From: Miroslav Antic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Iraq, Anthrax, and the Hawks [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
Published on Monday, October 22, 2001 on The Progressive
<http://www.progressive.org/>
Iraq, Anthrax, and the Hawks
by Matthew Rothschild
It didn't take long for the hawks to seize on the anthrax scare as a
justification for the United States to go bomb Iraq.
"By far the likeliest supplier is Saddam Hussein," The Wall Street
Journal wrote in an editorial on Oct. 18.
James Woolsey, former CIA director, said almost the exact same thing in
the Journal's adjacent guest column. After speculating about Iran's
involvement, he said: "But by far the more likely candidate for
involvement with al Qaeda is Iraq."
Richard Butler, the bellicose leader of U.N. inspections in Iraq in the
late 1990s, took to the op-ed page of The New York Times the same day to
insinuate that Iraq was behind the attacks: "If the scientific path
leads to Iraq as the supporter of the anthrax used by the terrorist
mailers, no one should be surprised."
Three things need to be noted about this "Let's Go Get Iraq" chant.
First, the hawks wanted to get Iraq even before any anthrax was
delivered.
Second, the evidence against Iraq is not overwhelming.
Third, it makes no political sense for Iraq to be behind the anthrax
attacks.
To get a glimpse of the anti-Iraq crowd, look no further than The Weekly
Standard of Oct. 1. The cover had a WANTED sign on it with two pictures
underneath: one of Osama bid Laden, the other of Saddam Hussein.
An open letter to Bush inside, signed by editor William Kristol, Gary
Bauer, William Bennett, Midge Decter, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney,
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, Martin Peretz, Richard Perle,
Norman Podhoretz, and other hawks on the wing, said: "It may be that the
Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack
on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly
to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and
its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein
from power."
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has also been gung-ho in this
"Get Saddam" campaign from the start, as have many has-beens of the
foreign policy establishment.
On Sept. 19 and 20, the Defense Policy Board, which includes Woolsey,
Henry Kissinger, Harold Brown, and James Schlesinger, came out for
getting rid of Saddam Hussein, according to Elaine Sciolino and Patrick
E. Tyler, writing in the Times on Oct. 12.
Much of the case for the Iraq connection rests on two claims: first,
Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague last year;
and second, the anthrax sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was
"weapons grade" or "weaponized."
Both those claims are now being questioned: The anthrax, according to
several reports, was not of the highly weaponized variety originally
mentioned.
And Atta may never have met with that Iraqi intelligence officer in
Prague, at least according to an article by John Tagliabue in The New
York Times of Oct. 20. "Czech officials say they do not believe that
Mohamed Atta . . . met with any Iraqi officials during a brief stop he
made in Prague last year," the story said.
(The truth is hard to piece together on this one, though. The Wall
Street Journal reported on Oct. 22 that "officials claim Atta met with
one or more intelligence agents" in Prague in June 2000 and with an
Iraqi diplomat in Prague in April 2001.)
One piece of anthrax evidence strongly indicates that Iraq was not
involved: The type of anthrax used in the U.S. mail attacks, the
so-called Ames strain, is one that Iraq doesn't seem to have.
"Federal scientists examining the anthrax used in the Florida and New
York attacks have tentatively concluded that it is a domestic strain
that bears no resemblance to the strains Russia and Iraq turned into
biological weapons," David Johnston and William J. Broad reported for
the Times on October 19. "To the best of their knowledge, Baghdad was
unable to obtain the Ames strain."
Scott Ritter, the U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 who
was a strong advocate for military action against Saddam Hussein in the
days leading up to the Gulf War, discounts the Iraq link.
"Fears that that hidden hand of Saddam Hussein lies behind these attacks
are based on rumor and speculation that, under close scrutiny, fail to
support the weight of the charge," he wrote in the London Guardian on
October 19.
Ritter confirms that Iraq did not have the Ames strain, and he notes
that "Iraq's biological weapons programs were dismantled, destroyed, or
rendered harmless during the course of hundreds of no-notice
inspections."
Ritter denounces his former boss, Richard Butler, for getting on the
"Get Baghdad" bandwagon. "Those who have suggested that Iraq is the
source of the anthrax used in the current attacks-including Richard
Butler, a former chairman of the U.N. weapons inspection effort-merely
fan the flames of fear and panic. There is no verifiable link whatever,
and it is irresponsible for someone of Mr. Butler's stature to be
involved in unsubstantiated speculation."
Hans von Sponeck, the head of the U.N. humanitarian effort in Iraq from
1998-2000, agrees with Ritter. "To connect the 11 September tragedy and
the anthrax crime to Iraq is a malicious attempt to find a justification
to attack Iraq to finish what is perceived as 'unfinished business,' he
told me in an e-mail on Oct. 19. "I find these conjectures outrageous."
The Iraq connection, while impossible to rule out, doesn't make sense on
political grounds. For one thing, as Ritter points out, "It makes
absolutely no sense for Iraq to be involved in a bio-terror attack that,
in one fell swoop, undermines what has been Iraq's number one priority
over the past decade: the lifting of economic sanctions."
And for another, why would Iraq use biological weapons now on just a
handful of Americans when it could have used them on tens of thousands
of U.S. troops back in 1991? Hussein didn't use the weapons during the
Gulf War because Bush the Elder had warned him that the United States
would drop nuclear weapons on him if he did. Surely, he must realize
that his fate would be sealed if he were tied to the latest anthrax
scare. If he were suicidal, which he has shown clearly that he's not, he
could have wreaked much more havoc ten years ago.
Despite the doubts on Iraq, the politicians, pundits, and the Pentagon
are moving forward with plans to take the war there next. George Will
banged the drum on ABC's "This Week."
Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in
2000, said on "Meet the Press" Sunday that the United States should
attack Baghdad.
And the Pentagon is prepared to do so. "For the first time since the
terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the United States deployed additional
forces to bases within easy striking distance of Iraq, senior military
officials said. The deployment . . . included 12 F-15E fighter-bombers,
nearly doubling the number of strike fighters on the ground in the
Persian Gulf," according to Steven Lee Myers and Thom Shanker in the
Times of Oct. 17.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave a foreboding response to a
question at a press conference on the 19th. Asked if the United States
would be waging war in another country before the anti-terror campaign
was through, he replied: "I have no doubt in my mind."
Rumsfeld and Bush are preparing to wage war against Iraq on the
flimsiest of evidence.
If they do, they will show the world community how reckless they are.
Copyright 2001 The Progressive, Madison, WI
###
_________________________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki
Phone +358-40-7177941
Fax +358-9-7591081
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
General class struggle news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geopolitical news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
