Through the years, we have become accustomed to hearing so many allegations against Saddam Hussein that they eventually become mundane: 100,000 here; 400,000 there; etc. If one adds up the numbers, it would appear that Saddam killed more people than the entire population of Iraq.
Many people are now asking, "Why is he only being tried for one incident that led to the deaths of 142 people? How about the big stuff?"
The following is an excerpt from my upcoming book, The Mother of All Battles. It will explain some of the more well-publicized anti-Saddam propaganda. And, it will answer the questions about why he isn’t being tried for the massive amounts of people killed in his regime. There is no proof of the genocide charges against Saddam and both the U.S. and the stooge Iraqi tribunal have decided not to bring these charges because of the embarrassment and international condemnation that would ensue.
The Butcher of Baghdad
Babies Killed … People Boiled in Acid … Human Shredding Machines …
Gassing His Own People … and Whatever Else Sells Newspapers
For the five weeks of Desert Storm, we heard Bush I and every other government person say, "We’re not targeting Saddam Hussein." That was as big a lie as ever was told. The first and last bombs of the conflict were aimed at Saddam. Just minutes before Bush called the cease-fire, a super bomb was dropped in the bunker where Saddam was thought to have been. Unfortunately, a few hundred people lost their lives because of Bush’s obsession with Saddam’s death. If the U.S. was not targeting Saddam Hussein, it would not have unsuccessfully bombed that same bunker 15 times previously, then put hundreds of Americans on round-the-clock shifts to produce the super bomb which finally penetrated the bunker. Bush II ordered similar bombing runs against targets in Iraq in 2003 where he thought Saddam was located that produced the same results — many casualties, but no Saddam.
In 1978, the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the U.S. government and its agencies from assassinating officials of foreign countries. That was just and necessary because, at that time, the U.S. was behind the scenes in assassination attempts on various people in Central America during the Cold War years. However, when it came time to try to kill Saddam Hussein, the law was forgotten. The U.S. Congress, as well as the president and the American people conveniently forgot the law, making a sham of the justice system.
Much of the world was aware of the conditions in Iraq after Desert Storm. People were starving and the country’s infrastructure was destroyed. Sewage treatment was non-existent and farm lands and irrigation systems were destroyed by U.S. bombs. During the first year after Desert Storm, more than 120,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died because of malnutrition and other diseases that were brought on because of the conditions Desert Storm created.
How was life in Iraq before Desert Storm? This is a subject that is taboo for Americans to know.
The entire country was electrified. Health care was free and education was universal and free throughout college. Women held a much higher status in Iraqi society than women in other Arab countries.
Food was inexpensive and readily available. Because of the abundance of food, people from surrounding countries shopped in Iraq. The Iraqi government supplied either low-interest or no-interest home loans and also offered land for those who promised to work the land and produce outcome within five years. Over a million Egyptians and hundreds of thousands of people of other nationalities participated in this agrarian reform program, which was one of the most successful the world had ever seen. It had been a decade since a case of malnutrition had been seen in Baghdad, yet, after Desert Storm, malnutrition was in force in epidemic proportions and caused the deaths of many.
Before Desert Storm, an average salary in Iraq was about $50 a month. At first, that may not sound substantial, but when factored into prices for consumers, as well as services supplied at no or low cost by the government, it was a comfortable salary. An Iraqi’s salary was kept intact because there were no taxes in the country.
After Desert Storm, many formerly employed Iraqis were without work. A black market quickly emerged that exploited the citizens’ needs for necessities. The Iraqi government attempted to rid the country of the black market, which the U.S. helped create by flooding Iraq with counterfeit dinars (the Iraqi monetary unit) and dollars. The crisis was so devastating, that the Iraqi government recalled all the money from the public and issued new currency that could not be counterfeited. The U.S. had flooded Iraq with billions of dollars worth of fake money.
Inflation was rampant. Before Desert Storm, one Iraqi dinar was worth three U.S. dollars. After the conflict, one U.S. dollar amounted to the value of about 1,500 dinars. Over the years, this figure has gone as high as 2,000 dinars to the dollar, or as low as 1,200 dinars to the dollar. Prices of goods, when they were available, escalated over 1,000%. Other items, such as gasoline, that were in abundance, were given away free by the government to help the ordinary citizen cope with the post-war devastation.
Before January 17, 1991, average costs for everyday good in Iraq included:
One gallon of gasoline — $.05
30 eggs — $.65
100 pounds of flour — $1.00
10 pounds of lamb — $2.00
2 pounds of rice — $.07
2 pounds of sugar — $.07
10 pounds of cooking oil — $.85
Iraq was an innovator in women’s role in Arab society. The Ba’ath Socialists, much to the chagrin of a few of its Arab neighbors, made the emancipation of women one of their primary goals after coming to power. There was almost no unemployment and technology was moving to the forefront.
In contrast to virtually every other country in the region, Iraq had a secular government that there was religious freedom. In Iraq, there are Jews, Christians, Muslims of all denominations, pagans, devil-worshipers and non-believers. This assortment of religious beliefs does not exist in many Middle Eastern countries.
Iraq was on the verge of becoming far and away the most modern and technically advanced nation in the region. This progress was something that the U.S. did not want any Arab country to possess, and it eventually became the reason for Iraq’s annihilation.
The main thrust of propaganda against Iraq was thrown at its leader, Saddam Hussein. For the American audience, U.S. government demonization of a person always was effective, and the Bush administration escalated this process to the point of absurdity with Saddam. The program worked brilliantly.
If one looks at the facts, they do not match up to the U.S. propaganda. It is difficult to believe that a world leader who had been in power for as long as Saddam Hussein, and had not been labeled "another Hitler" previously, could have turned into a demon of such magnitude overnight. Sure, Saddam had his naysayers in Iran and within some of the fundamentalist Shi’ite population of Iraq, but he and his government were well-respected by most Arab nations. Countries of both the West and the Soviet bloc enjoyed mutual and profitable relations with Iraq. Iraq’s presence in the United Nations was held in esteem and it was involved with many international dealings, both financially and diplomatically.
On January 13, 1991, the presiding Secretary General of the United Nations, Pérez de Cuéllar, visited Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein. The visit was arranged to try to avert war, but Pérez de Cuéllar had no peace plan. He attempted to convince Saddam Hussein to pull his troops out of Kuwait without addressing Iraq’s problems with the Kuwaiti government. The former Secretary General was close to retirement and his visit was more of a face-saving gesture than an actual overture to peace. He did make one statement, however, that is poignant and the world never heard as he told Saddam, "I know your courage and generosity. I have followed the Iran-Iraq War and the initiatives you made from your side to end the war."
Courage and generosity? An attempt to end the Iran-Iraq War? This was not the same Saddam Hussein whom the U.S. public heard and read about in the American media.
The label "Butcher of Baghdad" was affixed to Saddam Hussein by George Bush and the U.S. media, who never found a trite cliché they did not admire, whether true or false. The collaboration of media and government made this slogan a fixture in the American vocabulary. The moniker was created by a huge lie involving the participation of the U.S. government, the Kuwaiti government, and an American public relations firm.
Shortly after Iraqi troops crossed the border of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, stories emerged of Iraqi soldiers taking babies in Kuwaiti hospitals and throwing them on the floor to die. According to the reports, the soldiers ripped the babies from the incubators and then sent the incubators to Baghdad. From that time, Saddam Hussein was stuck with the title "Butcher of Baghdad."
On October 10, 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah, appeared before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. She was in tears as she told of watching 15 infants being taken from incubators in Al-Adan Hospital in Kuwait City by Iraqi soldiers who "left the babies on the cold floor to die."
A media frenzy followed Nayirah’s testimony. For the next few days, politician-after-politician damned the Iraqis. Congressman Duncan Hunter of California led the barrage of hate thrown at the Iraqis. He appeared on national television and called for war, all the time citing Nayirah’s testimony.
The truth of this incident was made public in January 1992. By then, it was too late. Iraq had been destroyed and was in the beginning of an encompassing embargo that would keep it in servitude for years to come.
John MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, unveiled reality in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Nayirah never saw the incident she described in Congress because she was living in the U.S. at the time it supposedly occurred. Her identity was kept secret because she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, Saud al-Sabah.
In addition, her testimony was scripted by a public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton. The Kuwaiti government paid Hill & Knowlton $12 million to create a scenario in which the Iraqi leadership and people would be demonized.
After MacArthur’s exposure of the deceitful actions of the Kuwaitis and Hill & Knowlton, CBS Television ran a program concerning the incident. A woman, speaking on behalf of Hill & Knowtlon, was asked if the lie was worth all the destruction in Iraq and she replied, 'Yes, because it brought democracy back to Kuwait." A perplexed interviewer responded, "When has Kuwait ever had democracy?" There was no reply.
Before Nayirah’s testimony, the discussion in Washington was whether the U.S. should "liberate" Kuwait by force or whether diplomacy should run its course. After the appearance of Nayirah, it was assumed that the U.S. was facing a bunch of savage beasts, not human beings. The time for philosophical debate had passed. In his New York Times piece, MacArthur stated:
Before the war, the incubator story seriously distorted the American debate whether to support military action.
Amnesty International believed the tale and its ill-considered validation of the charges likely influenced the seven senators who cited the story in speeches backing the January 12 resolution authorizing war.
Because the resolution passed the Senate by only six votes, the question of how the incubator story escaped scrutiny — when it really mattered — is all the more important. (Amnesty International later retracted its support of the story.)
A little reportorial investigation would have done a great service to the democratic process.
Another incident occurred just after the beginning of hostilities that echoed of the Nayirah fiasco. On January 20, 1991, the U.S. public saw an interview with a man who claimed he was Saddam Hussein’s bodyguard. He then went into detail of how one of Saddam’s recreational pursuits was to watch people burn to death in acid. The anonymous figure was graphic about the description. Again, revulsion was felt by the people of the U.S. against Saddam Hussein.
Not one media person questioned the authenticity of the person interviewed. It was later discovered that he was a Saudi, not an Iraqi, and he had never been in Iraq. Even the Saudi government, when questioned about the legitimacy of the person, said that he was "a conspiracy theorist" who may not have possession of all of his mental faculties. The Saudis asked not to be affiliated with the fabricator.
These two incidents should have been enough to make the media skeptical about stories of horrendous torture under Saddam Hussein. They weren’t.
In the buildup to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Saddam had changed torture methods and he now used industrial shredding machines to do away with his enemies. The leading proponent of this allegation was British Labour MP Ann Clywd. On March 18, 2003, days before the military actions began, the British newspaper The Times ran an article written by her that was titled, "See men shredded, then you say you don’t back war."
Three days before the invasion, Clywd spoke in the House of Commons and described how male prisoners in Iraq were dropped into a machine "designed for shredding plastic," and their minced remains were "placed in plastic bags" and later used as "fish food." She alleged that sometimes, the victims were dropped in the machines feet-first so they could briefly view their own mutilation before death.
Australian Prime Minister Howard used the story to his great advantage. He supported the war and was about to send troops, despite overwhelming opposition from his public. After the story appeared in The Times, he addressed his nation and said he wanted to stop the ongoing crimes of the Ba’athist regime in Iraq including the "human shredding machine" that was used "as a vehicle for putting to death critics of Saddam Hussein."
Others used this story for anti-Saddam fodder. Andrew Sullivan of the Sunday Times of Great Britain stated that Clywd’s report showed "clearly, unforgettably, indelibly" that "the Saddam regime is evil." Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips described the shredder in which "bodies got chewed up from foot to head." In The Telegraph, Mark Steyn criticized the anti-war movement with these words: "If it’s a choice between letting some carbonated beverage crony of Dick Cheney get a piece of the Nasiriyah soft-drinks market or allowing Saddam to go on feeding his subjects feet-first into the industrial shredder for another decade or three, then the 'peace’ activists will take the lesser of two evils — i.e., crank up the shredder."
The last statement shows the ludicrous methods some pro-war journalists use to get their messages across. The benign assessment of Cheney’s involvement has been shown to be far off the mark. During the occupation of Iraq, many stories have come forth about the economic shenanigans Cheney has pulled in efforts to grease the palms of his friends. Not just a soft-drink concession, but billions of dollars have been allocated for various companies; dollars that have blood on them because they were only attained after killing tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Pro-war journalists used many colorful and creative words to describe this shredding machine. According to Trevor Kavanagh, political editor of the British daily The Sun, "British resistance to war changed last year when we learned how sadist Saddam personally supervised the horrific torture of Iraqis. Public opinion swung behind Tony Blair as voters learned how Saddam fed dissidents feet first into industrial shredders."
As in the case of the Kuwaiti incubators being sent to Baghdad, the shredders did not exist. But, both stories galvanized a public to support the slaughter of tens of thousands of people and the destruction of a country.
When Ann Clywd was asked about her sources of information, she said that she had interviewed an Iraqi in northern Iraq. She was eventually asked who the person was and if he was telling the truth. Clywd told journalist Brendan O’Neill of The Spectator, "We heard it from a victim; we heard it and we believed it." When O’Neill asked her if anything was done to check the victim’s statement against other witness statements or other evidence for a shredding machine, she replied, "Well, no."
The incidents supposedly took place at Abu Ghraib Prison, an institution made world famous by prisoner torture; torture perpetrated by the U.S. against Iraqi inmates. When all was said and done, the shredding incidents, that received worldwide publicity, amounted to the uncorroborated story of one person interviewed in northern Iraq. This, in itself, is hardly evidence to use to send a country to war.
O’Neill began to track down people who could either corroborate or deny the legitimacy of shredders being used to kill prisoners. He found an Iraqi doctor who worked at the hospital attached to the prison who worked at Abu Ghraib in 1997 and 1998. He is now is taking medical exams to be licensed to practice medicine in Great Britain. The doctor’s job was to attend to those prisoners who had been executed. He told O’Neill, "We had to see the dead prisoners to make sure that they were dead. Then we would write a death certificate for them."
This doctor refuted any stories about the shredding machines. O’Neill asked him if he ever attended or heard of prisoners who had been shredded. He replied, "No." Then, he was asked if any of the other doctors at the prison spoke of a shredding machine used to execute prisoners. The doctor responded, "No, no, never. The method of execution was hanging; as far as I know, that was the only form of execution used at Abu Ghraib."
Another odd incident occurred that at first corroborated the shredder account, but quickly was exposed as a ruse. An individual named Kenneth Joseph came forth and said he went to Iraq to be a human shield, but once in the country, he heard so many horror stories, that he left, with 14 hours of videotaped interviews, and then became a war proponent. On March 21, 2003, the UPI ran a story on Joseph, again perpetrating a lie. Joseph said what he had heard in Iraq, "shocked me back to reality," that Iraqi’s "tales of slow torture and killing made me feel ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as their bodies got chewed up."
Quickly, his testimony came under fire. Carol Lipton, an American journalist investigated his story and said, "none of the human shield groups whom I contacted had ever heard of Joseph." She noted that not one photo or any segment of the 14 hours of videotape had ever been shown. Johann Hari, a pro-war columnist with the Independent would have liked to have believed Joseph’s account, but, after investigation, he could not. Hari said Joseph "was probably a bullshitter."
With pressure on her to show proof of the shredders, Clywd, on June 18, 2003, wrote another article for The Times with, what she said, was solid proof. She said she was shown a book by a FOX News reporter that she described as a "chillingly meticulous record book" from the prison. She was asked if she could say who compiled the book and she said, "No, I can’t." When asked where it was at the time, she said, "I don’t know." Then, she was asked the name of the FOX reporter who showed it to her and she answered, "I have no idea." Finally, she was asked if she read the entire book, and she responded, "No. It was in Arabic."
When asked about the Ba’athists using a shredder on humans, a spokesman for Amnesty International said, "We checked it with our people here, and we have no information about a shredder." Widney Brown of Human Rights Watch said, "We don’t know anything about a shredder, and have not heard of that particular form of execution or torture."
The Nayirah story and the shredder fable used similar methods to create comparable results. Both used lies to pursue an agenda, an agenda that led to two invasions of Iraq and the killing of over two million people, including those who died as results of the almost-13-year-embargo.
The difference in the stories is that no one had to pay $12 million for a public relations firm to concoct the shredder story. An unwitting dupe used the word of one anonymous witness and the account of one probable "bullshitter" to galvanize the opinions of millions.
To anyone who would still believe the shredder story today, one underlying factor should be proof enough that it never occurred. If there was a shredder, the U.S. forces would have found it at Abu Ghraib Prison and there would have been picture-after-picture of it being shown in every newspaper and magazine in the world. Journalistic silence, in this case, is the overwhelming proof of the fantasy of the shredder.
Perhaps most damaging and damning incident for the Iraqi leadership was the gassing of Halabjah, a Kurdish town, in April 1988. Halabjah came under attack with chemicals and the world saw the tragedy as people were strewn on the streets. However, the media did not pay a great amount of attention to the incident and it quickly was replaced in the international press.
In the buildup to Desert Storm, Bush I took the Halabjah gassing out of the closet and he made great strides in gaining people worldwide to support a military conclusion to the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. All of a sudden we heard him tell the world, "He gasses his own people."
That statement was made so many times by administration officials that it became a household cliché. The problem is that no one ever checked out its authenticity. A fw months after Desert Storm, Greenpeace published an in-depth study called "On Impact" about the reasons for the massacre and how in the future war may be a last option instead of a first choice. A portion of the report covered the demonizing of the Iraqi leadership. It brought out many lies Bush used to con the world into supporting military intervention. Then, it addressed the Halabjah incident and threw doubt on whose military forces bombed the town with chemical weapons. On Impact quoted two writers from the U.S. Army War College who wrote a book called Iraqi Power and Security in the Middle East. The concluded, "The first attack occurred at Halabjah in north-central Iraq. All accounts of this incident agree that the victims’ mouths and extremities were blue. This is consonant with the use of a blood agent. Iraq never used blood agents throughout the war (Iran-Iraq War). Iran did … hence, we concluded it was the Iranian’s gas that killed the Kurds."
This short statement is devastating in many aspects. If doubt is cast on who gassed the Kurds, many people in American politics will not come out smelling squeaky clean on the issue of integrity because they have been spouting the same words for years.
This allegation is powerful. I know many people who supported the war only because of this statement. A common account is, "I would not support a war except that Saddam gassed his own people."
In 2002, in the buildup to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, many people came forward to challenge the "he gasses his own people" statement. Some were retired CIA officials and some were retired military personnel. They have uncovered much proof to show that Iran may have gassed the Halabjah Kurds.
Many people are now asking, "Why is he only being tried for one incident that led to the deaths of 142 people? How about the big stuff?"
The following is an excerpt from my upcoming book, The Mother of All Battles. It will explain some of the more well-publicized anti-Saddam propaganda. And, it will answer the questions about why he isn’t being tried for the massive amounts of people killed in his regime. There is no proof of the genocide charges against Saddam and both the U.S. and the stooge Iraqi tribunal have decided not to bring these charges because of the embarrassment and international condemnation that would ensue.
The Butcher of Baghdad
Babies Killed … People Boiled in Acid … Human Shredding Machines …
Gassing His Own People … and Whatever Else Sells Newspapers
For the five weeks of Desert Storm, we heard Bush I and every other government person say, "We’re not targeting Saddam Hussein." That was as big a lie as ever was told. The first and last bombs of the conflict were aimed at Saddam. Just minutes before Bush called the cease-fire, a super bomb was dropped in the bunker where Saddam was thought to have been. Unfortunately, a few hundred people lost their lives because of Bush’s obsession with Saddam’s death. If the U.S. was not targeting Saddam Hussein, it would not have unsuccessfully bombed that same bunker 15 times previously, then put hundreds of Americans on round-the-clock shifts to produce the super bomb which finally penetrated the bunker. Bush II ordered similar bombing runs against targets in Iraq in 2003 where he thought Saddam was located that produced the same results — many casualties, but no Saddam.
In 1978, the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the U.S. government and its agencies from assassinating officials of foreign countries. That was just and necessary because, at that time, the U.S. was behind the scenes in assassination attempts on various people in Central America during the Cold War years. However, when it came time to try to kill Saddam Hussein, the law was forgotten. The U.S. Congress, as well as the president and the American people conveniently forgot the law, making a sham of the justice system.
Much of the world was aware of the conditions in Iraq after Desert Storm. People were starving and the country’s infrastructure was destroyed. Sewage treatment was non-existent and farm lands and irrigation systems were destroyed by U.S. bombs. During the first year after Desert Storm, more than 120,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died because of malnutrition and other diseases that were brought on because of the conditions Desert Storm created.
How was life in Iraq before Desert Storm? This is a subject that is taboo for Americans to know.
The entire country was electrified. Health care was free and education was universal and free throughout college. Women held a much higher status in Iraqi society than women in other Arab countries.
Food was inexpensive and readily available. Because of the abundance of food, people from surrounding countries shopped in Iraq. The Iraqi government supplied either low-interest or no-interest home loans and also offered land for those who promised to work the land and produce outcome within five years. Over a million Egyptians and hundreds of thousands of people of other nationalities participated in this agrarian reform program, which was one of the most successful the world had ever seen. It had been a decade since a case of malnutrition had been seen in Baghdad, yet, after Desert Storm, malnutrition was in force in epidemic proportions and caused the deaths of many.
Before Desert Storm, an average salary in Iraq was about $50 a month. At first, that may not sound substantial, but when factored into prices for consumers, as well as services supplied at no or low cost by the government, it was a comfortable salary. An Iraqi’s salary was kept intact because there were no taxes in the country.
After Desert Storm, many formerly employed Iraqis were without work. A black market quickly emerged that exploited the citizens’ needs for necessities. The Iraqi government attempted to rid the country of the black market, which the U.S. helped create by flooding Iraq with counterfeit dinars (the Iraqi monetary unit) and dollars. The crisis was so devastating, that the Iraqi government recalled all the money from the public and issued new currency that could not be counterfeited. The U.S. had flooded Iraq with billions of dollars worth of fake money.
Inflation was rampant. Before Desert Storm, one Iraqi dinar was worth three U.S. dollars. After the conflict, one U.S. dollar amounted to the value of about 1,500 dinars. Over the years, this figure has gone as high as 2,000 dinars to the dollar, or as low as 1,200 dinars to the dollar. Prices of goods, when they were available, escalated over 1,000%. Other items, such as gasoline, that were in abundance, were given away free by the government to help the ordinary citizen cope with the post-war devastation.
Before January 17, 1991, average costs for everyday good in Iraq included:
One gallon of gasoline — $.05
30 eggs — $.65
100 pounds of flour — $1.00
10 pounds of lamb — $2.00
2 pounds of rice — $.07
2 pounds of sugar — $.07
10 pounds of cooking oil — $.85
Iraq was an innovator in women’s role in Arab society. The Ba’ath Socialists, much to the chagrin of a few of its Arab neighbors, made the emancipation of women one of their primary goals after coming to power. There was almost no unemployment and technology was moving to the forefront.
In contrast to virtually every other country in the region, Iraq had a secular government that there was religious freedom. In Iraq, there are Jews, Christians, Muslims of all denominations, pagans, devil-worshipers and non-believers. This assortment of religious beliefs does not exist in many Middle Eastern countries.
Iraq was on the verge of becoming far and away the most modern and technically advanced nation in the region. This progress was something that the U.S. did not want any Arab country to possess, and it eventually became the reason for Iraq’s annihilation.
The main thrust of propaganda against Iraq was thrown at its leader, Saddam Hussein. For the American audience, U.S. government demonization of a person always was effective, and the Bush administration escalated this process to the point of absurdity with Saddam. The program worked brilliantly.
If one looks at the facts, they do not match up to the U.S. propaganda. It is difficult to believe that a world leader who had been in power for as long as Saddam Hussein, and had not been labeled "another Hitler" previously, could have turned into a demon of such magnitude overnight. Sure, Saddam had his naysayers in Iran and within some of the fundamentalist Shi’ite population of Iraq, but he and his government were well-respected by most Arab nations. Countries of both the West and the Soviet bloc enjoyed mutual and profitable relations with Iraq. Iraq’s presence in the United Nations was held in esteem and it was involved with many international dealings, both financially and diplomatically.
On January 13, 1991, the presiding Secretary General of the United Nations, Pérez de Cuéllar, visited Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein. The visit was arranged to try to avert war, but Pérez de Cuéllar had no peace plan. He attempted to convince Saddam Hussein to pull his troops out of Kuwait without addressing Iraq’s problems with the Kuwaiti government. The former Secretary General was close to retirement and his visit was more of a face-saving gesture than an actual overture to peace. He did make one statement, however, that is poignant and the world never heard as he told Saddam, "I know your courage and generosity. I have followed the Iran-Iraq War and the initiatives you made from your side to end the war."
Courage and generosity? An attempt to end the Iran-Iraq War? This was not the same Saddam Hussein whom the U.S. public heard and read about in the American media.
The label "Butcher of Baghdad" was affixed to Saddam Hussein by George Bush and the U.S. media, who never found a trite cliché they did not admire, whether true or false. The collaboration of media and government made this slogan a fixture in the American vocabulary. The moniker was created by a huge lie involving the participation of the U.S. government, the Kuwaiti government, and an American public relations firm.
Shortly after Iraqi troops crossed the border of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, stories emerged of Iraqi soldiers taking babies in Kuwaiti hospitals and throwing them on the floor to die. According to the reports, the soldiers ripped the babies from the incubators and then sent the incubators to Baghdad. From that time, Saddam Hussein was stuck with the title "Butcher of Baghdad."
On October 10, 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah, appeared before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. She was in tears as she told of watching 15 infants being taken from incubators in Al-Adan Hospital in Kuwait City by Iraqi soldiers who "left the babies on the cold floor to die."
A media frenzy followed Nayirah’s testimony. For the next few days, politician-after-politician damned the Iraqis. Congressman Duncan Hunter of California led the barrage of hate thrown at the Iraqis. He appeared on national television and called for war, all the time citing Nayirah’s testimony.
The truth of this incident was made public in January 1992. By then, it was too late. Iraq had been destroyed and was in the beginning of an encompassing embargo that would keep it in servitude for years to come.
John MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, unveiled reality in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Nayirah never saw the incident she described in Congress because she was living in the U.S. at the time it supposedly occurred. Her identity was kept secret because she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, Saud al-Sabah.
In addition, her testimony was scripted by a public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton. The Kuwaiti government paid Hill & Knowlton $12 million to create a scenario in which the Iraqi leadership and people would be demonized.
After MacArthur’s exposure of the deceitful actions of the Kuwaitis and Hill & Knowlton, CBS Television ran a program concerning the incident. A woman, speaking on behalf of Hill & Knowtlon, was asked if the lie was worth all the destruction in Iraq and she replied, 'Yes, because it brought democracy back to Kuwait." A perplexed interviewer responded, "When has Kuwait ever had democracy?" There was no reply.
Before Nayirah’s testimony, the discussion in Washington was whether the U.S. should "liberate" Kuwait by force or whether diplomacy should run its course. After the appearance of Nayirah, it was assumed that the U.S. was facing a bunch of savage beasts, not human beings. The time for philosophical debate had passed. In his New York Times piece, MacArthur stated:
Before the war, the incubator story seriously distorted the American debate whether to support military action.
Amnesty International believed the tale and its ill-considered validation of the charges likely influenced the seven senators who cited the story in speeches backing the January 12 resolution authorizing war.
Because the resolution passed the Senate by only six votes, the question of how the incubator story escaped scrutiny — when it really mattered — is all the more important. (Amnesty International later retracted its support of the story.)
A little reportorial investigation would have done a great service to the democratic process.
Another incident occurred just after the beginning of hostilities that echoed of the Nayirah fiasco. On January 20, 1991, the U.S. public saw an interview with a man who claimed he was Saddam Hussein’s bodyguard. He then went into detail of how one of Saddam’s recreational pursuits was to watch people burn to death in acid. The anonymous figure was graphic about the description. Again, revulsion was felt by the people of the U.S. against Saddam Hussein.
Not one media person questioned the authenticity of the person interviewed. It was later discovered that he was a Saudi, not an Iraqi, and he had never been in Iraq. Even the Saudi government, when questioned about the legitimacy of the person, said that he was "a conspiracy theorist" who may not have possession of all of his mental faculties. The Saudis asked not to be affiliated with the fabricator.
These two incidents should have been enough to make the media skeptical about stories of horrendous torture under Saddam Hussein. They weren’t.
In the buildup to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Saddam had changed torture methods and he now used industrial shredding machines to do away with his enemies. The leading proponent of this allegation was British Labour MP Ann Clywd. On March 18, 2003, days before the military actions began, the British newspaper The Times ran an article written by her that was titled, "See men shredded, then you say you don’t back war."
Three days before the invasion, Clywd spoke in the House of Commons and described how male prisoners in Iraq were dropped into a machine "designed for shredding plastic," and their minced remains were "placed in plastic bags" and later used as "fish food." She alleged that sometimes, the victims were dropped in the machines feet-first so they could briefly view their own mutilation before death.
Australian Prime Minister Howard used the story to his great advantage. He supported the war and was about to send troops, despite overwhelming opposition from his public. After the story appeared in The Times, he addressed his nation and said he wanted to stop the ongoing crimes of the Ba’athist regime in Iraq including the "human shredding machine" that was used "as a vehicle for putting to death critics of Saddam Hussein."
Others used this story for anti-Saddam fodder. Andrew Sullivan of the Sunday Times of Great Britain stated that Clywd’s report showed "clearly, unforgettably, indelibly" that "the Saddam regime is evil." Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips described the shredder in which "bodies got chewed up from foot to head." In The Telegraph, Mark Steyn criticized the anti-war movement with these words: "If it’s a choice between letting some carbonated beverage crony of Dick Cheney get a piece of the Nasiriyah soft-drinks market or allowing Saddam to go on feeding his subjects feet-first into the industrial shredder for another decade or three, then the 'peace’ activists will take the lesser of two evils — i.e., crank up the shredder."
The last statement shows the ludicrous methods some pro-war journalists use to get their messages across. The benign assessment of Cheney’s involvement has been shown to be far off the mark. During the occupation of Iraq, many stories have come forth about the economic shenanigans Cheney has pulled in efforts to grease the palms of his friends. Not just a soft-drink concession, but billions of dollars have been allocated for various companies; dollars that have blood on them because they were only attained after killing tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Pro-war journalists used many colorful and creative words to describe this shredding machine. According to Trevor Kavanagh, political editor of the British daily The Sun, "British resistance to war changed last year when we learned how sadist Saddam personally supervised the horrific torture of Iraqis. Public opinion swung behind Tony Blair as voters learned how Saddam fed dissidents feet first into industrial shredders."
As in the case of the Kuwaiti incubators being sent to Baghdad, the shredders did not exist. But, both stories galvanized a public to support the slaughter of tens of thousands of people and the destruction of a country.
When Ann Clywd was asked about her sources of information, she said that she had interviewed an Iraqi in northern Iraq. She was eventually asked who the person was and if he was telling the truth. Clywd told journalist Brendan O’Neill of The Spectator, "We heard it from a victim; we heard it and we believed it." When O’Neill asked her if anything was done to check the victim’s statement against other witness statements or other evidence for a shredding machine, she replied, "Well, no."
The incidents supposedly took place at Abu Ghraib Prison, an institution made world famous by prisoner torture; torture perpetrated by the U.S. against Iraqi inmates. When all was said and done, the shredding incidents, that received worldwide publicity, amounted to the uncorroborated story of one person interviewed in northern Iraq. This, in itself, is hardly evidence to use to send a country to war.
O’Neill began to track down people who could either corroborate or deny the legitimacy of shredders being used to kill prisoners. He found an Iraqi doctor who worked at the hospital attached to the prison who worked at Abu Ghraib in 1997 and 1998. He is now is taking medical exams to be licensed to practice medicine in Great Britain. The doctor’s job was to attend to those prisoners who had been executed. He told O’Neill, "We had to see the dead prisoners to make sure that they were dead. Then we would write a death certificate for them."
This doctor refuted any stories about the shredding machines. O’Neill asked him if he ever attended or heard of prisoners who had been shredded. He replied, "No." Then, he was asked if any of the other doctors at the prison spoke of a shredding machine used to execute prisoners. The doctor responded, "No, no, never. The method of execution was hanging; as far as I know, that was the only form of execution used at Abu Ghraib."
Another odd incident occurred that at first corroborated the shredder account, but quickly was exposed as a ruse. An individual named Kenneth Joseph came forth and said he went to Iraq to be a human shield, but once in the country, he heard so many horror stories, that he left, with 14 hours of videotaped interviews, and then became a war proponent. On March 21, 2003, the UPI ran a story on Joseph, again perpetrating a lie. Joseph said what he had heard in Iraq, "shocked me back to reality," that Iraqi’s "tales of slow torture and killing made me feel ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as their bodies got chewed up."
Quickly, his testimony came under fire. Carol Lipton, an American journalist investigated his story and said, "none of the human shield groups whom I contacted had ever heard of Joseph." She noted that not one photo or any segment of the 14 hours of videotape had ever been shown. Johann Hari, a pro-war columnist with the Independent would have liked to have believed Joseph’s account, but, after investigation, he could not. Hari said Joseph "was probably a bullshitter."
With pressure on her to show proof of the shredders, Clywd, on June 18, 2003, wrote another article for The Times with, what she said, was solid proof. She said she was shown a book by a FOX News reporter that she described as a "chillingly meticulous record book" from the prison. She was asked if she could say who compiled the book and she said, "No, I can’t." When asked where it was at the time, she said, "I don’t know." Then, she was asked the name of the FOX reporter who showed it to her and she answered, "I have no idea." Finally, she was asked if she read the entire book, and she responded, "No. It was in Arabic."
When asked about the Ba’athists using a shredder on humans, a spokesman for Amnesty International said, "We checked it with our people here, and we have no information about a shredder." Widney Brown of Human Rights Watch said, "We don’t know anything about a shredder, and have not heard of that particular form of execution or torture."
The Nayirah story and the shredder fable used similar methods to create comparable results. Both used lies to pursue an agenda, an agenda that led to two invasions of Iraq and the killing of over two million people, including those who died as results of the almost-13-year-embargo.
The difference in the stories is that no one had to pay $12 million for a public relations firm to concoct the shredder story. An unwitting dupe used the word of one anonymous witness and the account of one probable "bullshitter" to galvanize the opinions of millions.
To anyone who would still believe the shredder story today, one underlying factor should be proof enough that it never occurred. If there was a shredder, the U.S. forces would have found it at Abu Ghraib Prison and there would have been picture-after-picture of it being shown in every newspaper and magazine in the world. Journalistic silence, in this case, is the overwhelming proof of the fantasy of the shredder.
Perhaps most damaging and damning incident for the Iraqi leadership was the gassing of Halabjah, a Kurdish town, in April 1988. Halabjah came under attack with chemicals and the world saw the tragedy as people were strewn on the streets. However, the media did not pay a great amount of attention to the incident and it quickly was replaced in the international press.
In the buildup to Desert Storm, Bush I took the Halabjah gassing out of the closet and he made great strides in gaining people worldwide to support a military conclusion to the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. All of a sudden we heard him tell the world, "He gasses his own people."
That statement was made so many times by administration officials that it became a household cliché. The problem is that no one ever checked out its authenticity. A fw months after Desert Storm, Greenpeace published an in-depth study called "On Impact" about the reasons for the massacre and how in the future war may be a last option instead of a first choice. A portion of the report covered the demonizing of the Iraqi leadership. It brought out many lies Bush used to con the world into supporting military intervention. Then, it addressed the Halabjah incident and threw doubt on whose military forces bombed the town with chemical weapons. On Impact quoted two writers from the U.S. Army War College who wrote a book called Iraqi Power and Security in the Middle East. The concluded, "The first attack occurred at Halabjah in north-central Iraq. All accounts of this incident agree that the victims’ mouths and extremities were blue. This is consonant with the use of a blood agent. Iraq never used blood agents throughout the war (Iran-Iraq War). Iran did … hence, we concluded it was the Iranian’s gas that killed the Kurds."
This short statement is devastating in many aspects. If doubt is cast on who gassed the Kurds, many people in American politics will not come out smelling squeaky clean on the issue of integrity because they have been spouting the same words for years.
This allegation is powerful. I know many people who supported the war only because of this statement. A common account is, "I would not support a war except that Saddam gassed his own people."
In 2002, in the buildup to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, many people came forward to challenge the "he gasses his own people" statement. Some were retired CIA officials and some were retired military personnel. They have uncovered much proof to show that Iran may have gassed the Halabjah Kurds.
Homepage:
