Weapons of Mass Deception - How the Government Scares Us into War

"We must go to war!" This is the official position of the neoconservative press and the unofficial position of the Bush administration. For months now, war plans to attack Iraq have been leaking to the press and fueling speculations of a Gulf War II. It is no secret that the administration and many in Congress are in favor of bringing down Baghdad. Bush himself says he eagerly wants a "regime change" in Iraq. Members of Congress in both parties have been working the talk circuits daily warning Americans of the dire consequences of not toppling Saddam. While Bush claims he wants a "healthy debate" on the issue, it has become clear that it is not a matter of if we are going to attack but a matter of when.

As of right now, polls indicate that a majority of Americans will support war. The entire rest of the civilized world, however, is opposed to a new invasion. The only country standing with the U.S is the British government, albeit without the support of its own citizenry. What happened to the impressive coalition the first Bush presidency put together during Desert Shield? Why have our allies in our post-September 11th "war on terror" told us they will sit on the sidelines for this new war? Why are the American people the only people seemingly committed to war? The reason is quite simple. They have been exposed to Weapons of Mass Deception.

Prior to March 1990, most Americans never heard of Iraq. In a very short time America was convinced that Saddam Hussein was a Middle Eastern Hitler, and that Iraq had to be stopped lest all of civilization fall like Kuwait. The main reason we were fighting, we were told, was to free a small defenseless country against aggression. Like our later bombing of Serbia, this was a noble cause to protect freedom against an evil aggressive tyrant. We were also told that Iraq had to be stopped because it oppressed and murdered its own Kurdish minority. We also had to stop Iraq’s production of weapons of mass destruction, and destroy it’s military so Saddam could no longer threaten the free world.

In reality, we were not so much concerned about the Kuwaiti people as we were about Kuwaiti oil. Also, most Americans remained ignorant to the intricate Middle Eastern foreign policy in the Reagan administration during the 1980’s. It would still come as news to most Americans that during the 1980–1988 Iraq-Iran war, the official position of the Reagan administration was to "tilt" towards Iraq. While the U.S did not consider Iraq a haven of democracy, the memory of the Iranian hostage crisis was still fresh on everyone’s minds. Plus, a victorious Iran, full of radical Islamic extremism and Western hostility seemed more dangerous than a victorious Iraq, a relatively secular regime.

The main concern of the Reagan administration was that Iran would topple Iraq and later threaten Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran controlling three of the largest oil producing nations spelled deep concern for the administration. The ideal outcome was both nations bruising each other, but with Iraq causing slightly more damage and securing its borders and hence avoiding an Iranian takeover of oil producing nations in the Gulf region. All ended well with both sides failing to accomplish their war objectives.

Even less known to the average American than this little bit of history is the active role the U.S took in supporting Iraq’s efforts against Iran. Aside from providing Iraq with sensitive intelligence information, the U.S maintained regular contact with Iraq through diplomats and government officials, including even current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. A recent little noticed New York Times article confirmed such activities took place.

But the most explosive charge in the Times article is that the U.S was well aware of the fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran and did not change its support for Hussein. According to the Times article:

This report is being downplayed by the administration, and Colin Powell has said that the officers are "dead wrong" in their description of the program. Beyond that, the current administration, along with former members of the Reagan and first Bush administrations have kept silent. Given the government’s track record of secrets and lies on foreign policy, there is enough evidence to reasonably conclude that the U.S did indeed have direct knowledge of Iraq using "weapons of mass destruction."

In fact, one member of the program said the Pentagon "wasn’t so horrified by Iraq’s use of gas," and that "It was just another way of killing people whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn’t make any difference." According to the Times, even while the U.S condemned the Iraqi use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988, it continued its support of the Iraqi war effort.

So what happened? Why was it was OK for Iraq to have chemical weapons in 1980’s but not in 1990? Also, how did Hussein go from an ally in 1988 to Great Satan in 1990? The reason is oil. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S had the same kind of concern it had with Iran. The U.S did not want Iraq controlling Kuwait’s oil reserves and possibly threatening the oil reserves of the Saudi’s. Knowing the nation would not be very easily convinced that protecting oil interests were a good cause for war, the government subjected Americans to half-truths and misinformation and what I now call Weapons of Mass Deception.

The evidence seems to suggest that the fear that Bush I, Clinton and Bush II have tried to evoke in Americans regarding Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons is nothing more than a convenient excuse to go to war. Just as Iraq’s treatments of the Kurds and Kuwaitis was another excuse (some, like Jude Wanniski do not even support the claim that Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds). To go to war, the U.S had to convince the nation that Iraq was poised to launch a chemical, biological or nuclear attack against the United States at any time. They succeeded, and Iraq was pillaged and the lingering effect of economic sanctions on the Iraqi people remains to this day.

But that was not enough for some of the hawks in Congress and the keyboard warriors of the neoconservative press. They wanted Baghdad decimated and Saddam deposed or preferably murdered. Much of this goes back to the "national greatness" philosophy of the neoconservative movement. We must now finish the job that Bush I started, and show the world that the United States is a powerful force to be dealt with. Plus, after toppling Iraq we can spread democracy to other Middle Eastern nations, replace hostile Muslim rulers with friendly puppet governments, and have a greater control over oil prices and production.

However, Americans will still not support a war for oil or for neoconservative imperialist intentions in the Middle East. So we are left with the old excuses, only this time Iraq has not acted aggressively towards any nation. After pathetically trying and failing to link Iraq to the September 11^th terrorist attacks, we are left with the excuse that we must stop Iraq because they are a threat to the region and America because Saddam is an evil man who has weapons of mass destruction.

Let’s not be fooled. Hussein is a power hungry dictator and tyrant who can not be trusted. It is true he runs a brutal regime, however, it is nowhere near as brutal as most of his Middle Eastern neighbors, including our great buddy Saudi Arabia. In fact, Iraq is one of the most tolerant countries of Christians in the Middle East and has been known to crack down on radical Islam. Iraq’s secularism and mild tolerance is much more preferable to the theocratic and tyrannical rule of the brutal Saudi’s (who the U.S continues to be say is a strategic ally no matter how many times they flip us off in front of the international community. The reason? You got it, oil).

So the point is conceded that Hussein is a bad man, but his elevation to Hitler status is a bit overblown and is certainly not a reason to invade a country, particularly when there are any number of evil rulers around the world. So we are left with the contention that Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction.

Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector of Iraq claims that Iraq has been disarmed and no longer possesses WMD’s. However, it is argued that Ritter is an Iraqi sympathizer and cannot be trusted. It may be the case that Iraq does indeed still possess or is trying to develop such weapons, but again, this is not a valid cause for war under current circumstances. As we have already seen, our outrage over chemical weapons is selective. Second, there is yet to be conclusive evidence that Iraq actually does have WMDs. And third, the contention that Iraq would try to use such weapons against the United States is silly, because Iraq neither has the capability to do so nor is Hussein that stupid.

"But Hussein is a madman and we cannot predict what he is going to do!" shout the War Party. Let us concede that Hussein is perhaps a madman, but he is also a cunning ruler who desperately does not want to lose power. He knows that the United States (or Israel) could obliterate his country at any given time, and he would lose power. This argument, when examined rationally, also falls on its face.

Then there are the countless questions that we have to ask ourselves if we did indeed invade. How many troops would we need? How many casualties could we face? What is the timetable for the war? Would toppling Hussein cause even greater destabilization in the region? If Iraq falls, will the northern Kurdish minority then seek to establish an independent state? If so, will Kurds in Turkey then try to break away and form their own government thus destabilizing Turkey?

Also, would Israel be dragged into the war? The American government has told the Israeli’s, that unlike 1991, they can retaliate against Iraqi retaliatory attacks in any future U.S-Iraq war. Such an action would certainly prompt a regional war – which was Hussein’s goal when he launched Scud missiles at Israel in the first Gulf War. This could lead to the Holy War that Islamic extremists desire – the Arab world versus the United States and Israel.

Finally, a unilateral invasion of Iraq against the will of the international community will only continue to fuel anti-American sentiment across the globe and particularly in Arab states. A new attack will certainly raise up many more "martyrs" to take up arms against the United States and Israel. Are we willing to take the chance to put America more at risk to terrorist attacks because of a desire to demolish Iraq?

This is only a small list of questions and concerns that the administration is obviously not taking very seriously. Instead, the administration, along with congressional sympathizers and heroic warmongering journalists will continue to try and scare Americans into a new war with their Weapons of Mass Deception. This new war will not be a cakewalk, and even a victory poses many more questions than answers. It is time to have a serious discussion about the real motives behind this war. It is also time to educate the American people about the history of this conflict and inform that they are giving sanction to a potential disaster, all courtesy of government and journalistic deception.

Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a freelance writer and is studying for the ministry.

Finally, a unilateral invasion of Iraq against the will of the international community will only continue to fuel anti-American sentiment across the globe and particularly in Arab states.

I guess Lew believes in the NWO too (as if invasion of Iraq should be the case or a matter the international community should have a right to stop). Not bad for a pretending Libertarian.

Actually, I agree with him. We do not neet weapons of mass destruction to attack Iraq. Any threat to ANY American is sufficient grounds.

I already argued earlier today that the constant appeal to "weapons of mass destruction" is misdirected. Either a nation is a threat to our citizens or it isn't. Anyone, building any weapons, that we think might be used against us (as opposed to say, the Brits, who have no intention of using them against us) is a candidate for "corrective action." That action must meet the "Reagan test:"

1) Attempt other methods at correction first (diplomatic). DONE

2) Have a concensus with the American people. Aside from this guy and Lew, DONE

3) Have a reasonable chance of success. More than DONE

4) When forces are committed, support them fully with the intention of winning. TRIPLE DONE, with W.

Cry havok and loose the dogs of war.

it takes courage to take a stand and do something than it does to sit back. Clinton sat back and did absolutely zero!

Wrong on both counts. Spending other peoples' money and ordering other people to go fight is not particularly trying.

Ask the Sudanese and the Serbians if Clinton did "absolutely zero." The Iraqis were bombed regularly during the Clinton administration and it was Mad Maddy who insisted the sanctions were justified, no matter how many Iraqi children died as a result.

Larry, Larry, Larry, ...

The difference between "declaring war" and "making war" is?

I am sure you can remember what FDR told Churchill - the US being a neutral country at the time - and those convoys, that commitment of US armed support [ex parte Congress] regarding a certain Isthmus of Kra [viz., US blood and treasure for non-US territory] ...

Not me BB, I'm going to blame the author, Bill Barnwell, whose BS article has a distinct barnsmell. I couldn't help but notice that you, billybudd share the initials with Bill Barnwell, "B.B." Are you he and he you, or are the initials merely coiencidental?

Barnwell started almost every paragraph with something like, "American's never heard of Iraq.", American's didn't know this and Americans were ignorant of that, just like he believes we are the most ignorant and gullible collection of bumpkins that ever fell off a turnip truck, and landed on our heads at that. Then you come along after that rant, BB, calling us all morons.

Either you, or your alter EGO, Barnwell or both, made the statement during the rant, that we American's had to be conned into believing that the war would be about something other than oil, because we would never support a war over that-wrong! Oil is to the survival of our and the worlds economy, standard of living and even to survival, as is oxygen to the survival of our flesh. We will support a war over the access to oil, if we must, but this time despite your words of comfort and encouragement to our enemies, it is about removing a madman from a position from which he can destabilize the world.

Our allies are sheep, always have been-always will be. They didn't come to our aid in two world wars, we went to their's. They will sit out a war against Iraq or any other war if they can, they would rather turn their head into the herd and ignore the wolves eating their backsides, than to turn and fight.

Don't worry about our allies, they will all come to the victory party, and claim their share of the spoils peace time.

A small expeditionary force in a remote country which spends time organizing baseball leagues and confiscating Soviet-era light infantry weapons is not, to my way of thinking, a time of war.

And, as billybudd predicted, the responses are completely ad hominem. Next will be the usual "Bush said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

I guess because I don't have any stocks that have tanked I have a hard time supporting any war with Iraq.

Oh, sure, the people (the media) that we've been accusing of lying to us for years are telling us there's a reason and sure, the oil tycoons seem to think it's a good idea to take over this oil rich nation, but for some reason I have trouble seeing Saddam's aircraft carriers off the US coastline(?)

Of course the many hawks flying about accuse those of us who question this war of being "cowards"...but somehow the only thing I sense within myself is the voice of logic. And that voice says this idea of war against Saddam Hussein is not a good idea.

Don't worry about our allies, they will all come to the victory party, and claim their share of the spoils peace time.

Why are the American people the only people seemingly committed to war? The reason is quite simple. They have been exposed to Weapons of Mass Deception

Blowing up a major financial center and office complex, killing thousands and emotionally scarring millions, might also have something to do with it.

So what happened? Why was it was OK for Iraq to have chemical weapons in 1980’s but not in 1990?

CNN happened. The world became a much smaller place since then.

Blowing up a major financial center and office complex, killing thousands and emotionally scarring millions, might also have something to do with it.

As I recall being told, Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda and the Taliban were responsible for the WTC attacks. If Iraq was behind it, what have we been doing in Afghanistan for the past 11 months? And whatever happened to "Osama, dead or alive?"

There is no logical reason why we aren't dropping bombs and coordinating with Kurd freedom fighters this very night. The sooner we disrupt Iraqi commerce, the better. That commerce is being used to make nuclear weapons and other WMD. And, Iraq is getting very friendly with Al Quida. It's a friendship made in hell.

In reality, we were not so much concerned about the Kuwaiti people as we were about Kuwaiti oil.

If all we were interested in was oil, we would have simply cut a deal with Saddam. It would have been sure-fire and easy. But that was not the moral thing to do.

The article keeps quoting that discredited rag, the New York Times, as though the NYT were a credible news source? LOL. Poor timing. Poor choice of papers.

We had weapons inspectors finding one dangerous project after another. Saddam kicked them out for how long? Four years I think I heard once, but not sure.

I can't believe how many otherwise intelligent people saying, "When Saddam is two weeks away from having nukes, then we attack."

How can we be sure our intelligence networks would be aware if Iraq were two weeks away from being nuclear? Our intelligence networks are not that reliable.

Our intelligence networks are very fortunate to learn that Saddam could be two years away. However, what if they are off by a year? There are no guarantees. That's why I say, the sooner we disrupt Iraqi commerce, the better. And history has proven that when the going gets tough, the Iraqis turn against Saddam. He does not inspire self-sacrifice. Saddam is nothing like Winston Churchill. Freegards....

Clinton administration and it was Mad Maddy who insisted the sanctions were justified, no matter how many Iraqi children died as a result.

I'm sick of this bogus reply from libertarians! Have you not noticed there's been a change (however slight) in the administration. We're not talking about Madeline any longer. War is a MIGHT different than sanction bombing.(I did not support those bombings)Come out the clouds and get into the real world of things not being black and white and you MEN just might have to get your hands dirty. Life can be a bitch sometimes and it takes real courage to do something.
And, I wouldn't just assume that the Bush administration is bloodthirsty and just can't wait to kill people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Weapons of Mass Deception – How the Government Scares Us into War