FROM W. AUSTRALIA Topic: MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS
WESTERN AUSTRALIA - "I am watching war live on CNN," a Sydney-based wife of an Australian business executive told her husband in a Dec. 17 telephone call to Perth, WA. The executive happened to be in Perth that day, just as was your editor.
"Unfortunately, most wars are made for CNN these days," this writer replied. "Just as the 'Wag the Dog' movie insinuated. Real life is being subordinated to virtual TV images."
Clinton's "made for CNN" war against Iraq is now over. But a time of reckoning for the Clinton administration is only beginning. Forget impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. These were mere "misdemeanors;" a child's play compared to the heinous felonies which this American President and his national security advisors have just committed. They should be all charged with treason, rapes of the U.S. Constitution and of the U.N. Charter, and crimes against humanity.
For, Iraq poses no threat to the U.S. national security. Iraq never attacked the U.S. forces, nor even threatened to do so. But a defiant Iraq is a potential threat to the national security of Israel. Even Kuwait, the victim of Iraq's U.S.-induced aggression in 1990, and usually the strongest supporter of actions against Saddam Hussein, was "cautious" about the Dec. 17 U.S.-British attack on Iraq, according to a Dec. 18 report by the London Telegraph. Even Egypt, another middle-eastern country heavily supported by U.S. taxpayers, "regretted" the attacks.
It seems only fitting, therefore, that Bill Clinton and his "national security team" reportedly reached the final decision to bomb Iraq while in Israel this past weekend (Dec. 13). And that the President signed the order to that effect on board the Air Force One, returning to Washington from a visit to Israel.
Was the "Desert Fox," therefore, one last favor to Israel and its American lobby which backed Bill Clinton through thick and thin of his many scandals; an act of desperate aggression by a Washington administration in its own mortal agony; the "last hurrah" of an American president whose track record already had so many blemishes that one more spot, even if a large blood stain, would not make that much difference?
If so, "Desert Fox" was also an act of treason committed against the country which Clinton and his national security team had sworn to serve; whose taxpayers paid for the missiles; whose troops' lives they had put at risk; and whose citizens will now suffer the righteous retaliation by the Islamic world against such a flagrant abuse of power by the world's only superpower.
No wonder some Security Council members were seething with anger at such a flagrant abuse of power. Yevgeny Primakov, the Russian prime minister, described the raids as "outrageous." Russia also recalled its ambassador to Washington, and summoned James Collins and Sir Andrew Wood, the American and British ambassadors to Russia, for a dressing down by a senior Russian official.
France and Austria, which holds the EU presidency, expressed unhappiness with the U.S.-British attack on Iraq. India and Malaysia strongly denounced it, while most of the other Asian countries said they regretted the action. But Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand - the New World Order's vassals in the Asia/Pacific region, gave the U.S. and Britain their outright support.
By contrast, China expressed "shock" over the Anglo-American air strikes against Iraq, and denounced Richard Butler, an Australian diplomat and a chief U.N. weapons inspector, for "misrepresenting" the actual situation in Iraq.
Nor was China the only critic of this "Madam Halfbright's Australian butler." Major Ritter, an American who resigned from his UNSCOM post in August, told the New York Post on Dec. 16 that in the hours BEFORE Butler's report was released, this Australian diplomat made repeated calls to the Clinton administration officials who "were telling him to sharpen the language in his report to justify the bombing." By contrast to this "U.N. report" evidently influenced by the Clinton administration's political motives, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Iraq was complying with the U.N. inspection demands.
To his credit, the U.S. Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, expressed similar reservations. "I cannot support this military action in the Persion Gulf at this time," he said, "since both the timing and the policy are subject to question."
The Times of India, provided on Nov. 22 additional information about an apparent collusion between Richard Butler, the U.N. inspector, and the Clinton administration. In an OpEd piece titled "Grief of Baghdad," Siddharth Varadarajan wrote that Butler"hitched himself to the skirts of Madeleine Albright, then Washington's U.N. representative," after the Australian Liberals (akin to the U.S. Republican Party) won the 1996 election. Butler, then the Australian ambassador to the U.N. appointed by the defeated Labour government (akin to U.S. Democratic Party), facing a customary pink slip at the time, effectively became Madame Halfbright's butler as the head of UNSCOM.
"What have I ever done against the Americans and the British?" asked Jassim el-Zubeidy, a victim whose home was destroyed in the December 17 attack on Baghdad by the American and British military forces. El-Zubeidy suffered head injuries and a broken back, according to the Dec. 18 report by the London Telegraph. His nine-year old daughter was still in a critical condition at the hospital. Their home was based opposite a mosque in a new suburb of Baghdad, nowhere near any military installations.
Another patient beckoned at the Telegraph reporter: "Are you English or American? Let me tell you, I will get my vengeance even if it takes me 40 years."
Iraqis' anger is understandable. Even if Madam Halfbright butler's claims about Iraq's supposed mass destruction weapons were true, which is far from certain, what possible justification can there be for hitting private Iraqi homes and hospitals, such as the Saddamya Hospital in the southern town of Qurna, for example, which was bombed on the first night of the raids, according to Iraqi sources? And again in the early hours of Friday, Dec. 18?
The U.S. Secretary of Defense's (William Cohen) lame explanation on Sunday, Dec. 20, about how regrettable such a "collateral damage" was just that - lame. He and others in the Clinton administration now have the blood of innocent Iraqi civilians on their hands. And they have Saddam Hussein, dubbed the "Butcher of Baghdad" by the media, not only physically intact, but actually politically strengthened at home by the Anglo-American killings of Iraqi civilians.
It was all par for the course. The genocidal course, that is. Like the sanctions against Iraq, which are still in effect supposedly in the hope that the people being killed by them would rise up and topple a dictator. This writer had some State Department officials tell him the same thing back in 1991, so we have an idea where this nonsense is coming from.
The argument is total BS, of course! People who talk like that should name ONE instance where the sanctions have produced a desired result (of toppling a dictator). Did in happen in North Korea? Did it happen in Serbia? Did it happen in Libya? Did it happen in Iran? Did it happen in Iraq?
Of course, not. Nor were they (the sanctions) applied consistently. We hit Iraq with the sanctions, in part, we were told, because Saddam was killing the Kurds. But we looked the other way when the Turkish government killed a lot more Kurds than Saddam. Ditto re. Indonesia and East Timor. Etc.
When challenged about things like that, some State Department officials admitted to me back in 1991 that, "regrettably, the sanctions are indeed a blunt instrument."
Sanctions are not only a "blunt instrument." Sanctions are genocide, pure and simple. And the people who advocate sanctions as a part of a foreign policy should be among the first to be charged with genocide and hauled off to the Hague, or whatever other World Court which prosecutes crimes against humanity.
Sanctions are like burning down a forest to kill a deer. Except that they kill people, not wild game. Which makes certain nations fair game for our racist government.
No wonder that all across the world, American flags were burnt again last week. No wonder decent Americans are ashamed of being associated with people like Bill Clinton and his national security team - the traitors of the country whose interests they were supposed to serve. Even CNN, the network which has done so much to help Clinton destroy the American Constitution, revealed on Dec. 20 that 54% of respondents to its on-line survey thought that Clinton should resign now that he has been impeached by the House.
We disagree. Whether or not Clinton resigns, we think that Clinton and his entire "national security team" should be tried for treason, rape of the U.S. Constitution and of the U.N. Charter, and for crimes against humanity. Anyone seconding the motion?
Also, check out also the TiM GW Bulletins: "Klinton's Amerika: Israel's Tomahawk", "Christianity Under Siege... Revisited", "New World Order's Control of Israel's Economy", "Caspian Sea Oil: The Matchmaker?", "We Have No Business Bombing Anyone Except in Self-Defense", "A Year of Awakening," "Like Bosnia, Like Lebanon"
Or Djurdjevic's WASHINGTON TIMES columns: "Christianity Under Siege: Toward a One World Religion" and "The Three Musketeers"