JoePublicFilmsBlog

We also find it interesting that “facts” jump from one era to another. Bradley mentions that “[t]roops and CPA employees told us that commerce is returning to Baghdad, evidenced by electronic appliances, food supplies and restaurants.” First, this makes it clear that he’s willing to believe anything that CPA employees and troops tell him, as if they have no incentive to lie. But, one has to ask, are these electronic appliances and other goods the same ones that made it on our TV screens during the build up to the invasion, to try to reduce sympathy for Iraqis? Major networks showed these products two years ago, and the BBC produced a report called “Baghdad is Booming”. Is it possible that these are the same products which, truth be told, were not affordable to most Iraqis two years ago, and which will probably continue to sit on the shelves for some time to come?

Bradley expresses confidence that attacks on US troops will soon be thwarted. Until the Bush administration admits the truth about the current situation in Iraq, we believe peace there is unlikely. The Bush administration continues to insist that the attackers are Saddam sympathizers and foreign terrorists, while ignoring our own intelligence which has stated that opposition to the occupation is widespread and is more about Iraqi independence than anything else.

Many Iraqis believe that the US occupation is about oil and power in the Middle East, not about “liberating” the Iraqi people. The Iraqis want their country back. That doesn't make it okay for anyone to go around killing people, but one needs only to look at history to figure out that some people will react to an occupation with violence. A look at history also reveals that invading, occupying countries always try to justify what they do by saying that it is in the best interest of the people of the invaded country.

The congressman’s picture of troop morale is just as rosey as the rest of his story. Again, the source of “information” always comes into play. We have heard interviews with troops who wonder why they are still in Iraq, particularly in light of the fact that Iraqis “don’t want us here.” Even if all the troops with whom he spoke came across as very positive about the situation, US troops are under a contractual obligation to refrain from criticizing US foreign policy. They aren’t going to badmouth the situation to a Senator.

Bradley shows his hand very clearly in the article: “My observations rely on this experience and many conversations with commanders, troops from New Hampshire, and Americans working for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).” What about conversations with ordinary Iraqis? He states that he could not go to hospitals or schools due to “security concerns”. Too bad, he might have been able to hear from a real Iraqi. A couple of our members have been to Iraq, and they assure us that it is never difficult to find Iraqis who can speak at least enough English to get by. Clearly Mr. Bradley simply took the word of occupying officials. The only Iraqis to whom our government has listened in the past have been Iraqi ex-patriots with hopes of power in “a new Iraq”.

Before our country invaded Iraq last March, one of our members encountered many Iraqi ex-patriots living in the US, who escaped the dictatorship. These were ordinary people wanting to live a quiet life, not ambitious power seekers saying whatever their benefactors want to hear. To a person, every one of them said they would be glad to see Saddam gone, but they do not want any country occupying Iraq. When did our government officials or the press ever hear or report their voices?
Bradley throws a typical US government curveball with regard to sanctions which were put in place against Iraq after they invaded Kuwait in 1990. He mentions the debriefing of former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, “who indicated Hussein was ready to reacquire WMD the instant sanctions expired.” Characterizing whatever Aziz actually said in this manner is extremely misleading. First and foremost, none of the permanent members of the UN Security Council who were the overseers of these sanctions were planning on simply letting the sanctions “expire”. Second, there were two kinds of sanctions in place against Iraq—military and economic. There had been some discussion of bringing the economic sanctions to an end, because it was clear years ago that they were only hurting the ordinary civilians in Iraq. However, the United States said for years that it would veto any attempt to end the economic sanctions, despite public outcry. With regard to military sanctions, the chances of them ever being taken off while Hussein was in power were absolutely zero. None of the Security council members called for it. So, that being said, IF Aziz said anything remotely akin to the paraphrasing Bradley provides, he may have stated the obvious--- that if for some reason military sanctions were lifted, Hussein would have started buying up weapons. But that would never have happened.

Bradley goes on to parrot the party line regarding weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq actually possessed this level of weaponry, they would have used it to try to stop the invasion. Give up that argument, Mr. Bradley. Fewer and fewer people believe a word of it as each day passes and the alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction is nowhere to be found.

Seeing Hussein’s palaces was disturbing for Mr. Bradley. Without a doubt, one of those palaces was the one that the US occupying government now works out of in Baghdad. Our representative fails to mention that little detail. Though security may be a legitimate argument in this case, imagine how the average Iraqi perceives the occupying military government living in the same palace as the former military dictator.

Finally, Bradley perpetuates the lie that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. “Americans must remember we are fighting the type of people who crash jet liners into skyscrapers.” Not one of the hijackers was from Iraq. There is absolutely no proof that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks. So what does Mr. Bradley mean by this statement? He goes on to say that “Iraq has become the frontline of terrorism”. He leaves off a few words again, if this statement even holds any truth— ‘since we invaded and took over.’

In closing, Mr. Bradley’s guest commentary should be called what it really is—propaganda. We must face the truth about the few who are leading our country.
They lied to us to get support for the invasion of Iraq, and they are still lying to keep support for the occupation. Many people die each day because of those lies. Bush and others in his administration should be held accountable.