Orwell was better then nostradamus i swear....

[Guest guest]

DISSIDENT VOICE

AUGUST 1, 2002

www.dissidentvoice.org

 

_____

 

Target Iraq

War and Forgetfulness: A Bloody Media Game

by Norman Solomon

August 1, 2002

_____

 

Three and a half years ago, some key information about U.N. weapons

inspectors in Iraq briefly surfaced on the front pages of American

newspapers -- and promptly vanished. Now, with righteous war drums beating

loudly in Washington, let's reach deep down into the news media's Orwellian

memory hole and retrieve the story.

 

" U.S. Spied on Iraq Under U.N. Cover, Officials Now Say, " a front-page New

York Times headline announced on Jan. 7, 1999. The article was unequivocal:

" United States officials said today that American spies had worked

undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors ferreting out secret

Iraqi weapons programs.... By being part of the team, the Americans gained

a first-hand knowledge of the investigation and a protected presence inside

Baghdad. "

 

A day later, a follow-up Times story pointed out: " Reports that the United

States used the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq as cover for

spying on Saddam Hussein are dimming any chances that the inspection system

will survive. "

 

With its credibility badly damaged by the spying, the U.N. inspection

system did not survive. Another factor in its demise was the U.S.

government's declaration that sanctions against Iraq would remain in place

whether or not Baghdad fully complied with the inspection regimen.

 

But such facts don't assist the conditioned media reflex of blaming

everything on Saddam Hussein. No matter how hard you search major American

media databases of the last couple of years for mention of the spy caper,

you'll come up nearly empty. George Orwell would have understood.

 

Instead of presenting a complete relevant summary of past events,

mainstream U.S. journalists and politicians are glad to focus on tactical

pros and cons of various aggressive military scenarios. While a few pundits

raise cautious warning flags, even the most absurd Swiss-cheese rationales

for violently forcing a " regime change " in Baghdad routinely pass without

challenge.

 

In late July, a Wall Street Journal essay by a pair of ex-Justice

Department attorneys claimed that the U.S. would be " fully within its

rights " to attack Iraq and overthrow the regime -- based on " the customary

international law doctrine of anticipatory self-defense. " Of course, if

we're now supposed to claim that " anticipatory self-defense " is a valid

reason for starting a war, then the same excuse could be used by the Iraqi

government to justify an attack on the United States (even setting aside

the reality that the U.S. has been bombing " no fly zones " inside Iraq for

years).

 

Among the first to testify at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's

recent hearing on Iraq was " strategy scholar " Anthony Cordesman, a former

Pentagon and State Department official. He participated in the tradition of

touting another round of taxpayer-funded carnage as a laudable innovation

-- " our first preemptive war. "

 

Speaking alongside Cordesman was Richard Butler, the head of the U.N.

weapons inspection program in Iraq at the time that it was spying for

Washington. At the Senate hearing, Butler suggested that perhaps the

Russian government could be induced to tell Baghdad: " You will do serious

arms control or you're toast. "

 

Like countless other officials treated with great deference by the national

press corps, Butler strives to seem suave and clever as he talks up the

wisdom of launching high-tech attacks certain to incinerate troops and

civilians. As a matter of routine, U.S. journalists are too discreet to

bring up unpleasant pieces of history that don't fit in with the slanted

jigsaw picture of American virtue.

 

With many foreign-policy issues, major news outlets demonstrate a

remarkable ability to downplay or totally jettison facts that Washington

policymakers don't want to talk about. The spy story that broke in early

1999 is a case in point. But the brief flurry of critical analysis that

occurred at the time should now be revisited.

 

" That American spies have operations in Iraq should be no surprise, " a

Hartford Courant editorial said on Jan. 10, 1999. " That the spies are using

the United Nations as a cover is deplorable. "

 

While noting " Saddam Hussein's numerous complaints that U.N. inspection

teams included American spies were apparently not

imaginary, " the newspaper mentioned that the espionage operatives " planted

eavesdropping devices in hopes of monitoring forces that guarded Mr.

Hussein as well as searching for hidden arms stockpiles. "

 

The U.S. news media quickly lost interest in that story. We should ask why.

 

----------

 

 

Norman Solomon's latest book is The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media. His

syndicated column focuses on media and politics. Email: mediabeat

 

This article can be viewed on the web at:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Solomon_Iraq