discrediting UK/US assertions about Iraq's WMD
free spirit | 11.03.2003 03:34
A detailed critique of US/UK allegations concerning Iraq's WMD and breaches of UN resolutions on disarmament. This critique was compiled by Dr Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge academic who was responsible for exposing Tony Blair’s much vaunted intelligence dossier as a plagiarised version of an old PHD report.
I'm working with a group of US / Canadian activists from www.democraticunderground.com in an attempt to publicise a highly detailed critique of US & UK accusations concerning Iraq's WMD. We hope to gain press coverage of this report to discredit the US/UK assertion that Iraq is in material breach of 1441, thereby removing their major stated rationale for war. The current strategy is to target UK journalists and MP's on the basis that they are generally more sympathetic, and Blair is facing strong revolts as it is. I'd appreciate it if anyone with good media links, or links with politicians etc. could join this effort to get the contents of this dossier into the public domain. This critique is compiled by Dr Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge academic who was responsible for exposing Tony Blair’s much vaunted intelligence dossier as a plagiarised version of an old PHD report. All the information in the report has been compiled from reputable sources (with direct links to the source), mostly UN reports and weapons inspectors reports, and is structured in such a way as to directly disprove / discredit specific allegations made by the US & UK in the last 6 months. This document has the potential to seriously discredit the US/Uk arguements on WMD, seriously questioning the evidence that Iraq is in material breach of UN resolution 1441, and thereby seriously eroding the current justification for war. It should be noted that the document doesn't actually contain new information as such, what it does is to collate all the US/UK allegations in one space together with detailed rebuttals of these assertions sourced mainly from official UN and weapons inspectors reports. IMO it is a highly valuable resource for anyone attempting to discredit the WMD arguement, and hopefully if it can be spread widely enough the media will have to pick up on it. The dossier can be found here http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html one of several threads on democraticunderground is here http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID66/3099.html and the Urban 75 thread relating to this is here http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35378&am p;perpage=25&pagenumber=1 The DU people are currently emailing all UK anti-war MP's, and have been talking with a uk journalist (though i'm not sure who, or whether this will result in anything). Basically if anyone can help get this out into the public domain IMO it has the potential to seriously blow up in the media this week, throwing a major spanner in the works of the US/UK push to legitimise war. all comments appreciated, and media savvy input is particularly needed. fs
free spirit
e-mail:
electrofriedgav@hotmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
Comments
Hide the following comment
summary please
11.03.2003 09:57
You've certainly seen this article about who constructed the Falluja 2 plant.
If not in this document, I'd like there to be somewhere where all UK export related information, and names of people (culled from the Scott Report, for example) are listed. Maybe you have one already.
The fact that not one of these people who broke the law by exporting this equipment has ever been brought to justice proves that the policy on WMDs has not changed -- it's just hype. Having one complete list of names of implicated former ministers to throw back at the lists of WMDs would be a great help. The official response to the allegations against them will be that their deeds "happened in the past". Which is actually true of almost all crime. However, if you don't want further exports to happen in the future, you have to punish past breaches or they will know they can always get away with it.
In addition, I strongly feel that it is not our job to do the work of demolishing each and every false claim which they make on this subject. What they are demonstrating is a shameless lack of regard for truth and accuracy. They are throwing out enough choss and publishing anything that anyone can believe. When certain allegations become too hard to believe, they quietly drop them, move on to the next claim, and nobody cries foul.
While it is easy to flow with their argument and start demolishing their next claim, it would be better to not forget the previous unsupported facts and demand an explanation and a retraction of their false claims before they
A table at the top of the article, or elsewhere, with one line for each allegation: date it was first made, date it was last made, date of rebuttal (often before the previous date), date of apology/retraction/clarification (if any). This would give a very visual account of how the propaganda machine is functioning and throw some light onto its credibility.
goatchurch