« November 2003 | Main | January 2004 »
December 12, 2003
My Breakfast with Judd
I had breakfast with U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) this morning. Well, me and a whole bunch of others, most of whom are members of the Greater Portsmouth (NH) Chamber of Commerce. A few of us from our local peace group, “Seacoast Peace Response”, decided that since it was a public event, we would attend because we hoped to express some very deep concerns to Mr. Gregg.
Mr. Gregg was introduced a few minutes after 8:00, and he spoke until about 8:20. From early on in his speech, I could hear the language of racism and fear mongering. In his speech, and in response to my question later on, Mr. Gregg invoked all of the now standard responses of the hawks who are benefiting from the so-called war on terrorism the most.
He echoed George W. Bush’s first speech following the attacks of September 11, 2001 saying that “Islamic fundamentalists” hate our way of life, hate our freedom, we are at war, etc. They hate our way of life. I hated that lie the first time I heard it, and I hate it still. What about years of US support for vicious dictators around the world, including Saddam Hussein for several years? What about US military presence in 4/5 of the countries in the world? What about strong-arm business tactics by US business that exploit people and environmental resources throughout the world? On the other hand, when the phrase, “they hate our way of life” is spoken by George W. Bush or Judd Gregg, there is some truth to it. I suspect that people anywhere in the world who are angry at the policies of the United States do hate the way of life of those in power here today. Make no mistake; our leaders’ lives are profoundly different from that of most of us. Does that give terrorists a right to kill? Of course not. But in the pursuit of a criminal, law enforcement doesn’t shy away from looking for a criminal’s real motive. In fact, I suspect that our Federal government is fully aware of the reasons for anger and resentment worldwide. This knowledge should be used to show that our policies for how we treat the rest of the world should be changed.
When I had my chance to ask Mr. Gregg a question, I first thanked him for being there and wished him happy holidays. I then expressed my concern for our troops over seas, and also for Iraqi civilians. I asked him to urge the Bush administration to reverse the new policy of not counting Iraqi civilian casualties, and explained that I understood that this policy announced yesterday came from an Iraqi ministry, but it was under pressure of the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority. Mr. Gregg said he wasn’t aware of the change in policy and that he doubted the administration would approve of such a policy. Some people hear what they want to hear, but his response just made me angry. As if the Bush administration doesn’t have control over all policy moves in Iraq today.
I went on to my question. I noted the disparity in resources being put into Afghanistan and Iraq. These were both countries which were beaten down and suffered for years under repressive regimes. The main significant difference that jumped out at me is that Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserve in the world. So, I asked, are US service people dying every day in order to make Iraq a safe place for companies like Halliburton to make hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr. Gregg explained that we are first fighting the war on terrorism. He then said that we are talking about “an entire culture” that hates us and wants to kill us. When he took a breath I stood back up and said, “But, Mr. Gregg, with all due respect, we are not talking about an entire culture here by any means. We are talking about a very tiny percentage of people who are willing to resort to this kind of violence.” He said that he was just going to say that. He then went on to say that there are “over a billion Muslims in the world. If we’re talking 10%, that’s 100 million people who are willing to resort to this kind of violence. Even if we’re talking about just 1%, that’s 10 million people who are willing to fly planes into buildings and kill Americans.” The language of racism and fear mongering come together. Add ignorance and you’ve got yourself a whole lot of supporters.
He then discussed the need to stabilize the Middle East. The way they are doing this is to rebuild Iraq and show them that our way of life works best. “Market economy.” “Democracy”. He finished his statement by saying that “oil has absolutely nothing to do with it.” A real trooper, that Judd. He will not give an inch on that one. So, while he never directly addressed the part of the question about Halliburton, in a sense he confirmed that it is about making lots of money. That’s why young men and women in the US armed services, as well as uncounted Iraqi civilians are dying.
Being confined to only one question, I didn’t get to publicly point out that most people in the room would probably take up arms if our country were occupied, and that I simply did not believe that all the attacks in Iraq against US troops were coming from Saddam sympathizers or foreign terrorists. While I don’t think this makes it okay for anyone to kill anyone else, it seems to me that we are being lied to on a daily basis to hold support for the occupation.
After the program was over, I went over to speak with Mr. Gregg. His face turned a slightly deeper shade of red when he saw me. I shook his hand and thanked him for addressing my question, and I told him that I had concerns over many aspects of his response. I expressed my opinion that Hussein and anyone else responsible for the gassing of the Kurds should be tried for war crimes. He interrupted, saying, “If we can find him.” Automated response? Perhaps. I let it slide.
One of my greatest concerns related to his response, I explained, was that in 1988 after Hussein gassed the Kurds, the United States actively blocked other countries that wanted to bring sanctions against Iraq at that time. At this point Mr. Gregg turned an even deeper shade of red and began to turn away from me. I asked him how we could account for such hypocrisy. He told me in an annoyed voice that “the point is, he had weapons of mass destruction”, and for some reason I thought he had jumped into the present tense. “We haven’t found them,” I countered. “Why don’t you go tell a Kurd that,” he said, and walked off. To anyone who’s paying attention, this kind of jumping back and forth between historical realities and policies is absolutely bizarre. Unfortunately, many in the US public know very little about the history of US-Iraq relations, so hawks have been able to blur reality, successfully avoiding the issue that it took the US government almost 15 years to at least pretend that they were outraged over the gassing of the Kurds.
There are other important truths to be told with regard to Mr. Gregg’s supposed concern for the Kurds. During his 1997-98 campaign for Senate, Mr. Gregg accepted large amounts of campaign contributions from weapons manufacturers who were bidding at the time for one of the largest weapons contracts in history, to sell weapons to Turkey, which were ultimately used against the Kurds.
The Turkish government has committed some of the greatest acts of terrorism against the Kurds. US State Department documents show that in the past, the Turkish military has used US equipment against innocent Kurdish civilians, including attacks on civilians in northern Iraq, in the so-called "No Fly Zone", where the US Air Force was supposedly protecting the Kurds.
From 1995 to 2001, weapons manufacturers Sikorsky, Boeing, Bell Textron, and Northrop Grunman competed for one of the largest arms deals in history--- a $4 billion dollar contract to construct 145 attack helicopters for Turkey. The contract was eventually awarded in to Bell Textron, but will require approval by Congress and the president. The companies lobbied congress for support in the arms deal, and its eventual approval.
During his 1997-1998 campaign for senate, Judd Gregg accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Boeing, Bell Textron, Northop Grunman Corporation, and Lockheed Martin.
By accepting money earned through the sale of arms to Turkey for use against the Kurds, Senator Gregg endorsed the murder of innocent Kurds in Turkey and Iraq. He personally profited from "the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children". Mr. Gregg may deny any knowledge, but that is specious at best. Even if he didn’t know about the blood on these campaign contributions, any responsible leader should check his sources. But, based on everything that I heard during breakfast with Judd, I am convinced he either just doesn’t want to know, or worse.
The level of hypocrisy emanating from Washington today is absolutely astounding. As long as crucial facts are kept out of the public eye, as long as ordinary people are willing to let the dogs of war run free, the language of hate—the language of racism and fear mongering—will shape tragic destinies for millions world wide, including here in the United States.
Posted by Joe Public at 04:04 PM | Comments (0)
December 10, 2003
Come and Listen to my Story 'bout a Man Named Jeb
A few weeks ago, New Hampshire Congressman Jeb Bradley published a guest commentary in the Manchester Union Leader after he returned from a brief visit to Iraq. Since then the commentary also ran in the Portsmouth Herald.
The commentary is called "What I saw in Iraq convinces me we are winning the fight". Take a look at it:
http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=28902&archive=1
Here's the response that Joe Public producer Tom Jackson wrote on behalf of Seacoast Peace Response and sent to New Hampshire newspapers:
Jeb Bradley’s November 14, 2003 guest commentary in the Union Leader, in which he gives an account of his visit to Iraq was a classic example of reliance on unreliable sources for information.
Many facts are left out of Bradley’s account. He mentions the barbaric dictatorship. He doesn’t mention past US support for that same barbaric dictatorship. “Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people and Iranians, and started two wars”, states Mr. Bradley, and leaves out three important words: with our support. When Hussein gassed the Kurds and Iranians, our government actively fought off other UN member countries that called for sanctions against Iraq at that time. Let us not allow Mr. Bradley, Mr. Bush, or anyone else to rewrite history for their own benefit.
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.
Posted by Joe Public at 03:57 PM | Comments (0)