--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
<PRE>THE HOFFMAN WIRE
Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
<A HREF=" http://www.hoffman-info.com/news.html
">http://www.hoffman-info.com/news.html</A>
</PRE>
Demolishing US War Propaganda
Editor's Note: What follows is the most incisive deconstruction of the
carnival booths of US propaganda thus far, and deserves wide
circulation.
Arrogant Propaganda
Meticulous Documentation of US Media & Government Propaganda During the
First 10 Days of the Iraq War
By Paul de Rooij
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CounterPunch
http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij04012003.html
March 31, 2003
"Your BS detector must be on at full blast."
-- Michael Moore, March 28, 2003
In the good old days, the US used to tell a lie -- crass propaganda --
and it would stick for a long time. Journalists would have to scurry for
months before they could expose the lies, but by then it would be almost
irrelevant, e.g., the Tonkin incident lie provided to justify escalation
in the Vietnam War, or the infamous throwing-babies-out-of-incubators
story concocted to swing American opinion in favor of the Gulf War in
1991. In the run up to the US-Iraq war, it became increasingly evident
that propaganda has a diminished half-life [1].
Whereas years ago the reigning technique was to repeat a lie often
enough, now it seems to have given way to a constant barrage of lies or
semi-lies with a very short half-life. As soon as a propaganda ploy has
been exposed, the current media spinners will move to the next tall
story. They seem to count on either the poor memory of the population,
their general disinterest or their credulity. There are also good
reasons to believe that the current barrage-propaganda approach is
losing its effectiveness.
It has become much more difficult to sell wars these days and the
propagandists are remarkably inept. Watching CNN or BBC reveals jarring
shoddy propaganda that is immediately transparent. Marines "discovered"
a camouflaged chemical weapons factory, but then both CNN and BBC
revealed the source of the story: The Jerusalem Post; it was then
distributed by Fox News. This was the fastest way to discredit the
story, which only lasted two days--later exposed as a fabrication by the
March 25th Financial Times.
In the meantime, one of the warmongering neocons appeared on CNN,
repeating the story, elaborating the details and saying that there was
now proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). A day
later CNN mentioned finding a Scud missile inside a factory--another
story with a half-life of a day. On March 26th, they were talking about
finding 3,000 chemical protection suits, as if this proved something. It
is like smelling manure, and then claiming you have found a horse.
This story also is destined for the trashcan if only because Hans Blix,
the ex-UN weapons inspector, mustered a pixel of backbone to state that
it didn't prove anything. Finally, the first few missiles shot by the
Iraqis on Kuwait were intimated to be Scud missiles (illegal under UN
resolutions), but this turned out to be false too.
One must admit that the so-called embedded journalists don't have an
easy time. They tag along with the military and have to amplify the
statements made by the officers who direct them. High-ranking officers
are interviewed, but no critical questions are posed to them.
Transparent nonsense is uttered, and it isn't challenged. The next day
the recently uttered "news" has been discredited, but it also has
entered both the journalist's and the officer's memory hole.
Never mind, today is another day and another opportunity to utter
nonsense. "Chemical weapons find", "Scud missile find", "uprising in
Basra", "a column of 1,000 vehicles is making its way South", "it wasn't
our missile", "Syria is supplying night vision equipment", "surrender en
masse", "Basra has fallen", "a general has been captured" How many times
can self-respecting embedded journalists regurgitate the offal that is
fed to them?
While CNN or BBC issue warning labels for the reports issued from
Baghdad where there is supposedly a minder/censor present, there is no
such warning issued about the embedded journalists although their
ability to report may be even more restricted. Perhaps a wee warning
beyond the usual "report from an embedded journalist" should be issued.
Jacques Ellul, in his book, Propaganda, states that for propaganda to be
effective, it must have monopoly and drown out everything else. One of
the reasons that propaganda doesn't stick at present is that there are
so many alternative information channels. CNN doesn't have a monopoly by
any means; at an Amsterdam airport lounge recently, the waiting
passengers rebelled and forced the attendants to change the channel!
The internet has also become a very important alternative news source.
Robert Fisk's reports on DemocracyNow or his columns in London's The
Independent prove that he is a one-man propaganda demolition machine.
Listening to his reports from Baghdad allows one to peer through the
fog, and obtain a clearer view of what is happening on the ground. Every
other paragraph of Fisk's comments demolishes yet another nonsense
statement uttered by Ari Fleischer & his ilk.
The hard task of selling or justifying the war has given way to a
barrage of lies or semi-lies that only last a few days--thereafter they
are immediately forgotten. The next lies follow directly.
On March 26th, a missile killed scores of civilians at a Baghdad market
and wounded even more. Houses and shops were demolished. The subsequent
stream of propaganda is very instructive. It went from: "must check what
happened", to "inevitably collateral damage occurs" (aka "shit
happens"), to "likely that an Iraqi missile was the cause of the
explosion," and finally, on Mar. 28th it was: "it was a missile fired by
the enemy" [2].
Another market bombing on March 29th killing 62+ civilians was
immediately denied and blamed on the Iraqis themselves. Some historical
background may reveal the real reason for these explosions. During the
bombing of Serbia over the Kosovo situation, both the Americans and the
general staff were surprised because they expected a quick capitulation.
Serious dissension grew within the ranks of the then "coalition of the
willing" [3], and it was necessary to increase the pressure on the Serbs
to obtain their surrender. This was achieved by hitting more military
targets, then bridges, railroads, factories, and even the TV station
(with some lame justification) [4]. After the war, it was revealed that
most Serbian factories had been bombed! Even with this bombing
intensity, the Serbians didn't yield, and at this point the laptop
bombardiers started targeting the civilian population, i.e., plain and
simple terrorism in the true sense of the word. In the Iraqi context, it
is also clear that the resilience of the "regime" is far higher than
expected, and it seems that US planners must have believed their own
propaganda promising an instant collapse [5].
The current bombing of civilian areas follows the pattern of turning up
the pressure, and reveals that Pentagon statements before the war --
that "there will be no safe place in Baghdad" -- are proving true
indeed.
Donald Rumsfeld also claims that meticulous care is taken to avoid
hitting civilian areas with smart weapons. They triple check this type
of thing! The fact that some missiles have hit other countries, e.g.,
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, should safely dispose of such assertions
about avoiding civilian casualties or missile accuracy. The first
Baghdad market bombing took place in the middle of a sandstorm! How can
anything be expected to be accurate under such conditions? Either the
bombings are premeditated, and thus civilians are targeted or the claims
of accuracy and care in avoiding civilians are bogus. Perhaps reality is
somewhere in between.
During the past few days, both BBC and CNN have reported with increasing
frequency that the resistance fighters are dressing in civilian clothes,
and that Iraqi soldiers deviously use the white flag to attack the
Marines. Presto, now we can expect a massive increase in the number of
civilians slaughtered by the Marines. Maybe the imprisonment of Iraqi
soldiers is becoming burdensome too, and the US was poised to abrogate
the Fourth Geneva Convention in any case. Throw in a bit of the usual
disdain of killing "mere Arabs" and this war is fast becoming an
incredibly bloody fiasco.
The positioning of B52 bombers and the location of their refueling are
also part of propaganda. A squadron of B52 bombers is based at the
Fairford airbase in the UK. Why couldn't they be located in, say, Israel
that is a bit closer to the action? Israelis and their apologists always
justify the US's support, funding and arming of Israel on the grounds
that it is "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East". Israel is
also part of the coalition of the willing--although Israel deserves a
category of its own like: "chief cheerleader". The vast majority of
Jewish-Israelis also supports the war; they are cheerleading the war
with blue and red pompons. So why not base the B52s there?
Refueling is also an issue. B52s and other bombers fly over Spain on
their way to Iraq. For some reason, it is deemed important to refuel the
airplanes over Spain [6], and Prime Minister Aznar has made certain that
this is possible. The only apparent reason for the positioning of the
B52s and their refueling location has really to do with propaganda. It
is a means of suggesting that many countries are part of the
"coalition"--one of the most ridiculous propaganda terms in use.
In reality, only the US, UK and a handful of Australian military are
involved in actual fighting; even then, the Australian contingent may
actually be recalled by their Parliament. It would be far more accurate
to refer to the "US-UK" forces, but to obtain an appearance of support
the B52s must be stationed in the UK. It suggests that it is not only
the US with blood on its hands; furthermore, it is very eager to smear
some off on others.
"But surely the Americans will win" seems to be the only question that
BBC journalists can ask when they get near an Iraqi official. On March
27th, a BBC reporter approached Iraq's ex-ambassador to Paris, and the
same question was asked in various forms yielding the predictable Iraqi
response. NB: No question of any other nature was even asked! Perhaps
the US-UK should empower BBC/CNN journalists to accept an eventual Iraqi
surrender. The BBC would love to take credit for the final capitulation
of the Iraqis, just like it allowed the silly story that the entry of
one of its journalists, John Simpson, into Kabul had coincided with the
Taliban capitulation.
Even more acutely, when Saddam Hussein gives a speech neither CNN nor
the BBC discusses what he actually said, but debate whether he is the
real Saddam. The only thing that is missing is criticism of the way he
is dressed or the way he looks. Anything is proffered to avoid
substance. The statements made by other Iraqi officials are similarly
slighted, although the persistent claims of shooting down this or that
should make all skeptical of their claims.
Propaganda also entails censoring things. Most Americans remember the TV
scenes where dead US soldiers were dragged through the streets of
Mogadishu. Within a week the US's appetite for that intervention
collapsed. Americans only accept clean wars, only the ones that appear
like a video game. All the blood and gore must be excised, especially if
there is blood of American soldiers, and Americans will not see this on
TV.
When Al Jazeera showed dead Americans it elicited a vicious reply from
the censors shutting down websites and hindering Al Jazeera from
broadcasting in the US. If the US finds out the coordinates of the Al
Jazeera journalist in Basra, then this could be bombed. During the
attack on Afghanistan, the Al Jazeera offices in Kabul were bombed when
their reporting proved awkward to the media spinners.
Bush's practice session for his "war ultimatum" speech was shown to
Portuguese and Italian TV audiences, but it was never shown on American
TV stations. Perhaps the non-flattering appearance didn't portray the
dear monosyllabic president as a "statesman".
The media spinmeisters prefer to have the president with his mouth
firmly shut, and at a safe distance from the media. On the eve of the
impending war, they chose to film the dear president from a distance on
the White House lawn. The weight of the burden worrying about the
impending deaths and destruction required some light distraction by
throwing some balls for his dogs. But wait, even his dogs ignored him,
and they didn't run after the balls he threw! Maybe it is time for a pet
change -- Tony Blair could give the president a corgi, the Queen's
favorite dog breed.
The most important propaganda topic deserving some discussion is the
reason to go to war and its evolution over time. Months earlier, the
warmongers uttered "regime change" as a justification for the war. This
was considered too crass, and it briefly made way for "Iraq has links to
terrorism", a very short-lived justification. This gave way to "rid Iraq
of WMD." A UN inspection team was set up, and it was clear from the
beginning that this was meant to fail [7].
Once the UN didn't lend its imprimatur to justify the war, and the fact
that many Europeans sought to continue the inspections regime, then
another justification was necessary. Now, "let's liberate Iraq"--in
other words, a euphemism for "regime change"--was concocted without much
reflection. Within days of the war starting, the stiff Iraqi resistance
revealed the absurdity of the new justification. If the Iraqis are not
being liberated, then what are American troops doing there to begin
with? Maybe the only way this mythological justification can be
stretched is to starve the population of Basra (water supplies have been
cut), and at a later point when the situation is really desperate, then
soldiers can hand out food parcels for the benefit of CNN viewers. Some
plastic flowers may be flown in as currency for the Iraqis to receive
their parcels. Cheering heartily may earn some chewing gum [8].
There are several reasons for this war of aggression, but the position
on this decision and the intellectual depth thereof were inadvertently
revealed during Bush's ultimatum speech practice session. Therein the
dear monosyllabic president states: "FUCK SADDAM, we're taking him out".
After the eloquent "Axis of Evil" or "good vs. evil" phrases, one
expected yet another eloquent justification for this war. This impromptu
statement thus reveals a president with a mean-spirited streak, and a
very shallow understanding of what is going on. It would be interesting
for Americans to view their president's rehearsal, but unfortunately,
this will not be shown to American or British publics thanks to the
self-censorship of CNN and BBC, the main purveyors of the current war
propaganda.
One of Dr. Josef Goebbel's cardinal rules for effective propaganda was
that all news should be as accurate as possible and credible. Current
practice overthrows this rule by a rapid succession of lies, and news
about the war on major networks isn't credible anymore. A key question
is why this has happened. One theory is that US propaganda has become a
victim of its own spin; propagandists also have been permeated by the
same arrogance afflicting the warmongers. Propaganda is something fed to
others to sell your "product", and the spinmeisters are not meant to
consume this themselves. So, they failed because they accepted the basic
premise of an imminent Iraqi collapse.
Given that this didn't happen, the situation has created panic among the
propagandists, and their only response seems to be to live day-by-day. A
few more lies today, some more tomorrow, and then hope--really HOPE--to
obtain a total Iraqi capitulation. If this doesn't happen then the US
risks the unraveling of its propaganda line. It doesn't fear that
foreigners will rebel--these already don't buy the US line--but it is
the American people who they fear losing. Many more tall stories, and
suddenly many questions may arise from this quarter. Too many questions
and the whole edifice may collapse.
Propaganda is about selling a war in such a way that the core
populations don't realize the realities of what such a war entails. The
American population wants to see "enemy" defeats, no losses of their own
troops, and they want the effects to be antiseptic--video game style.
Propaganda will attempt to direct your focus to the glamorous aspects of
battle. Above all, propaganda papers over the fact that this is a war of
aggression, that there are home team losses, and that the results are
massively bloody.
Propaganda hides the fact that there are virtually no painkillers left
in Iraqi hospitals, and that the hundreds or thousands of Iraqi wounded
will be operated on without anesthetics. The screams of the Iraqi
victims as their limbs are amputated without anesthetics are what
propaganda tries with all fervor to drown out. The propagandists must be
pleased, as they have made it possible to demolish a country and to
exact on the Iraqi people a horrendous toll--without the American public
even noticing.
There is only one antidote against propaganda, and that is a relevant
sense of history and a strong collective memory. When we remember the
lessons from the past, and when we remember what happened even a few
days ago, then the job of the propagandists and their warmongering
bosses, becomes much more difficult. It is ultimately when their message
is challenged that war can be stopped; bloated armament budgets can be
pared; international law can be upheld; and shallow mean-spirited
politicians with blood soaked hands can be put on trial in an
international war crimes tribunal.
A War Weasel Word Watch
“Air campaign.” Bombardment of cities. There are no Iraqi airplanes.
"Anything that moves, let them have it" And the civilians too?
Command issued by a British officer on the outskirts of Basra referring
to anything moving in front of them.
-- BBC TV, March 26, 2003.
But certainly the US is going to win Why don't you capitulate right now?
The only question the BBC can ask Iraqi officials.
“City falls.” Terminology used during the Middle Ages.
“Civilians fleeing.” The CNN reason for civilians to flee Basra: to
escape the vicious grip of the meanies. A reminder to CNN: the city is
being bombed, water supplies have been cut off by British troops, and
there is a lot of shooting and bombing.
“Coalition.” US-UK
"Let me just say that there are a number of nations in the world that
are fully supporting our efforts, and you heard a number of them speak
at the Security Council the other day: Spain, the United Kingdom,
Bulgaria, Italy, Portugal, the newly independent nations of the former
Soviet Union. [...] And they do it in the face of public opposition."--
Colin Powell, Interview on Fox News Sunday With Tony Snow, March 9,
2003.
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/18470.htm
NB: There is no such thing as a coalition of the UNwilling. The silly
tautological "coalition of the willing" is offensive both in its intent
and the abuse of language. Tautology is as much a give-away of lying as
sweat on the liar's face.
Cruise Control. " Do Bush and Blair intend to save Iraqis by using
'cruise control'?" -- Comment made by an Iraqi in a BBC Radio program
from Iraq, March 27, 2003.
“Decapitation strike.” No need to declare war, attack a "target of
opportunity". There is also no need to consult with Congress either;
this one already handed over its head on a platter.
“Depleted Unranium (DU).” "Coalition forces are using depleted uranium
(DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United
Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of
mass destruction. DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers
among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and
civilians, leading to birth defects in children.
"Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium
project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville
University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US
department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium
desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'." -- Neil Mackay,
"US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal' ", Sunday
Herald, March 30, 2003.
“Embedded journalist.” The reason journalism is known as the second
oldest profession.
"The reporting isn't just embedded; it's in bed with the Pentagon. And
CNN is the worst of all." --Jeffrey St. Clair, Life During Wartime,
Counterpunch, March 25, 2003
“Fedayeen” Interpreted by the various US spokesmodels as "Those who
fight and die for Saddam". Of course, this kind of disinformation is
plain silly on the face of it.
“Friendly fire” Friendly fire is the main cause of US-UK fatalities, but
also a means never to admit that the enemy inflicted damage. The Iraqis
must always be portrayed as bumbling idiots or criminals--shooting even
one US soldier gives them a tinge of competence. The Iraqis attacked a
convoy of supply trucks using machine guns and RPGs. However, "friendly
fire" was reported to be the cause for all the burned out trucks and
wounded soldiers. Didn't the Iraqis even hit one truck? Hmmm.
“Good intentions”
"We want them to realize that we come here with good intentions."
--British tank commander in a BBC-TV embedded
propaganda piece on March 31, 2003. Never mind that the same troops just
killed some people in the town that had just "fallen" to the British
troops.
These statements parallel the justification for destroying villages in
Vietnam, i.e., "we destroyed them in order to save them." Good
intentioned Americans have caused barbarous amount of damage and carnage
around the world. Also, it seems that whatever destruction or killing is
instantly forgiven simply because it was well intentioned. This appeals
to all the Christians in the US and elsewhere.
Hearts and minds thing : "The marines were keen to emphasize that,
posing for photographs demanded by the journalists as they handed sweets
to children and fed military rations chocolate to stray puppies 'We have
to do the hearts and minds thing', said Colonel Ben Currie." -- Andrew
Buncombe, The Independent, March 26, 2003.
“Human shields.” -- "Civilians next to the Iraqi forces stationed to
defend the cities. What do they expect, that the entire Iraqi army moves
out of the cities to defend empty desert?" -- Cliff Jackson,
DoubleStandards.org, March 28, 03.
“Humanitarian aid.” Justification for opening the port immediately.
Unfortunately, several thousand truckloads of supplies are necessary to
keep the US forces operating. Each division consumes 1.5 million gallons
of gasoline per day. Which demand do you suppose will have priority use
of the port?
The first humanitarian cargo ship, the "Sir Galahad", arrived on March
28th, and over a hundred journalists were bused in for the occasion. The
supplies were brought in for propaganda benefit, and are only a
minuscule proportion of the needs in the area. On March 30th, it was
revealed that more than half the shipment was munitions.
“Is it really him?” An often-repeated question by BBC or CNN reporters
after a Saddam Hussein speech. Never mind the content of his speech.
“Kill box.” Pacman (video game) warrior terminology. Draw boxes around
enemy positions and exterminate them.
“Liberation.” Occupation.
“Military Experts.” Propagators of the Pentagon line on TV by retired
officers. They receive official briefings by the Pentagon, and then
attempt to present the war as a sports event--post-game quarterback
style.
"The US military has invaded the US media. I would like tonight to call
for an immediate removal of all US troops from CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN,
all of them. US troops come home!" --Michael Moore's intended Oscar
speech delivered at the Riverside Church, March 27, 2003.
“Red line.” Where finally the Iraqis will use chemical weapons. The line
has been drawn by CNN, not the Iraqis.
“Allegedly...” All carnage caused by Western forces.
“At last, the damning evidence...” Used when reporters enter old torture
chambers.
“Inevitable revenge.” For the executions of Saddam's Baath party
officials which no one actually said were inevitable.
“Remnants.” Allegedly 'diehard' Iraqi troops still shooting at the
Americans but actually the first signs of a resistance movement
dedicated to the 'liberation' of Iraq from its new western occupiers.
“Stubborn” or 'suicidal.' To be used when Iraqi forces fight rather than
retreat.
“What went wrong?” To accompany pictures illustrating the growing
anarchy in Iraq as if it were not predicted.
"Saddam's fault." Blame the victim. If the bombs fall in civilian
areas, then blame Saddam Hussein for putting military targets in built
up areas.
“Shooting their own people'” On March 28th a bomb killed 62+ civilians
in Baghdad. The "coalition" spokesman denied the responsibility for the
bombing. But surprise, Iraqi forces are now "shooting their own people"
trying to leave cities "under Saddam's control"! Even for propagandists
sometimes the best defense is an offense.
“Still Investigating'” Just don't want to admit responsibility right
now.
"The piece of metal is only a foot high, but the numbers on it hold the
clue to the latest atrocity in Baghdad. At least 62 civilians had died
by yesterday afternoon, and the coding on that hunk of metal contains
the identity of the culprit. The Americans and British were doing their
best yesterday to suggest that an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile destroyed
those dozens of lives, adding that they were 'still investigating' the
carnage. But the coding is in Western style, not in Arabic. And many of
the survivors heard the plane." -- Robert Fisk, The Independent, March
30, 2003
NB: the warhead of an anti-aircraft missile is quite small. By simple
deduction, a large bomb means only one thing.
“Support our troops'” No need to support the war, just our team. "AP has
frequently used the terms 'pro-war' and 'pro-troops' interchangeably --
a practice that distorts the views of anti-war demonstrators and
contributes to the media marginalization of the peace movement." --
FAIR, March 26, 2003
"Terrorism aka looks and feels like terrorism": Oh, don't forget that
this is a war against terrorism! In the March 27th press conference,
Bush referred to the guerrilla tactics used against US troops as
terrorism. A top US general repeated this assertion the following day.
Any hostile action by regular or irregular Iraqis against an American
aggressor force is NOT terrorism. NB: Iraqis are attacking soldiers. The
Americans are not in a position to define what is legitimate resistance.
They are also not in a position to specify where these acts of
resistance will take place. Finally, Iraqi violence now, or during the
past decade, has had nothing to do with any attack against the US, i.e.,
9-11.
“There is still a climate of fear”; aka there are still Baath operatives
in the city. The reason why the people don't come out to shower the
invaders with flowers. Supposedly, the secret police, the Baathists, the
military instill fear in the population, and they are fearful to kiss
the American soldiers. Smash the regime, and they will love "us".
“Uprising in Basra!” Military wishful thinking. They hope there may be
some support for "our" bombing of their cities. A propaganda stinker
safely dispatched by the Al Jazeera footage.
"Violation of Geneva Conventions." -- "As 6,000+ Palestinian political
prisoners rot in Israeli prisons, as has been the norm here for 36 years
now, it is ironic how four US POWs interviewed on TV all of a sudden
become the spark to get the words 'Geneva Conventions' to be spoken by
US officials." -- Sam Bahour, Ramallah, Occupied Palestine, Mar. 26,
2003
War games Oops, this is not the war we prepared for!
"The enemy we are fighting is different from the one we'd wargamed." --
Lt. General William Wallace, US V Corps. March 28, 2003.
[1] Just witness the demolition of key propaganda by Seymour Hersh.
Before the war started, the US peddled some documents about sales of
"yellow paste" from Niger to Iraq used to obtain uranium. Similarly,
General Powell suggested that aluminum tubes engineered to very precise
tolerances were destined for uranium enrichment. Once again, crass and
transparent propaganda died in a matter of days thanks to the acumen of
Seymour Hersh who safely dispatched these shoddy fabrications.
[2] Check Cahal Milmo's "US blames Iraqis in war of words over slaughter
at market", The Independent, March 28, 2003, for a complete sequence of
the US statements on this account. The hypocrisy: the US is claiming
that it didn't target the market, and then draws up the lame conclusion
that it wasn't its missile. In the same breath, they admit that cruise
missiles have gone astray. This is yet one more lie that will be
uncovered in a few days. A comparison to the bombing of the Amariya Air
Raid Shelter in 1991 shows that the current batch of denials mimics
closely the initial denials at that time. The big gaping hole of the
bomb through the concrete finally closed that propaganda chapter,
although the US always maintained that the bomb shelter was a military
target.
[3] This was also a war with no UN mandate.
[4] To stop the broadcasting it is enough to destroy the transmitters.
It is not necessary to demolish the TV/Radio station. If the Pentagon
wants to shut down the transmission and avoid civilian casualties, then
this is possible. However, such actions make it clear that their
purported respect for civilians is not existent.
[5] Soldiers were told to expect no resistance! One of the wounded
American soldiers during a press conference from the hospital in Germany
stated that his officers had told him that there wouldn't be any
resistance.
[6] Refueling is a risky operation and could best be performed over the
Mediterranean.
[7] The UN resolution 1441, authorizing the inspections program, was
crafted in such a way that it guaranteed a negative outcome. The US also
continued bombing Iraq in the months leading up to the war while the
inspections were going on--a crass attempt to get the Iraqis to abandon
their commitments, thus lending a justification for a war. The
composition of the UN inspectors also raised many questions, e.g., a
Ukrainian UN inspector offered his services to the Americans after the
war started, and another American inspector was found to be the leader
of a sadomasochistic cult. One should now follow Hans Blix's career to
determine if he also played a less than honorable role in this futile,
and ultimately deadly charade. Didn't the US nominate him?
[8] See the definition of the "Hearts and minds thing" in the War Weasel
Word Watch.
Paul de Rooij is an economist living in London.He can be reached at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
END QUOTE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<PRE>The HOFFMAN WIRE is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box
849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA
24 Hour Revisionist News Bureau: <A HREF=" http://www.hoffman-info.com/news.html
">http://www.hoffman-info.com/news.html</A>
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The Hoffman Wire is a controversial and politically incorrect e-mail
letter intended only for those who have requested it. We have a strict anti-spamming
policy. The views expressed in the Hoffman Wire are the sole responsibility of the
author(s) and do not reflect the views of advertisers or the transmitter.
Freedom of the Press: A hallowed right.
Responsible Dissent: A contribution to understanding and dialogue.
</PRE>
<PRE>==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: <A HREF=" http://topica.com/u/?a2iTuc.a30J7Q.V2VzNjc2
">http://topica.com/u/?a2iTuc.a30J7Q.V2VzNjc2</A>
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
<A HREF=" http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
">http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html</A>
==^================================================================</PRE>
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
