Saddam demonised




Health v medicine


Nobody does it better than America   

MH17 coverup  



The Fake Arab Spring

Time for a Truth War  

Massacre of Taliban POWs  

Myths for Iraq war 

Are sanctions justified?


Saddam Hussein 

Gassing of Kurds 

Who set light to the oil wells?  

Kosovo deception 

Elite sets stage for WW3  

Pre-emptive action

Why Hiroshima was bombed  



Fake terror 

Thank a vet?

Al-Qaeda - fictional terror group 

Defaming Islam 

Fake terror - the road to dictatorship 

Fabricating an enemy  

Inside Indonesia's war on terror 

War on terror a hoax   

911 - White collar terrorism 

911 Training drills 

Bird flu hoax 

Osama bin Laden  

War Propaganda 

WMD found in Iraq 

Bali bombing - JI   

School of Americas 


Covert operations 

Pearl Harbor

Operation Paperclip

Psyops & psywars 

Secret Team: CIA & Allies in Control of US & World   

CIA & agencies

Operation Mongoose

Operation Cyclone

Bay of Pigs

Gulf of Tonkin

Operation Northwoods







Up ] MH17 ] The Fake Arab Spring ] Syria ] Ukraine ] Afghanistan ] Iraq myths ] Sanctions ] Intelligence ] [ Saddam demonised ] Gassing of Kurds ] Oil wells ] Desert Storm ] Kosovo ] BOBCU (Battle of Bagdad coverup) ]


Campaign to demonise Saddam Hussein began in 1988


Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception 
HarperCollinsPublishers New York 1994

Victor Ostrovsky: 
(1) How Mossad Got America to Bomb Libya & Fight Iraq  
(2) Mossad's training BOTH SIDES in the Sri Lankan civil war; and on its support for Moslem fundamentalists, to derail the peace process; and on its plan to kill George Bush snr, in payback for the peace process he initiated.

p. 247} The Mossad regarded Saddam Hussein as their biggest asset in the area, since he was totally irrational as far as international politics was concerned, and was therefore all the more likely to make a stupid move that the Mossad could take advantage of.

What the Mossad really feared was that Iraq's gigantic army, which had survived the Iran-Iraq war and was being supplied by the West and financed by Saudi Arabia, would fall into the hands of a leader who might be more palatable to the West and still be a threat to Israel.

The first step was taken in November 1988, when the Mossad told the Israeli foreign office to stop all talks with the Iraqis regarding a peace front. At that time, secret negotiations were taking place between Israelis, Jordanians, and Iraqis under the auspices of the Egyptians and with the blessings of the French and the Americans. The Mossad manipulated it so that Iraq looked as if it were the only country unwilling to talk, thereby convincing the Americans that Iraq had a different agenda.

By January 1989, the Mossad LAP machine was busy portraying Saddam as a tyrant and a danger to the world. The Mossad activated every asset it had, in every place possible, from volunteer agents in Amnesty International to fully bought members of the U.S. Congress.

Saddam had been killing his own people, the cry went; what could his enemies expect? The gruesome photos of dead Kurdish mothers clutching their dead babies after a gas attack by Saddam's army were real, and the acts were horrendous. But the Kurds were entangled in an all-out guerrilla war with the regime in Baghdad and had been supported for years by the Mossad, who sent arms and advisers to the mountain camps of the Barazany family; this attack by the Iraqis could hardly be called an attack on their own people. 


But, as Uri said to me, once the orchestra starts to play, 
all you can do is hum along.

The media was supplied with inside information and tips from reliable sources on how the crazed leader of Iraq killed people with his bare hands and used missiles to attack Iranian cities. What they neglected to tell the media was that most of the targeting for the missiles was done by the Mossad with the help of American satellites. 

The Mossad was grooming Saddam for a fall, but not his own. They wanted the Americans to do the work of destroying that gigantic army in the Iraqi desert so that Israel would not have to face it one day on its own border. That in itself was a noble cause for an Israeli, but to endanger the world with the possibility of global war and the deaths of thousands of Americans was sheer madness.

Saddam next target

Ephraim had spelled it all out for me and confirmed some of the information I'd already known. He then went on. "After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We're starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there's no doubt it'll work."

"But isn't Saddam regarded as moderate toward us, allied with Jordan, the big enemy of Iran and Syria?"

"Yes, that's why I'm opposed to this action. But that's the directive, and I must follow it. Hopefully, you and I will be done with our little operation before anything big happens. After all, we have already destroyed his nuclear facility, and we are making money by selling him technology and equipment through South Africa."

{p. 254} In the following weeks, more and more discoveries were made regarding the big gun and other elements of the Saddam war machine. The Mossad had all but saturated the intelligence field with information regarding the evil intentions of Saddam the Terrible, banking on the fact that before long, he'd have enough rope to hang himself. It was very clear what the Mossad's overall goal was. It wanted the West to do its bidding, just as the Americans had in Libya with the bombing of Qadhafi. After all, Israel didn't possess carriers and ample air power, and although it was capable of bombing a refugee camp in Tunis, that was not the same. 

The Mossad leaders knew that if they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he'd been the protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he went nuclear.

The media was supplied with inside information and tips from reliable sources on how the crazed leader of Iraq killed people with his bare hands and used missiles to attack Iranian cities. What they neglected to tell the media was that most of the targeting for the missiles was done by the Mossad with the help of American satellites. The Mossad was grooming Saddam for a fall, but not his own. They wanted the Americans to do the work of destroying that gigantic army in the Iraqi desert so that Israel would not have to face it one day on its own border. That in itself was a noble cause for an Israeli, but to endanger the world with the possibility of global war and the deaths of thousands of Americans was sheer madness.

{p. 252} It was time to draw attention to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

Only three months before, on December 5, 1989, the Iraqis had launched the Al-Abid, a three-stage ballistic missile. The Iraqis claimed it was a satellite launcher that Gerald Bull, a Canadian scientist, was helping them develop. Israeli intelligence knew that the launch, although trumpeted as a great success, was in fact a total failure, and that the program would never reach its goals. But that secret was not shared with the media. On the contrary, the missile launch was exaggerated and blown out of proportion.

The message that Israeli intelligence sent out was this: Now all the pieces of the puzzle are fitting together. This maniac is developing a nuclear capability (remember the Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981) and pursuing chemical warfare (as seen in his attacks on his own people, the Kurds). What's more, he despises the Western media, regarding them as Israeli spies. Quite soon, he's going to have the ability to launch a missile from anywhere in Iraq to anywhere he wants in the Middle East and beyond.


Confessions of an ex-Mossad agent
Excerpt from Victor Ostrovsky's, "By way of deception"

NOTE: Needless to say, the Israeli Lobby has demanded (and gotten) a total ban on this book in all major bookstore chains, while pro-Israeli experts have trashed it at every opportunity. Ostrovsky's book is available only online at places like Amazon

"My name is Aharon Sherf," he said. "I am the head of the Academy. Welcome to the Mossad. Its full name is Ha Mossad, le Modiyn ve le Tafkidim Mayuhadim [the Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations]. 

Our motto is: 'By way of deception, thou shalt do war'.


Enter the Babies

"During the Gulf War, the American media was manipulated into reporting exactly what the government and military had wanted them to report."    
-- Jeff Pavir, host of CBC's Prime Time

Through press releases and media packages, Hill & Knowlton began circulating the accusations that Iraqi soldiers had removed 312 babies from their incubators and left them to die on the cold hospital floor of Kuwait City. This incident had originally been fabricated in a September 5 report to the London Daily Telegraph by exiled Kuwaiti housing minister Yahya al-Sumait. It was reinforced in a later account in the Los Angeles Times by a San Francisco woman identified only as "Cindy" and her travelling companion "Rudi". No last names were given and no photographs were presented as evidence of this claim. Once this unsubstantiated baby atrocity accusation got out, it was repeated over and over again by journalists, having burrowed itself like a virus into the computerized clippings files of major newspapers.

At the October 10 Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Hill & Knowlton produced "Nayirah", a fifteen-year- old Kuwaiti, to provided testimony that was later used in the Citizens for a Free Kuwait media kit. In her passionate account of atrocities in Kuwait city, she stated:

"I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where 15 babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."

It was not asked why she didn't bend down to pick up one of the dying infants, and it was not revealed that Nayirah was the daughter of Saud al-Sabah, Kuwait's ambassador to the United States.

Aziz Abu-Hammad, investigator for the New York-based human rights group Middle East Watch, was unable to substantiate Nayirah's report of incubator atrocities. In a December 19 memo, he wrote that it is possible that some of the supposed witnesses "are doing their part in a public relations campaign by the Kuwaiti government, where the truth is stretched a bit." Regardless, Hill & Knowlton had the baby incubator story repeated before the United Nations Security Council chamber in an audiovisual presentation on November 27.

The presentation was loaded with anonymous charges of Iraqi brutality and the reiteration of the baby incubator story. A Kuwaiti dentist, claiming to be a surgeon and using a false name, testified that under his supervision 120 newborn babies were buried in the second week of the invasion. Five of the seven witnesses at the U.N. that day - coached by Hill & Knowlton - had used false names without saying they were doing so. Two days after this slick presentation, the Security Council passed Resolution 678 authorizing member states to use military force to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

In the five weeks following Nayirah's falsified testimony, the baby incubator story was repeated six times by George Bush in various political speeches, including a speech to the troops near Dhahran:

"It turns your stomach when you listen to the tales of those that have escaped the brutality of Saddam the invader. Mass hangings. Babies pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor."

When Amnesty International made the unfortunate mistake of publishing a two-sentence description of the incubator story in an 84-page report on human rights violations in occupied Kuwait, George Bush was quick to exploit Amnesty's established credentials by publishing an open letter sent to campus newspapers across the country, using references to the Amnesty version of the incubator story, and stating that "there's no horror that could make this a more obvious conflict of good vs. evil...".

At the January 8 Congress hearing on Kuwait the war resolution was passed after the Amnesty report was quoted that "over 300 babies were reported to have died after Iraqi soldiers removed them from incubators."

Amnesty later backed down from the story in the seventh paragraph of a press release, stating that they had found "no reliable evidence that Iraqi forces had caused the deaths of babies by removing them or ordering their removal from incubators."

Opposition to the incubator atrocity tale was conveniently ignored, until the January 17, 1991 article by Alexander Cockburn in the Los Angeles Times which openly challenged the incubator myth. Unfortunately, by then the bombing of Iraq had already begun.

Later, on February 15, Vice President Dan "Potato" Quayle declared, "There are pictures Saddam doesn't want us to see. Pictures of premature babies in Kuwait that were tossed out of their incubators and left to die."

After the war, Middle East Watch was shown death certificates for 30 Kuwaiti babies who were all buried on August 24, 1990. Of those 30 babies, 19 had died before the Iraqi invasion began, and 11 died during the occupation. None of the 30 were ever shown to have been removed from incubators. All of the witnesses backed off from their original claims of having supervised or participated in the burial of babies.

According to London Amnesty International spokesman Sean Styles, "we spoke to well over a dozen doctors of different nationalities who had been in Kuwait at the time and they couldn't stand the story up, and it became quite clear to us that credible medical opinion was that this didn't happen."

Andrew Whitley, executive director of Middle East Watch, and part of a two-man investigation in Kuwait, was quoted as having said, "Soon after we arrived in Kuwait, two weeks after the liberation it became apparent that the story was a complete hoax. We were able to go 'round the hospitals to count the incubators and find that - possibly with one or two that had been misplaced - that none were missing. So none of the incubators were removed in the first place. Moreover, it seemde quite clear that there weren't any deaths which had been deliberately the cause of the Iraqis having gone in and stolen equipment."

Gulf War wouldn't have happened without incubator allegations

The final decision to go to war was made on January 12, 1991 in a Senate vote of 52 to 47 (a margin of 3). Before passing this resolution, six pro-war senators specifically brought forth the baby incubator allegations in their speeches supporting the resolution. Without the incubator allegations the margin of victory within the Senate would not have been sufficient for the war effort to be approved, and hence the war would not have occurred.


The Saddam story

The way in which people interpret this story is depends on their perspective. If you see it through the lense of the Western media, Saddam Hussein was a "brutal dictator" and a threat to world peace. But our governments are jointly responsible for any brutal acts that his government perpetrated, because they were all willing accomplices. We supplied the weapons that were used in every case.

Saddam Hussein saw his job as a successful attempt to hold together a dangerously fragmented country. His enemies, he would argue, were terrorists and dangerous neighbouring regimes. The US, the UK, France, Russia, and China, all agreed with him at the time too. The US put Saddam in power and the others all helped to support and arm Iraq.

As for the crimes that Saddam Hussein is condemned for by our politicians and their media allies, so much for the principle of innocent until proven guilty. We will be watching the trial with great interest, because the case against him is weak and there is compelling evidence indicating that he had nothing to do with the crimes that he now stands accused of.



 How the CIA found and groomed Saddam Hussein
 Indo-Asian News Service
April 16, 2003

WASHINGTON: US forces may now be searching high and low for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein but in the past he was seen by US intelligence as a bulwark of anti-communism, reports UPI.

American intelligence operatives used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former US intelligence officials and diplomats.

UPI interviewed almost a dozen former US diplomats, British scholars and former US intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment.

While many have thought that Saddam Hussein became involved with US intelligence agencies from the 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts date back to 1959 when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi prime minister General Abd al-Karim Qasim.

In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy. According to US officials, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union...

For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.

Little attention was paid to Qasim's bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959.

Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of real power.

In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, said the CIA enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party.

In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this, saying the CIA chose the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party as its instrument.

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam Hussein, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a US plot to get rid of Qasim.

According to this source, Saddam Hussein was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's ministry of defence to observe Qasim's movements.

Adel Darwish, a Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of CIA" and that Saddam Hussein's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence.

The assassination was set for October 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. One former CIA official said the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and fired too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm.

Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam Hussein, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents.

He then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut.

While in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam Hussein's apartment and put him through a brief training course. The agency then helped him get to Cairo.

During this time Saddam made frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew him.

In February 1963, Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy.

The CIA quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraqi communists, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former US intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.

Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam Hussein, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.

Saddam Hussein became head of the Baath Party's intelligence apparatus.

The CIA/Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) relation with Saddam Hussein intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam Hussein to deliver battlefield intelligence to aid the effectiveness of the Iraqi armed forces.

A former CIA official said that Saddam Hussein had assigned a top team of three senior officers from Iraq's military intelligence to meet the Americans.

According to Darwish, the CIA and DIA provided military assistance to Saddam Hussein's ferocious 1988 assault on Iranian positions in the al-Fao peninsula by blinding Iranian radars for three days.

The Saddam Hussein-US intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end on August 2, 1990 when 100,000 Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy.

[If you found this article of interest, please consider perusing the FriendsOfLiberty/SiaNews archives]


Saddam Hussein put in power in Iraq by the CIA 
by William Cooper in 'MajestyTwelve' (1997)

"Saddam Hussein was trained by the CIA. Saddam Hussein was put in power in Iraq by the CIA under George Bush. The United States armed Iraq and gave Saddam Hussein the technology and scientific knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction. The United States sold Anthrax to Iraq.

Saddam Hussein functions as the big "bogeyman" of the world so that the United Nations can cement its authority over so-called sovereign nations. That is why Saddam Hussein was not killed during the Gulf War. His purpose is to function as an "Anti-Christ" to create terror in the minds of the sheople of the world. The Gulf War actually helped Iraq solve a serious population problem that was also in line with the goals of the new world order. Saddam was only going by the script given to him and played his role very well.

A best selling videotape called "The Late Great Planet Earth" concerning prophecy and narrated by Orson Wells (once again he plays a significant part in the mind control of America) was shown on television and sold worldwide for several years preceding the Gulf War. It showed a Muslim "antichrist" as the clone image of Saddam Hussein, uniform, beret, and all. Even the facial features of this "video antichrist were those of Saddam Hussein.

The goal, of course, will be the destruction of national sovereignty worldwide, the establishment of a one world socialist government under the United Nations, disarmament of all nations, and the establishment of a world police force.

The Gulf War was actually rehearsed every year for many years in "Operation Bright Star" which actually named Kuwait as the "small nation" which would be attacked by a "larger neighbor nation". 

Operation Bright Star was outlined thoroughly in a book published by Arco Press entitled "U.S. Rapid Deployment Forces" several years before the Gulf War took place. In the book Kuwait was named as the small nation that would be attacked by it's larger neighbor nation. Saddam Hussein played his part well... and you wondered why we never killed him. Ask the Illuminati's George Bush.

The terrorists attacks which will be launched in the United States will be blamed upon middle eastern religious fanatics, Christian fundamentalists, white supremacists, Patriots, or Militias. A more immediate result of these operations will be the increased use of military forces, weaponry, and equipment such as tanks and armored personnel carriers in civilian law enforcement, the suspension or elimination of Habeas Corpus, the elimination of jury trials, the attempted disarming of the American People, and the institution of martial law with show-trials conducted by a tribunal of judges.

Ultimate goal of socialism is communism

When you continue to hear this Constitutional Republic referred to as a "democracy" you must remember that V.I. Lenin said, "Democracy is indispensable to socialism." When you hear our military referred to as "UN Peace Keepers" remember that both Marx and Lenin defined "peace" as, "the elimination of all opposition to socialism." If you really want to discover exactly what type of government we are supposed to have read Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution for the United States of America.

When you wonder where this is all taking us remember that both Marx and Lenin stated that, "The ultimate goal of socialism is communism."



Saddam does not have "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
Unless he already has nukes that we don't know about.

By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 2:56 PM PT

In articulating the case for going to war with Iraq, the Bush administration emphasizes that Saddam Hussein possesses and has used "weapons of mass destruction." In an Aug. 26 speech, Vice President Dick Cheney said that Saddam wants

more time to husband his resources, to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons programs, and to gain possession of nuclear arms. Should all his ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East, for the United States, and for the peace of the world. The whole range of weapons of mass destruction then would rest in the hands of a dictator who has already shown his willingness to use such weapons [italics Chatterbox's], and has done so, both in his war with Iran and against his own people.

In the Sept. 2 New Republic, an editorial headlined "Best Case" states this more starkly:

What is it, then, about the villain in Baghdad that should provoke the United States to rid the world of him? One spectacular thing: He is the only leader in the world with weapons of mass destruction who has used them. He used them against Iranian troops and against Kurdish civilians. This is what makes Saddam Hussein so distinguished in the field of evil.

The trouble with this distinction is that it rests on the long-standing dubious convention of classifying chemical and biological weapons as "weapons of mass destruction." Saddam has indeed used mustard gas and chemical agents to commit genocide "against his own people," and that is indeed a horror. (For details, see Chatterbox's earlier item, "Jude Wanniski's Genocide Denial.") Were Saddam to use them against anybody now, the U.S. would probably be justified in declaring immediate war on Iraq. But to call chemical and biological agents "weapons of mass destruction" is to blur the crucial distinction between these weapons and nuclear weapons, the use of which would be a far greater horror, both because it would kill many more people and because it would open the door to further, and deadlier, nuclear warfare.

That chemical and biological weapons don't deserve to be called "weapons of mass destruction" is a point long familiar to arms control experts. Here, for example, is Gert G. Harigel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

The term "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), used to encompass nuclear (NW), biological (BW) and chemical weapons (CW), is misleading, politically dangerous, and cannot be justified on grounds of military efficiency. …

Whereas protection with various degrees of efficiency is possible against chemical and biological weapons however inconvenient it might be for military forces on the battlefield and for civilians at home, it is not feasible at all against nuclear weapons.

Wolfgang K.H. Panofsky spells out the comparative lethality of nuclear versus chemical and biological weapons in the April 1998 issue of Arms Control Today, in an article headlined "Dismantling the Concept of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' ":

The weapons detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed about a quarter of a million people, had an explosive power about one-tenth that carried by a modern nuclear weapon. … If a 1-megaton thermonuclear warhead exploded at optimum altitude over a large city, little would be left standing or alive within five miles. A firestorm could be ignited, further extending the range of destruction. In a large-scale exchange, lethal fallout would cover an entire region.

Biological and chemical weapons, though certainly very nasty, are not nearly so deadly:

If virulent BW materials were to be widely distributed over an exposed population, then the ratio of potential lethality to the total weight of the material could be comparable to that of nuclear weapons. However, for this horrifying scenario to occur, the materials cannot be dispersed by a single-point explosion, but instead must be spread by an appropriate mechanism such as spray tanks or by "fractionating" a missile's payload and dispersing separate mini-munitions over a wide area. 

Moreover, survival of BW material depends critically on local meteorological and other conditions which define the delivery environment. The survival of agents is generally of short duration and effects are delayed for days. … There is little question that the lethality of chemical weapons—as measured by per unit weight of delivered munitions—is lower by many orders of magnitude than it is for nuclear weapons or the undemonstrated and inherently uncertain potential of biological weapons.

Cheney's claim that Saddam "has already shown his willingness" to use weapons of mass destruction and the New Republic's claim that Saddam is the "only leader in the world with weapons of mass destruction who has used them", undermine the extremely valuable concept of nuclear exceptionalism. The New Republic's claim is also just plain wrong. Saddam is the only living leader in the world with weapons of mass destruction who has used them. 

The only leader in the world with nuclear weapons who ever used them was Harry Truman. If you agree that biological and chemical weapons deserve to be called "weapons of mass destruction," then the New Republic's condemnation may be extended to include Woodrow Wilson and many others who deployed chemical warfare during World War I.

Is Chatterbox saying that Harry Truman and Woodrow Wilson were no better than Saddam Hussein? Of course not. Saddam is a brutal dictator, while Truman and Wilson are justly admired presidents. But it remains true that Wilson and Truman allowed use of weapons in their time that today are judged beyond the pale within the international community. Quite rightly, the international consensus further holds that nuclear warfare is much more dangerous, and therefore much more reprehensible, than chemical and biological warfare. This is a distinction that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" undermines. 

If Saddam has already used "weapons of mass destruction" (and, moreover, suffered little for it), what deters him from using nukes in the future? They're all "weapons of mass destruction," aren't they?





Saddam Paper Shredder Shocker a Fiction Concocted and Spread by Rev. Moon and Pat Robertson

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Americans have a very short memory or they would have recalled that during Gulf War I, outrageous claims made about Iraqi atrocities were later admitted to be propaganda lies. Remember the "Kuwaiti babies ripped from incubators" story in 1991? That tale really got Americans whipped into a frenzy, cheering the bombers on. Then, after the war, the woman who disseminated the story for the U.S. gov. tearfully exposed the story as a total fabrication during a Congressional hearing.

Now the Bush II folks are spreading similar "urban myths" to keep American bloodlust at fever pitch. The latest: UPI (now owned by Bush's friend the Reverend Moon) and his fellow rightwing religious fanatic Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network, are currently spreading around a manufactured story about how Saddam fed an officer into a paper shredder, delighting in his screams...this lurid fiction was reported "first hand" by a "human shield pastor" who from the "Assyrian Church of the East." Turns out there is no such "pastor," and, by extension, no such person.

Here's a letter sent to and forwarded to me:


New York


I suspected the often quoted UPI story about a human shield "pastor" who "was shocked back to reality", and claimed to have proof of Saddam shredding people, was a lie, so I contacted the Assyrian Church of the East, asking for confirmation. The e-mail I sent to Bishop Soro is below, I received this reply from the Bishop:

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:17:47 EST
Subject: Re: Can you confirm this story?


The only thing that I can confirm is that Kenneth Joseph, IS NOT a pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East nor has he been associated with the Assyrian Church in any shape or form.

Bishop Soro
Secretary General of Interchurch Relations
Assyrian Church of the East


So, Robertson and Moon have added yet another new dimension to what it means to be a "good Christian": lying to promote bloodshed

1. The Americans met some resistance and had trouble "securing" the "town" of Basra. 
2. The British sent a few troops to help out. 
3. The Allies decided it would be more "strategic" to consider Basra a "military target."

TRUTH: 1. The American marine unit sent to "take" Basra were overwhelmed because they were completely out of their depth and experience in this mission. No wonder - Basra is not a "town," is Iraq's second largest city. 
2. The Americans were be pulled back and replaced by British troops 
3.The bombing is punitive because the city gave unexpected strong resistance rather than, as predicted by Franks and Rumsfeld, welcoming the US as "liberators."

The loss of electrical power to Basra was sabotage perpetrated by the Iraqis themselves.

TRUTH: The lack of power is due to the destruction of high-power lines by U.S. bombs.

LIE: The Red Cross has restored 30% of the water supply to Basra

TRUTH: As of last night (3/24), the Red Cross Says it hasn't even been able to get into Basra, let alone supply it with water.


The importance of Basra to the US is all about the oil: As a March 21 BBC report observes, "It is the "key to Iraqi's southern oil wealth". But, ironically, to secure the oil fields the US and UK will now be bombing a city that could have been the most likely US sympathizer. As the BBC points out, "The population of Basra is made up largely of Shiite Arab Muslims, most of whom have little affection for Saddam."

This is, alas, a city that has not yet recovered from its battering by the US in 1991, when the US and UK rained down tons of depleted uranium (DU) in the area in another "precision" attack. According to a report by the Military Toxics Project, only about one-fourth of the DU projectiles found their targets, "whereas 76 per cent projectiles are presumably lying buried in sand. On hitting its target, DU catches fire and burns to oxides of uranium. Forty six per cent of this DU converts itself to depleted uranium dioxide aerosol (DUDA). Roughly, half of the aerosols are of respirable size. DUDA stays in the area for a long time. It has been found that it survived over two years in air in Kuwait City and most certainly in Basra as well."

U.S. Forced To Close Islamabad Embassy as protests escalate

The United States of America has ordered its Embassy in Islamabad closed as protests against US policy of War on Iraq spread across the country. Non-essential US Embassy staff flew out. Pakistan has enhanced security at US facilities and closed roads leading to US Embassy and consulates. The main opposition group, MMA, has organized nationwide strikes and anti-war protests. Many of MMA see the current U.S. war on Iraq as a war against all Muslim states.


This report is notably missing from all US sources as of 3/25 was run in MSNBC, then the story pulled - this is a link to the cached story in google

THE MEDIA EXPERTS: Patriarchal Parade of aging white men and rightwing corporate front group reps.

I have noticed a significant lack of current, active Pentagon officials being paraded before the network news cameras. Instead, I have seen an endless parade of aging white male "retired generals" - almost all, without exception, from the Reagan or Bush I years. In addition to this stable of patriarchal hawks, I have noticed that a growing number of "experts" being relied on for "commentary" come from rightwing corporate front outfits like the "Cato Institute" (funded in large part by oil and tobacco corporations). Meanwhile, there is a stunning lack of commentary by real, independent military experts and historians.

Here are a list of foundations and Institutes that are rightwing and/or corporate backed, eager to promote the Bush agenda and known for aggressive dissemination of agenda-driven propaganda packaged as "think tank" expertise:

Heritage Foundation
Cato Institute
American Enterprise Institute
Hoover Institution
Baker Institute

Real experts you won't hear interviewed: most former non-general military folk who saw intensive action in Gulf War I, editors and commentators for Aviation Week (where all in depth reports on many military innovations are first published and analyzed. Yet we hear commentary on the AUVs being deployed in Iraq from the Cato Institute?), Jane's weekly (dedicated to military commentary since the late 1800s) - a headline in Jane's on 3/25 reads: "Convoy Chaos on Road to An Nasarijah" - not the sort of honest commentary the networks like see.

AOL, Home of the "Free" (er, Safe) and Not So Bright Spins Out of Control

AOL has gone from spinning headlines to telling viewers how they are supposed to react to the headlines. On the morning of 3/25 one of the mainpage "blaring" headlines was: "POW Drama Rivets America." The only way this statement could have non-propaganda validity is if AOL had 
1. taken a vast, comprehensive poll of all networks, servers, radio stations to see if this specific news story was causing a dramatic surge in ratings when aired and 
2. Taken a similarly comprehensive survey of Americans soliciting their personal response to the story. 
In short. This headline proclaims an opinionated assertion that cannot be confirmed..

Translating this headline from propagandese we get: "You are supposed to be riveted by this story because we need you to be." Why? To keep Americans focused on our POWs, not on the deaths and maimings of children and other innocent civilians in Baghdad or the miserable conditions and dangers being experienced by 250,000 other U.S. soldiers.

Another of AOL's headlines on 3/25 AM wins the Goebbels award for heavy-handed propaganda: In big bold letters on the mainpage we see "Freedom VS Safety?" The photo next to this headline is an armed soldier or swat team person - hard to tell, as he's dressed in dark blue, but has a military helmet on - standing next to a building swathed in a big US flag. In smaller letters beneath the headline is: "Sacrifice Privacy for security?"

What this propaganda tableau is saying is that Freedom = Sacrifice of privacy, and Safety = security. Lack of privacy is synonymous with freedom?

Freedom is a word being as thrown around and cheapened as the word love was during the early days of the sexual revolution. Freedom now is synonymous with everything it is NOT, from sacrificing privacy to fried potatoes....soon no American will really know what the word truly means anymore. And then, what is left of it will be so easy to take away.

Other AOL headlines are simply irresponsible: "KNOCKING ON SADDAM'S DOOR!" This implies we are on the verge of a victorious assault on Baghdad, while "WE KNOW WE HIT SADDAM!" implies we have all but triumphed over the "Evildoer." To fuel such a false sense of positive expectation in Americans, many of whom have family members in the front lines to me constitutes a psychological war crime - in fact, it amounts to aiding and abetting the enemy, by inducing dangerous overconfidence in Americans, who will thus root the war on, not knowing that they are pushing their own men into what will likely prove a protracted hell.

American Media War Propaganda Widening Gulf between Us and Rest of World

On C-SPAN on the morning of 3/25, during the short segment I caught, there was serious concern raised by callers on the lack of coverage by the American mainstream media of the "other side" - the damage sustained by Iraqis. One woman had been shocked when she had seen photos of injured and dead Iraqi children on the BBC. These photos had hit home, she said - there were real people, real children caught in beneath the bombs of "shock and awe". Other callers expressed similar concerns.

But to hear the American media cover it, this war is all about "speeding through the desert," Americans being shot down or captured, grieving American families, reporters standing statically in front of tanks, and aging generals (dozens and dozens of aging generals, enough to go around to every TV and radio station in the country, apparently, as "commentators"). War, according to the American media, has nothing to do with the suffering of the opposition - with little girls with their heads half-blown off (see ) or homes and livelihoods destroyed forever, or grieving Iraqi families.

Yet, the rest of the world is seeing both sides, and sees that what the American soldiers are enduring is but a tiny fraction of the suffering the war is inflicting on Iraqi civilians - worse, that this entire scenario is being forced on Iraq by Bush. Even the Christian Science Monitor ran a story today about how American media is creating, through its one-sided coverage, a widening gulf between Americans and the rest of the world. While we are led to believe through a steady diet of propaganda that our war really is "just" afterall, the rest of the world sees reality: this is a bloody, brutal, cruel war, just like most wars, and we are inflicting, promoting and, worse yet, glorying in it.

See also:


Saddam shredder story - another hoax?,3604,178539,00.html 

"The British-based organisation Indict, which was awarded $2m in funding by US Congress, said it had accumulated enough evidence to make a case stick against an Iraqi accused of torture." 

I think we should be very wary of any organisation directly funded by the US Congress, especially when they are quoting people like Kenneth Joseph, who lie about being member of an organisation they are not.  



In defence of Suddam Hussein


The Pentagon's Information Warrior: Rendon to the Rescue
Rendon was also a major player in the CIA's effort to encourage the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In May 1991, then-President George Bush, Sr. signed a presidential finding directing the CIA to create the conditions for Hussein's removal. The hope was that members of the Iraqi military would turn on Hussein and stage a military coup. The CIA did not have the mechanisms in place to make that happen, so they hired the Rendon Group to run a covert anti-Saddam propaganda campaign. Rendon's postwar work involved producing videos and radio skits ridiculing Saddam Hussein, a traveling photo exhibit of Iraqi atrocities, and radio scripts calling on Iraqi army officers to defect.


We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was In a Spider Hole!
by Michael Moore
Sunday, December 14th, 2003

Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.

America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.

But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.

But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, click here.

We were so cosy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend, and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we re-established full diplomatic relations with him!

Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea -- they wouldn’t let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created.

And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam's hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983 .

Maybe we never would have been in the situation we're in if Rumsfeld, Bush, Sr., and company hadn't been so excited back in the 80s about their friendly monster in the desert.

Meanwhile, anybody know where the guy is who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? Our other Frankenstein?? Maybe he's in a mouse hole.

So many of our little monsters, so little time before the next election.

Stay strong, Democratic candidates. Quit sounding like a bunch of wusses. These bastards sent us to war on a lie, the killing will not stop, the Arab world hates us with a passion, and we will pay for this out of our pockets for years to come. Nothing that happened today (or in the past 9 months) has made us ONE BIT safer in our post-9/11 world. Saddam was never a threat to our national security.

Only our desire to play Dr. Frankenstein dooms us all.


Michael Moore
Suddam Hussein has always been a CIA asset from the beginning - Saddam Hussein 40 years CIA asset.

Saddam Hussein - birth to current 

Iraq related information 
The CIA's direct role in Iraq stretches back to the 1950s. Saddam Hussein himself was a US creation, a US ally and a CIA asset. 
He was our man in Baghdad from day one. He was a CIA asset. 
Saddam Hussein came under CIA influence after he had attempted to assassinate Iraq’s leftist military leader, Kassem, in 1958, the same year that Kassem ousted the ruling monarch. 
While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959 
In 1959 the CIA put Saddam Hussein on its covert operations payroll. 
Hidden US-Iraq history 
Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America.