Saddam's Accomplices

Let's start with George Bush senior, Saddam's sponsor, and let's not forgetthose journalists who echoed Bush junior's and Blair's lies that justified theinvasion of Iraq.

In a show trial whose theatrical climax was clearly timed to promote George WBush in the American midterm elections, Saddam Hussein was convicted andsentenced to hang. Drivel about "end of an era" and "a new start forIraq" was promoted by the usual false moral accountants, who uttered not aword about bringing the tyrant’s accomplices to justice. Why are theseaccomplices not being charged with aiding and abetting crimes against humanity?Why isn’t George Bush Snr being charged?

In 1992, a congressional inquiry found that Bush as president had ordered acover-up to conceal his secret support for Saddam and the illegal arms shipmentsbeing sent to Iraq via third countries. Missile technology was shipped to SouthAfrica and Chile, then "on sold" to Iraq, while US Commerce Departmentrecords were falsified. Congressman Henry Gonzalez, chairman of the House ofRepresentatives Banking Committee, said: "[We found that] Bush and hisadvisers financed, equipped and succoured the monster..."
 
Why isn’t Douglas Hurd being charged? In 1981, as Britain's Foreign Officeminister, Hurd travelled to Baghdad to sell Saddam a British Aerospace missilesystem and to "celebrate" the anniversary of Saddam’s blood-soaked ascentto power. Why isn’t his former cabinet colleague, Tony Newton, being charged?As Thatcher’s trade secretary, Newton, within a month of Saddam gassing 5,000Kurds at Halabja (news of which the Foreign Office tried to suppress), offeredthe mass murderer £340m in export credits.

Why isn’t Donald Rumsfeld being charged? In December 1983, Rumsfeld was inBaghdad to signal America’s approval of Iraq’s aggression against Iran.Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad on 24 March 1984, the day that the United Nationsreported that Iraq had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent against Iraniansoldiers. Rumsfeld said nothing. A subsequent Senate report documented thetransfer of the ingredients of biological weapons from a company in Maryland,licensed by the Commerce Department and approved by the State Department.

Why isn’t Madeleine Albright being charged? As President Clinton’ssecretary of state, Albright enforced an unrelenting embargo on Iraq whichcaused half a million "excess deaths" of children under the age of five.When asked on television if the children’s deaths were a price worth paying,she replied: "We think the price is worth it."

Why isn’t Peter Hain being charged? In 2001, as Foreign Office minister,Hain described as "gratuitous" the suggestion that he, along with otherBritish politicians outspoken in their support of the deadly siege of Iraq,might find themselves summoned before the International Criminal Court. A reportfor the UN secretary general by a world authority on international law describesthe embargo on Iraq in the 1990s as "unequivocally illegal under existinghuman rights law", a crime that "could raise questions under the GenocideConvention". Indeed, two past heads of the UN humanitarian mission in Iraq,both of them assistant secretary generals, resigned because the embargo wasindeed genocidal. As of July 2002, more than $5bn-worth of humanitariansupplies, approved by the UN Sanctions Committee and paid for by Iraq, wereblocked by the Bush administration, backed by the Blair and Hain government.These included items related to food, health, water and sanitation.

Above all, why aren’t Blair and Bush Jnr being charged with "theparamount war crime", to quote the judges at Nuremberg and, recently, thechief American prosecutor – that is, unprovoked aggression against adefenceless country?

And why aren’t those who spread and amplified propaganda that led to suchepic suffering being charged? The New York Times reported as fact fabricationsfed to its reporter by Iraqi exiles. These gave credibility to the WhiteHouse’s lies, and doubtless helped soften up public opinion to support aninvasion. Over here, the BBC all but celebrated the invasion with its man inDowning Street congratulating Blair on being "conclusively right" on hisassertion that he and Bush "would be able to take Baghdad without abloodbath". The invasion, it is reliably estimated, has caused 655,000"excess deaths", overwhelmingly civilians.

If none of these important people are called to account, there is clearlyonly justice for the victims of accredited "monsters".

Is that real or fake justice?

Fake.