Ted Lang: Iraq: Sanatized Slaughter: Where are the mainstream media accounts of these atrocities?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6983.htm
There are now two Iraq wars: the first is being fought with helicopter gunships and cluster bombs along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates; the second is being fought here in Britain and in the pre-election US. This is a propaganda war in which the hundreds of Iraqis killed every week by US bombardment fail to make the headlines, while the horrifying images provided by a Jordanian kidnapper and killer of British and US contractors is portrayed as the true face of Iraqi resistance.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6984.htm
GI SPECIAL: 16,000 U.S. Casualties At Landstuhl: The Troops: Burned, Blinded, Or Sparring With Death: The Staff? "George Bush Is An Idiot" (PDF) 28/9/04
http://www.williambowles.info/gispecial/gi_2b75.pdf
Continued U.S. Airstrikes in Baghdad Draw Criticism: Interim president of Iraq likens the tactics to Israeli military actions in the Gaza Strip: President Ghazi Ajil Yawer said the U.S. strikes were viewed by the Iraqi people as "collective punishment" against towns and neighborhoods.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6981.htm
Allawi Couldn't Have Said It Any Better Himself : It's a political whodunit: Since Ayad Allawi delivered his address to a joint meeting of Congress on Thursday, foreign policy devotees have been searching for the ghostwriter of the speech, which sounded curiously familiar to American ears.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6988.htm
Lawmaker expresses "dismay" that White House allegedly wrote Allawi speech: "I want to express my profound dismay about reports that officials from your administration and your reelection campaign were 'heavily involved' in writing parts of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's speech," California Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote in a letter to President George W. Bush.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6987.htm
Letters
Blair's sorry spectacle
Thursday September 30, 2004
The Guardian
Tony Blair's words about Iraq were a carefully crafted piece of concealment, collusively endorsed by his lieutenants (Blair refuses to say sorry, September 29). He was right to say that he couldn't sincerely apologise for doing something he thought was right. He had, we must suppose, good moral reasons for seeking to pursue that course of action. But he couldn't secure his favoured end without the consent of others.
What many of us want him to apologise for is not the moral stance that led him to the decision to act with Bush, but the dubious means by which he secured that consent in the Commons, appealing to considerations that had nothing to do with the concealed moral grounds of his own decision.
Michael McGhee
Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool
So Tony Blair's speech was "low-key, conversational and reasoned" (Leader, September 29). And his "apology" on Iraq was a "rightly well-received milestone in his fragile rehabilitation with his critics".
No matter that he abused the intelligence on WMD, overrode security warnings about unleashing more terrorist attacks, and deceived the country over the"threat" posed by Iraq. No matter that he then launched an illegal and immoral invasion that has led to tens of thousands of deaths, a further destabilised Middle East, a weakened UN, and increased the threat to Britons everywhere.
Even a kindly, if myopic, critic might conclude that Blair's political judgment on Iraq and in supporting Bush was sufficiently bad to demand his resignation. A more dispassionate critic might well go further: that Blair ought to be tried for war crimes. As for the Guardian? Well, clearly, you'd rather remain part of some agreement between reasonable gentlemen of the establishment. Future historians will note your dishonourable role in propping up Blair.
Dr David Cromwell
Southampton
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1315823,00.html