Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Sun

31

Dec

2006

Hang Times: A Whitewash of White House Complicity
Sunday, 31 December 2006 14:26
by Chris Floyd


People often write to Empire Burlesque in search of an answer to one of the great conundrums of these modern times, namely: "Why are the American people such suckers? How could they -- or, to be more exact, how could a significant number of them -- ever have fallen for the transparent bullshit of such third-rate goobers as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the rest? How could the American people be so ignorant and misinformed about what goes on in the world? How can they be so ignorant and misinformed of their own history, of the dirty deals done in their names for years on end? How can this be?"

Good folk, look no further, for we do indeed have the answer here. If you want to know precisely how the American people are kept deliberately ignorant, simply click on the link to this story in the nation's "newspaper of record," the journal which sets the standard for and largely determines the news agenda of the American press: The Defiant Despot Oppressed Iraq for More than 30 Years. There, in the stately pages of The New York Times, you will find some 5,200 words written by Neil MacFar quhar detailing the rise, reign and fall of the Iraqi dictator. You will thrill to the usual gory details of torture, murder and savagery; you will tut at the violent barbarism of the rural riff-raff who got so far above his raising; you will snarl with condemnation at the mad aggressor who launched "continual wars" in the region, as the diligent scribe informs us.

[The actual total number of wars launched by Saddam Hussein was, er, two: the same number launched by George W. Bush -- if, that is, you don't count the never-ending, ever-expanding, great googily-moogily "Global War on Terror and Extremists and Radicals," in which case, Bush's "continual wars" far exceed the two conflicts instigated by Saddam -- one of which was overtly approved by Reagan Administration, the other tacitly approved by the Bush I administration.]



But what you will not find is any detail or examination whatsoever of the prominent, direct and continuing role the United States government played in bringing Saddam to power, maintaining him in office, underwriting h is tyranny, and rewarding his aggression. This decades-long history -- beginning with the CIA's assistance in not one but two coups that first brought the Baath Party to power then cemented the hold of Saddam's internal faction on the country through the journey to Baghdad by the obsequious Donald Rumsfeld who came bearing words of support, bags of cash and military high-tech for Saddam's chemical weapons attacks on Iran down to the delivery of money, WMD technology and other goods of war by George Herbert Walker Bush  up to the very day before Saddam's long-threatened invasion of Kuwait, which Bush's personal representative had told the dictator was of no concern to the United States -- does not appear in McFarquhar's mountain of prose.

You'll find damning reference to Saddam's gas attack on Iraqi Kurds during the Reagan-Bush-supported war with Iran; but you will find not a single word of how the Bush I administration, which included Powell and Cheney, fought hard to kill off Congressional condemnation of the gassing. Nor does McFarquhar see fit to inform the public how Bush I signed a presidential directive mandating that U.S. government agencies forge ever-stronger ties with Iraq, despite the caveats of his own intelligence apparatus. And although McFarquhar finds space to quote from Saddam's ludicrous novels, he cannot quite squeeze in any reference to the Congressional investigations and other probes that revealed how Bush I secretly financed Saddam and, with British help, secretly supplied him with advanced weaponry through a series of corporate cut-outs and funneling cash through the bowels of what the U.S. Senate described as "one of the largest criminal enterprises in history" (until Junior Bush's gang came along), the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

But do let's be fair. The New York Times is not Pravda; it does not simply engage in the wholesale whitewashing of history in order to comfort the comfortable and keep the rabble from knowing what their betters really get up to behind the glowing video screen. No, its whitewashing is often incomplete; little flecks of partial truth will occasionally show through. [And to be genuinely fair, the paper does employ some journalists of genuine courage and merit on its staff, such as the estimable Carlotta Gall, whose reports from Afghanistan have done much to reveal the ugly realities behind that "good" and forgotten war.]

And so it is with McFarquhar's piece. For it is not entirely accurate to say that he does not mention U.S. support for Saddam anywhere in the story. In a bold act of speaking truth to power, the fearless McFarquhar devotes one whole sentence of 47 words to what he calls the American "tipping" toward Saddam in his war with Iran. Of course, the phrase comes some 2,278 words into the piece, by which time it's likely that very few people would still be plowing through his -- prose might be too strong a word; let's just call it his cud-like assemblage of well-chewed conventional wisdom. Here is the buried phrase entire:

The fear that an Islamic revolution would spread to an oil producer with estimated reserves second only to Saudi Arabia tipped the United States and its allies toward Baghdad and they provided weapons, technology and, most important, secret satellite images of Iran’s military positions and intercepted communications.

[Because lord knows, we wouldn't want Iraq and its oil reserves given over to Islamic sectarians tied to Iran, now would we? Perish the thought!]

That's all McFarquhar has to say on this embarrassing subject. But credit where it's due: he did say something. Pravda never would have done that.

There is simply no way to understand the reign of Saddam Hussein, nor the past few decades of Iraq's history, without including the very real and important role that the United States has played in shaping these realities. The reason that tens of thousands of American soldiers have been killed and maimed -- and that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered, and millions more plunged into hellish suffering -- is because this history has been buried, perverted, ignored or forgotten. And one of the main engines of this deliberately induced national amnesia is the New York Times and its fellow media mandarins. ***
More from this author:
Immaculate Conception: A Squirt in the White House (13895 Hits)
George W. Bush's innumerable sycopants like to potray him as a down-to-earth man of the people: a man's man, tough and fearless, a good-ole-boy...
Thunder on the Mountain: The Murderers of Democracy (11900 Hits)
“Shame on your greed, shame on your wicked schemes. I tell you this right now, I don’t give a damn about your dreams.” -- Bob Dylan,...
War in Heaven: Woodward's Book and the Establishment Insurgency (12727 Hits)
Bob Woodward has long been the voice of the American Establishment – or of certain quadrants of it, at any rate. When Richard Nixon's...
Swing Blades: Don Rumsfeld Bats Both Ways (10878 Hits)
In February 2003, I wrote a column for the Moscow Times detailing Don Rumsfeld's personal – and profitable – connection with North Korea's...
Red October: Killing the Truth in Moscow (11846 Hits)
I. Early October can be dismal in Moscow. The short, harsh summer is over, the brief and beautiful refreshment of September has passed,...
Related Articles:
Immaculate Conception: A Squirt in the White House (13895 Hits)
George W. Bush's innumerable sycopants like to potray him as a down-to-earth man of the people: a man's man, tough and fearless, a good-ole-boy...
Two White Sisters in Asia: Israel and Australia (7661 Hits)
by M. Shahid Alam “Israel has not fully acknowledged the value of working together with Australia in Asia. It’s a way for us to...
The "Iraq Memorial" should go on the White House Lawn (7045 Hits)
by Mike Whitney Where will we put the Iraq Memorial? Eventually, there’ll be a memorial to the men and women who died in Iraq, so where...
CYA for the USA: The Coverup of Complicity Continues (6018 Hits)
by Chris Floyd Rush to Hang Hussein Was Questioned (New York Times) This is a very curious story. Some of it is probably true, some of it...
White House Chess (6226 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo The Washington media spent the holidays trying to guess what the President's new plan for Iraq might be. Meanwhile in the...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (8)add comment

sehm said:

0
...
he's not dead...i saw him today smilies/cheesy.gif

it's a LIE
 
December 31, 2006
Votes: +0

SS said:

0
...
I think Saddam got what he deserves he killes all those people so he deserves to die him self i would have loved to be there to watch him die i also think that they should haved tortured him before they killed him because he tortured all them people before he killed them.
 
January 01, 2007
Votes: +0

sally tobison said:

0
What evz!
your a dumb ass he is dead dont you worry! its people like you saying stupid shit that cause the rest of the world to go into a panic and not believe stuff that is true so keep your punk ass comments to your self shit face! smilies/tongue.gif
 
January 05, 2007
Votes: +0

Grey said:

0
.....
He deserves to die? We are the ones who put him into power int he first place, even called him a national asset. What about 150,000 civilians that have died durring the war for oil? We didn't kill all of them, but the number of civilian deaths by our hands blows away our own death tole. I say bush need to be held for war crimes. First he says we shoudl not use our troops for "nation building", now he is doing just that. He said we as the U.S. should not go around telling everyone else how we it should be done, now we are telling people by force. At first Saddam was a national asset, but now he is dead after he is no longer "Pro. U.S.". When a person shoots and kills another, you can say the eprson did not kill them, the gun did.... Bush has the controle and our troops are the weapons, therefor the blood of the middle east sence we got involved are on his hands and therefor should be held accountable.
 
January 06, 2007
Votes: +0

KL said:

0
...
Saddam got what he deserved and you folks should learn proper grammar, sentence syntax, and spelling.
 
January 06, 2007
Votes: +0

Scott said:

0
...
Saddam was definitely deserving of punishment. he tried to wipe out the Kurds and he backed the 9/11 incident(some think), but i don't think he or anyone for that matter deserves the death penalty. Mohandis Ghandi said "and eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." so were really no better than him, we've killed a lot more people(including some of our own) than he did(the Native Americans, Vietnam, African Americans, etc.)
 
January 07, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

D-NICK said:

0
fair enough
Saddam recieved what the fuck he deserved. If he wants to kill, he should be killed, and that real talk no lies. We just murder those who like to be murder. He commited the crimes and recieved his sentnce. As for that little boy who mimiced him................................ no comment. oh and whoever posted that comment at the top your an asshole for real, you fucking idiot. smilies/angry.gif
 
January 09, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
The original link.. who?
Well to understand any event you MUST have the correct perspective of chronological events.. we could start with the british occupation..... the knowledgeable are aware of the pre-90's decade or we could go back to centuries...
no..
In the mid eighties the US and british government were arming saddam with the main purpose of sustaining a war with IRAN a much more fundamentalist and extreme regime..

The U.S & GB ARMED SADDAM!..
the trouble started when he bought arms on credit ,arms around the billion dollar mark more or less and refused to pay... OOps the crap hit the fan..
once saddam had decided 'i am being manipulated' he took the arms ...and with an about turn invaded Kuwait.. the confidence came from the sinister agenda of the US and GB

remeber the US & GB were not allowed to sell saddam arms period...
so... premise of curruption death and manipulation is not a sound basis to form any relationship with anyone let alone governments..

George bush jnr doesnt run the us.. george bush senior/ Baker administration do.. collin powell ring a bell..
Basically Sadam was a bit too clever for them and basically made a move before he was double crossed skull and bones style..
it is a well known FACT amongst the dominant hierarchy that George bush is expendible and a blatant liability and assasination can be afforded for a higher purpose....

and your right dead men tell no tales...

and there war is about oil woomination religeon and race.. and many more things..

and lets not forget france and president chirac who actually funded/invested in saddams nuclear plant.. in fact.. the nuclear plant was call 'osirak'? chirac/osirac..
so when france tried to resist and abstain from supporting the US invasion it wasnt ever morals.. it was over the vested interest Chirac/france had....

I could go on and on..
if Saddam hangs then so does Bush /Powell Baker bush senior and various other 'super powerful' humans who's names NEVER enter the frame...

Thatcher/bush senior etc.. empowered Saddam...
and ONE innocent death his inexcusable..
the higher purpose doesnt involve us...
we are sophisticated pawns

and i'm so cynical
disinformation is actually a republican/tory/democrat/labour dummy page trying to track those that oppose THE ORDER...

OR MAYBE IT WAS SET UP BY AN ARMS DEALERS SON..
YOU NEVER CAN TELL

respect to disinfo for bringing something to myspace
and not a bikini in site.. i love it..
as you were

.



 
January 16, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top