Deep Blade Journal

Deep Blade Journal since its first year has traced this story

Secret, contemporaneous report within the Pentagon itself debunked the notion that this laughable trailer meant in the dubious remarks of President Bush on Polish television (May 29, 2003) that, “We found the weapons of mass destruction.”

The hand-picked weapons inspector President Bush sent to Iraq in the spring of 2003, David Kay, later would say, “This is the one that’s damning.”

He was talking about phony defector Curveball’s story on mobile bioweapons labs and how it was used to stir up support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. These units supposedly were one in the same with those famously projected in the UN slide show by then Secretary of State Colin Powell on February 5, 2003. The media had cooperated with the propaganda effort by uncritically hyping the story for months during fall 2002 and winter 2003 with tales of Saddam’s “Hell on Wheels” and “Winnebagos of Death.”

After the president’s “mission accomplished” events in May 2003, a widely-released story on May 7, 2003 read,

The Pentagon said Wednesday it may have recovered an Iraqi mobile biological weapons lab, the first such announcement since the start of the war to disarm the government of President Saddam Hussein.

American forces in Iraq are doing tests on a trailer that matches the description of such laboratories, given by various sources including a defector who says he helped operate one, Defense Department officials said.

“On the smoking gun, I don’t know,” Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone said when asked whether this was a breakthrough in the coalition search for weapons of mass destruction.

Cambone also announced that some 2,100 people will be sent to Iraq to augment the weapons hunt as well as the search for information on government leaders, terrorists, war crimes, atrocities and Iraqi prisoners of war. The effort will be headed by Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Cambone said.

He said initial tests have been done on a trailer truck taken into custody April 19 at a Kurdish checkpoint in northern Iraq. It is painted in a military color scheme, was found on a transporter normally used for tanks and — as an Iraqi defector has described Iraq’s mobile labs — contains a fermenter and a system to capture exhaust gases, he said.

“While some of the equipment on the trailer could have been used for purposes other than biological weapons agent production, U.S. and U.K. technical experts have concluded that the unit does not appear to perform any function beyond what the defector said it was for, which is the production of biological agents,” Cambone said…

Later that month, a breathless CIA document describing the trailers using graphics similar to Powell’s (still here on the internet!) purported to show the “strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program.”

Evidently this juiced-up story and document, totally at odds with what the Pentagon in secret was finding out about the trailers for itself, was designed to feed a remarkable post-war propaganda effort claiming WMD were found. Read the cited Deep Blade post for more detail and extensive analysis.

For those needing more proof that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and other officials had a predilection for hyping false WMD stories while secret internal reports to the contrary were available, the Washington Post today revealed that,

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq — not made public until now — had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president’s statement.

The contents of the final report, “Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers,” remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.

“There was no connection to anything biological,” said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: “the biggest sand toilets in the world.”

This internal assessment confirms what has been on the record for a long time. Shortly after the Bush remarks on Polish TV, a June 15, 2003 story in The Observer reported that a British team who had examined the trailers determined

They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were – facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.

The June 2004 Deep Blade post referenced above traces many more months of promotion of the bioweapons falsehoods. The last liar standing apparently was Dick Cheney, who claimed in January 2004 that the trailers meant there was “conclusive evidence, if you will, that he [Saddam] did, in fact, have programs for weapons of mass destruction.”

Obviously to me, all of this shows a persistent, intentional trail of falsehoods released by the Bush administration to the public — both pre-war and post-war — in order to maintain consent for the aggression.

Seymour Hersh pulls back the covers

Grave and gathering threat to the security of Iran

Let me be very clear that I’m as troubled as anyone about proliferation and acquisition of nuclear capability by Iran. But my God! Let’s turn around the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. According to Hersh, the US already has troops preparing for war inside Iran. Good Lord! Wouldn’t that give Iran an Article 51 case for self defense against American aggression? Hersh says,

… the American combat troops now operating in Iran would be in position to mark the critical targets with laser beams, to insure bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian casualties. As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast. The troops “are studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds” …

Not only that, Hersh says,

the military’Â’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites

Doesn’t the planning revealed by Hersh show who the real advanced nuclear powers in the Middle East/Persian Gulf region are? Certainly the US. And Israel too. Should not it be reasonable to look at that situation from the Iranian point of view? Iran faces in Israel what may well be a full-blown nuclear triad, plus whatever the US has nearby, which must be substantial if these bunker buster strikes are on the option table. That’s all gotta seem to Iran to be far beyond what “deterrence” would require.

Any tiny international move to inject some “fairness” into negotiations, like the ElBaradei mission to Israel in the summer of 2004, strikes a brick wall.

Every bit of pressure is allowed to be placed upon Iran, but none on Israel. In July 2004, Sharon declared that Israel’s “no show, no tell” policy of nuclear ambiguity would not even be discussed.

“I don’t know what he [ElBaradei] is coming to see,” Mr. Sharon said. “Israel has to hold in its hand all the elements of power necessary to protect itself by itself. Our policy of ambiguity on nuclear arms has proved its worth, and it will continue.”

Talk like that of a secret, “ambiguous” arsenal by Iran on a claim of self-protection would invite immediate preventive strikes, wouldn’t it?

A sure way to achieve progress in regional nuclear disarmament–international discussion of US and Israeli arsenals–is closed. Instead, aggressive, messianic war against a major Islamic country is preferred by the White House.

Think whatever you will about hardline Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who according to Hersh, “may have been involved in terrorist activities in the late eighties.” But a nuclear attack on Iran over its research facilities–facilities that have not been proven illegal under international law–surely would be one of the most aggressive attacks in world history and would mark the bitter end of the American-inspired post-WWII international system

Gray day

Veazie volunteer firefighters “training”

Spring brushpile

Last Sunday, part of a train carrying product from the now-closed paper mill in Old Town went into the Penobscot after derailing at a curve in Bangor, just a couple of miles from here. It was pretty spectacular, with a fire starting in some of the cars carrying the paper.

Meanwhile, we’re piling up another sort of jetsam from the yard at the side of the road. The town does a spring brush pickup, but it’s hard to predict when they’ll actually get over here. It could be the next week, or it could be a month from now before they haul this away.

Note that some rain, even some snow, this week has alleviated the fire danger.

Open letter to Maine PBS MaineWatch program

Dear Ms. Albright,

This message concerns the recent re-broadcast of the 2004 interview with the late Caspar Weinberger. You may recall our earlier correspondence on this matter. Even though the former defense secretary unfortunately has died, I would like now to renew many of my previous comments. Obviously Mr. Weinberger is no longer available to respond to criticism and some may view an examination of the truth in history to be tantamount to trampling on a grave.

But don’t you think that many of the assertions now standing as the MaineWatch view of Iraq and the Reagan legacy justifiably ought to be reviewed? This state is full of people who are working on these issues from a peace perspective, day-in and day-out.

For example, why don’t you send some MaineWatch cameras over to the Hope Festival at the University of Maine on April 22? You’ll find thousands of public broadcasting supporters there–ready, willing, and able to give you a ton of the sort of “balance” I suggest below.

So, as a very creative producer, I would ask you to please figure out a way to address the following concerns about the Weinberger interview in the sensitive manner in which I know you are capable:

Lack of Balance In the Weinberger interview, highly controversial, unabashed pro-war views about the invasion and occupation of Iraq were presented. Please, Ms. Albright, consider producing for MaineWatch a similar 20-minute segment featuring local peace activists. For the most part, MaineWatch programs over the last three years have completely ignored the vigorous peace movement that is ongoing here in Maine. Way back, during the run-up to the Iraq war, the one MaineWatch segment that covered Maine people who rode busses to the large Washington DC peace demonstration in January 2003 was carefully balanced by an interview with a retired military man. Should not this episode be afforded some kind of parallel treatment, especially considering that almost everything the peace movement was saying then has turned out to be true three years later?

Unchallenged assertions Mr. Weinberger’s made questionable and entirely unchallenged assertions about Iraq and other matters. Many of these statements are factually unsupportable. For example, Mr. Weinberger said that the people who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were “still getting paid by Saddam Hussein’s government.” This goes much farther than even the case that dubiously had been made by the Bush administration on evidence from discredited intelligence sources–that “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda” (President Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 and at other times).

Iran-Contra indictment While the program did include a question to Mr. Weinberger about being indicted (then pardoned by President George H. W. Bush) in the Iran-Contra investigation, he just brushed off his indictment as the politically motivated action of an out-of-control special prosecutor. In reality, substantial evidence indicated Mr. Weinberger told lies about his diaries on the Iran-Contra affair. That is what led to the indictment. Should we believe now that truth was told in this interview?

Arming Iraq On justification for war on Saddam Hussein, Mr. Weinberber stated that “you can’t deal with people like that, you can’t negotiate with liars.” But the obvious contradiction entirely missing from this interview and all other recent hagiography is that Weinberger did deal with Saddam at a high level and in secret. One of his major Pentagon foreign policy projects in the 1980s was the vigorous armament of Saddam Hussein. The effort included removal of Iraq from the terror-sponsor list and the offerings of envoy Donald Rumsfeld during more than one friendly visit to the palaces in Baghdad. Rumsfeld lobbied Saddam in favor of an oil pipeline project desired by Weinberger’s (and then-Secretary-of State George Shultz’s) former employer, Bechtel Corporation. The arms program was deeply illegal and was conducted despite Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. Later, this led to a less-investigated, less-reported, but even more explosive scandal called “Iraqgate.” Weinberger was a figure right at the heart of Iraqgate.

Nuclear legacy Caspar Weinberger was a tireless proponent of the nuclear arms race. The nuclear arsenal he hysterically promoted while alive will haunt the world for decades to come.

Back in June 2004, you offered an interview with former Senator George Mitchell as a “useful balance.” This is fine, but is inadequate in addressing the concerns I have here. Senator Mitchell had cautioned against a long occupation of Iraq and was concerned about effects on foreign relations, but as far as I can tell from looking up his pre-war statements, he never was really opposed to the war, as long as it was swift.

It is unfortunate that MPBN’s MaineWatch has failed to cover in any substantial way one of the many visible and vigorous peace movement activities that surrounded the 3rd anniversary of the war, while giving substantial time for the one-sided, pro-war views of the late Caspar Weinberger.

Eric

“Démarche”

What? Sovereign?

Times:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 3 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw, the British foreign minister, forcefully demanded today that the Iraqi leadership form a unified government as quickly as possible to end a power vacuum in which sectarian bloodletting has been rampant.

There is a sense that all of this is getting out of control. It became no secret last week that President Bush wants Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari out. According to a source cited by Juan Cole, the maneuvers associated with the surprise visit to Baghdad may just represent a “successful” effort to “break up the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance bloc in parliament and to sideline Ibrahim Jaafari.”

So much for Iraqi sovereignty. As Iraqis exert independence from its American occupiers, the American fist pounds back. The true level of violence the US actually promotes is not much discussed, but evidence is that Americans are actually the source of quite a bit of it. It’s a dangerous game. I have my doubts that squelching of the violence is high on the list of Rice’s priorities.