ON THE IRAQ WAR - A LETTER OF PROTEST TO THE SUNDAY TIMES

John Tarttelin

Description

A letter sent in 2004 to The Sunday Times in London after a very biased piece of reporting in favour of the war policy of President George Bush and Tony Blair.

Sujets

• Iraq
• War
• Neoconservatism
• America
• USA
• Bush
• Blair
• UN
• Chaos
• Anarchy
• The Sunday Times

Informations

• Publié par: Souladream
• Publié le: 17 octobre 2012
• Nombre de lectures: 234
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait


 1

ON THE IRAQ WAR


MY LETTER TO THE SUNDAY TIMES
IN PROTEST
NDMARCH 22 2004
JOHN TARTTELIN 
 2

IN RESPONSE TO AN ARTICLE BY ANDREW SULLIVAN
THE SUNDAY TIMES WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT



Dear
Sir,

I
must
protest
at
the
defamatory
comments
made
by
Andrew
Sullivan

against
the
Spanish
people
in
the
Sunday
times
of
March
21st
2004.






What
arrogance.
How
does
Andrew
Sullivan
know
what
went

through
the
minds
of
millions
of
individual
Spanish
voters?
Perhaps

he
has
“intelligence”
from
his
Washington
pals
who
told
us
all
about

Saddam’s
fearsome
WMD
and
the
dire
threat
posed
to
world
peace?

Who
is
Andrew
Sullivan
to
accuse
a
whole
nation
of
cowardice?
How

many
terrorists
has
he
personally
confronted
or
captured?
How

many
terrorist
incidents
has
he
lived
through
and
experienced?
And

is
it
only
proper
democracy
if
Andrew
Sullivan
agrees
with
the

results
of
an
election?






The
Spanish
people
held
a
noble
rally
against
terrorism
in
the

aftermath
of
the
Madrid
atrocities.
Ninety
per
cent
of
them
were

against
the
invasion
of
Iraq
in
the
first
place.
Probably
many
of
them

disliked
the
spin
of
Aznar’s
government
when
it
tried
to
blame
ETA

for
the
outrage
when
it
was
increasingly
obvious
that
an
al‐Qaeda
cell

had
been
responsible.
Aznar’s
policy
of
closeness
to
the
Bush
regime

led
directly
to
Spanish
citizens
being
blown‐up.
No
wonder
they

punished
the
government
that
created
such
circumstances.
To
accuse

them
of
being
cowards
is
itself
cowardly,
especially
coming
from

someone
in
the
relative
safety
of
a
Washington
office.






Zapatero
was
right
to
say:
“The
war
in
Iraq
was
a
disaster,
the

occupation
of
Iraq
is
a
disaster,”
and
it
was
his
party’s
policy
to

remove
Spanish
troops
long
before
the
Madrid
bombings.
He
has
also

said
they
may
remain
if
the
UN
is
put
in
charge,
as
it
should
have

been
all
along.






According
to
Richard
Haass,
Director
of
Policy
and
Planning
at
the

State
Department:
“In
the
case
of
Iraq
this
time
around
there
was
no

necessity
of
fighting
the
war.
There
wasn’t
an
immediate
threat…
The

US
Administration…
essentially
chose
to
fight
a
war
at
this
time.
But

there
was
no
reason
that
war
couldn’t
have
been
put
back
6
days,
6

months,
or
6
years.
This
was
simply
a
policy
decision”.



 3




There
were
no
weapons
of
mass
destruction.
There
was
no

legitimate
reason
for
war.
As
the
Russian
Ambassador
to
the
UN
said:

“There
was
no
deadline
in
the
Resolution
(1441)
which
could
be

considered
as
the
end
of
the
road,
and
there
was
no
end
of
the
road.

The
road
was
artificially
blown‐up
basically”.






The
so‐called
was
(technically
an
‘armed
conflict’
because
it
wasn’t

backed
by
the
Security
Council)
was
also
illegal.
To
quote
Kofi
Annan:

“When
I
said
the
question
of
legitimacy
and
indicated
that
the

legitimacy
was
going
to
be
widely
questioned,
I
think
some
did
not

believe
it
at
the
time,
but
that
is
precisely
what
has
happened”.






Richard
Clarke,
who
had
three
decades
of
experience
under
four
US

administrations,
remarked
that
George
Bush
is
doing
a
“terrible
job”

in
tackling
terrorism.
He
says
Bush
ignored
warnings
about
the

threat
from
al‐Qaeda,
while
Condoleezza
Rice
hadn’t
even
heard
of

them
before
September
11th.
And
he
adds
that
Donald
Rumsfeld

wanted
to
attack
Iraq
and
not
the
al‐Qaeda
bases
in
Afghanistan,

because
there
were
“no
good
targets
in
Afghanistan”.
Jimmy
Carter

agrees
the
war
was
“unnecessary”.






Saddam
should
have
been
dealt
with
in
1991,
but
Bush
senior
failed

to
do
his
duty.
Furthermore,
he
encouraged
the
Shia
in
the
south
of

Iraq
to
rebel
and
them
callously
left
them
to
be
butchered
by
Saddam.

The
Shia
did
not
forget
and
that
was
one
of
the
reasons
why
they

weren’t
dancing
in
the
streets
when
the
Coalition
arrived
in
2003.






The
cynical,
self‐serving
and
arrogant
policy
of
the
current
US

Administration
is
doing
no
one
any
favours
least
of
all
themselves.

You
cannot
bomb
democracy
into
a
country,
it
has
to
be
home‐gown

and
carefully
nurtured,
not
shipped
in
from
outside
like
some
GM

panacea.
The
recent
marches
in
the
capitals
of
Italy,
Japan,
Australia,

Britain
and
elsewhere,
indicate
how
heartily
sick
people
are

becoming
of
America
über
alles.
Many
of
us
are
aware
of
the
dangers

of
a
Wolfowitz
in
sheep’s
clothing
and
we
are
not
taken
in
by
the

great
Neo‐Con.






William
Shawcross,
an
apologist
for
Bush
and
Blairs’
adventurism,

details
in
his
book
Allies
how
the
whole
Iraq
was
predicated
upon

Wolfowitz’s
ideas,
his
neo‐con
buddies
and
their
Project
for
a
New

American
Century.
On
page
53
he
writes:
“In
1992
Wolfowitz&#