Letter to the Editor - Iran to be Bombed

Dear Editor,

We seem to be getting closer daily to another American adventure - the bombing of Iran. In the several e-groups to which I belong, many Americans are openly encouraging the Bush administration to bomb Iran.

This attitude is driven by fear. Some say Iran must be hit as they live in a "kill zone", other aver to the religious nature of Iran's government and say the Mullahs have no risk as they believe they will go to paradise.

The Bush administration seems expert at instilling fear based on no more than rumours and supposition. You may recall that the attack on Iraq was preceded by the lies (for it is certain those speaking did know the truth) of Weapons of Mass Destruction and a supposed link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Neither of these premises were true, yet war followed and years of misery for Iraqi civilians and American troops.

This time, we have the demonization of Iran's president. Perhaps not a nice fellow, he has been misquoted in American media regarding Israel. The issue of gay rights is strange indeed, considering the policy of many American states. And Iran, we are told, is building a nuclear bomb.

Iran might be well advised to build such a bomb, given the nature of Pakistan, it southern neighbour. A "one bullet" country (one bullet kills the President and radicals might take over), Pakistan has a large number of Islamic radicals, and it does have the bomb. Israel has over 200 nuclear warheads and no inspection. Iran states that it is building a "threshold nuclear weapons capability", meaning it will be capable of industrial grade plutonium, a long way from weapons grade. Forty countries, including Canada, Australia, Brazil and thirty-seven others have the same capability. All submit to inspection; all can removed themselves from the treaty on three months notice. While Bush, and especially Cheney, insist that weapons grade is what Iran is doing, the Atomic Energy inspectors, as recently as September of this year, confirmed that only industrial grade is involved in production.

So we have a repeat, only a few years after, of lies and deception by the American administration and a population, it seems, egger to bomb yet another Muslim country based on the fear tactics of the President and a book called "America Alone".

Now, Iran has no air force or sophisticated air defence. It has no navy to speak of. What it does have, in abundance and highly efficient, are "long range sea skimming missiles", easily capable of surviving a bombing attack and sinking freighters and tankers in the Gulf of Hormuz. Shipping insurance rates would skyrocket carrying with them the oil prices. Economically and more,an attack by the United states would be a disaster.

Bush is a lame duck with no internal policies to provide a legacy, unlike
LBJ. The only legacy he has is Iraq.- a disaster. His ratings are poor and
many see him as the worst US president in history. So a lame duck can do
nothing for the balance of his term or roll the dice and hope that he can
get it right. Given the manner in which Bush took office in the first term
with not even a majority but acting as if he had an overwhelming victory
(and much the same the second time around), his personality seems geared to
the last roll of the dice. From many of the comments by Americans that I have read recently, it seems he has support for that sort of madness.

Bush, by many accounts, sees himself as a "war president:, referring to
Lincoln, Roosevelt and Truman. The dream of military conquest or victory is
a strong drive. He has managed to get Americans to accept in the breakdown
of civil rights, to accept bombing as a norm, and to support a war by doing
no more that shopping more at the local malls. That is reprehensible. That
he gets his guidance from god is also a factor, for in that he is as
religiously motivated as the mullahs. Simply, he is spoiling for another fight and Iran is the selected (and already target programmed) victim.

Such is not acceptable to the rest of the world. Not even the United
Kingdom. American is alone not due to Muslim radicals, but due to the
policies of its President. If Iran is bombed, it moves from alone to a
pariah, an outlaw state that will attract any terrorist, external or
internal. It will encourage many other countries, some now friends of the
USA, to seek alternatives for trade and more.

*****

This got a reply form one Julia Serup, quoting a book by Georges Sada as her authority. Sada is a Chriistian evangelical. He stated he was told (not that he saw) the WMD were sent to Syria on two Boeing civil aircraft making 56 flights. Similar comments emerge from Israel and the American right wing. Problem - no prooof. The Duelfer report mentions that as a possiblity, but dismisses it as without foundation...

Dear Editor,

As P.T. Barnum has said, "There is [one] born every minute…"

In her post of October 10^th last, Julia Serup quotes one source – Georges Sada. She uses only this source to conclude that Saddam Hussein shipped all the Weapons of Mass Destruction over the border to Syria. Let’s look at that source…

Georges Sada was with second-in-command of the Iraqi air force when he retired in 1986 (almost two decades before the Iraq War). In his book he states that he did not see but was told that all the WMD were flown from Iraq to Syria in two Boeing commercial airliners in 56 flights. The two pilots who allegedly told him this have never come forward.

A Christian, Sada is associated with "World Compassion Terry Law Ministries" as director of the Iraq operations. Others had made similar suppositions lacking in that one essential – proof. Simply put, there is none. Not from Israel, where similar claims have been presented, not from the American military, not from right-wing or religious radio jockeys and not from the investigators sent by the Bush administration to find the WMD.

President Bush would love to have such information and perhaps the best answer to her entire post is that even Bush has now concluded that Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Rather than quoting many sources that deny such a claim, let me simply state that the official U.S. report – the Duelfer Report - denies that Hussein had any such weapons. The head of the investigation, David Kay, resigned his position prior to the final report. As to WMD he stated, "I don't think they existed". "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties." and "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing." Kay was initially a believer in WMD and would have been overjoyed to find any. The US spent millions trying. Bush and Cheney would have shouted the news around the world.

President Bush himself has conceded this. He stated : "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.". The lack of WMD was confirmed by Bush in interviews with reporter Bob Woodward for "State of Denial", the last of his "Bush at War" trilogy.

Note that Bush did not say that the WMD had been relocated to Syria, nor did he bomb Syria as would be the case if such had been done.

But Ms. Serup knows better, thanks to one source.

The problem with Ms. Serup’s letter (and her source) is that one can claim anything without verification. UFOs, fairies in the garden, ghosts that haunt Wal-Mart – or even a boom in Prince George. Someone will always be there to believe you. Cutting to the chase, not one news or intelligence agency has verified the hearsay theory of Sada. Nor have the fairies in my garden been substantiated, more’s the pity…

Ms. Serup is free to regard George W. Bush as the greatest president ever if she wishes. Most view him as one of the worst - if not the very worst. His approval rating is in the dumps and even his own Republicans don’t want him around. The NeoCons say his administration is incompetent.

There is no accounting for taste; there is an accounting for citing inaccurate sources for sweeping statements. Ms. Serup, this is yours.