 |
SPR responds to Congressman Jeb Bradley's commentary in local newspapers.
This letter will be sent to The Union Leader and Portsmouth Herald. To
add your name to the list of signatories please click on the link at the
end of the letter and send the email to Pat.
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.
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 passed.
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.
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 Congressman.
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?
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.
I have
read this letter and want to add my signature.
Please note: Monday, December 15, High Noon is the deadline for adding
signatures.
Contact:
info@seacoastpeaceresponse.org
|
