did Iraq collaberate with Ossama bin Laden in pulling-off the 9-11 attacks? Can Iraq attack the continental united States?

Is today's Iraq a "clear and present danger" or are we just experiencing another application of Goering's war-induction S.O.P. Will Dubya railroad us "to do the bidding of the leaders" before we really know why?

We'll take a closer look in Dis-mything 9-11 Supplement B. Keep your eye out!

ALSO IN THE "DIS-MYTHING 911" SERIES:

Dis-Mything 9-11 Part 1: Protected My Ass http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe183-20020722-03.html

Dis-Mything 9-11 Part 2: Is The USA Patriot Act Patriotic? http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe191-20020923-02.html or the Sierra Times version http://www.sierratimes.com/02/09/23/edrw092392.htm.

NOTES:

[1] Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. Spying in Iraq: >From Fact to Allegation, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001, September 24, 2002

[2] The word "War" is in parenthesis because the U.S. hasn't been at war -- legally -- since the end of World War II. According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can declare war -- and it hasn't done so since just after Pearl Harbor. All so-called "wars" since WWII have been carried out by the executive branch under the so-called "War Powers Act" which abbrogated Congress' responsibility. The so-called Korean "War," Vietnam "War," Gulf "War," etc. have all been carried- out, officially, not as "wars" but as "police actions." Thus Vietnam, etc. is what it really means to be "world policeman."

[3] Robert B. Stinnett has worked as a journalist for the Oakland Tribune and the BBC, and is the author of the book, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (Free Press, 2000). This article is adapted from his presentation before the Independent Policy Forum held earlier this year at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California.

[4] Remarkably, for women [Psychologist] Carrie [Keating of Colgate U.] has found no relationship between deception and leadership. A leader will still emerge from this group, but Carrie does not yet know how to predict who that leader will be. All she can say is that women who are good at deception are not necessarily good at leading their peers. But with adult males, as with children, Carrie has found an unmistakable connection.
PBS - Scientific American Frontiers:Previous Shows:Transcripts:Show 301, The Power of Persuasion

[5] "President Clinton is so successful because he's an unusually good liar." -U.S. Senator Bob Kerry D-Nebraska

[6] "Support our troops" is completely generic. It could have been used for any action involving any U.S. troops anywhere. Even at Waco or Ruby Ridge. That slogan had absolutely nothing to do with the specific situation in Iraq in 1991.