February 10, 2003
Spies Like Us
Robert Fisk, Maria Tomchick, and Scott Ritter, among others, have helped reveal last week's Powell presentation before the UN as the sham that it was.
Often unmentioned, though, is the bogus foundation upon which the entire sham rests. UN Resolution 1441, "Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA." So, supposing that Powell's "evidence" wasn't doctored or dated, why didn't the U.S. immediately turn this evidence -- much of it supposedly gathered in November and December -- over to UNMOVIC and the IAEA? And why was Colin Powell, rather than UNMOVIC and the IAEA, making a presentation before the United Nations?
Further, if the mainstream press is quoting intelligence experts and officials to the effect that Powell's evidence "suggests, in one way or the other, we're operating inside Iraq," and that, "Over time, our intelligence on the ground has gotten better," why wasn't the U.S. immediately busted for spying on Iraq? It was, after all, U.S. spying activities that led to the demise of UNSCOM in 1998 -- though this wasn't confirmed until after the fact.
So, to summarise. The U.S. has illegally placed operatives on the ground in Iraq, but refuses to share its intelligence with the inspectors, and is still unable to find a "smoking gun", and therefore has to fabricate evidence (or plagiarise dated academic papers), which it expects the world to take at face value.
And expects the World to accept it as a cause to annihilate Iraq. For here is the final, unmentionable irony: if U.S. intelligence is so competent as to be able to turn up prohibited weapons programmes that the inspectors cannot find, then there's no need for a war at all. Simply lead the horses to water, and let them safely destroy the weapons on site.
But of course none of this decoding of U.S. intransigence is even necessary, as the North Korea case has clearly shewn. The U.S. doesn't want to attack North Korea precisely because it now has the ability to hit back. If Iraq were capable of retaliating against a U.S. attack, the U.S. would be hesitant to unleash the dogs upon it as well.
But how does the Bush Administration know that Iraq poses no threat? Its own intelligence agencies have told it so!
Posted by Eddie Tews at February 10, 2003 05:58 PM
Comments