November 9, 2005

Empire Burlesque's masterful webmaster, Rich Kastelein, has shown his mastery once again with this package he has put together on the shattering new documentary by Italian television, confirming -- once again -- the use of chemical warfare in the Bush-ordered destruction of Fallujah last November. Rich provides links to some of the film's harrowing evidence, plus interviews with former U.S. soldiers who were on the scene.

The film is shocking and powerful -- but it shouldn't be news. Credible evidence of American use of white phosphorous shells and napalm in Fallujah was presented in public nine months ago, by a top official of the pro-American, pro-occupation, Bush-approved Iraqi interim government. I first wrote about it in my Moscow Times column on March 18. (This link should take you to the MT article. If there is any difficulty, try this link.) I'll be writing more about the new documentary in the MT column for this week, but Rich has already got the goods in his report.

Below are some excerpts from the March 18 column, "Filter Tips: Muzzling and Massaging the Message of War":

President George W. Bush often complains about the "media filter" that distorts the true picture of his Administration's accomplishments in Iraq. And he's right. For regardless of where you stand on Mr. Bush's policies in the region, it's undeniable that the political and commercial biases of the American press have consistently misrepresented the reality of the situation.

Here's an excellent example. Earlier this month, the American media completely ignored an important announcement from an official of the Iraqi government concerning the oft-maligned U.S. operation to clear insurgents from the city of Fallujah last November. Although the press conference of Health Ministry investigator Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli was attended by representatives from the Washington Post, Knight-Ridder and more than 20 other international news outlets, nary a word of his team's thorough investigation into the truth about the battle made it through the filter's dense mesh. Once again, the American public was denied the full story of one of President Bush's remarkable triumphs.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli's findings provided confirmation of earlier reports by many other Iraqis – reports that were also ignored by the arrogant filterers, who seem more interested in hearing from terrorists or anti-occupation extremists than ordinary Iraqis and those like Dr. ash-Shaykhli, who serve in the American-backed interim government vetted and approved by Mr. Bush. But while the media elite turn up their nose at such riff-raff, the testimony of these common folk and diligent public servants give ample evidence of Mr. Bush's innovative method of liberating innocent Iraqis from tyranny:

He burns them to death with chemical weapons.....

....Eyewitness accounts from the few survivors of the onslaught – which killed an estimated 1,200 non-combatants – have consistently reported the use of "burning chemicals" by American forces: horrible concoctions that roasted people alive with an unquenchable jellied fire, InterPress reports. They tell too of whole quadrants of the city in which nothing was left alive, not even the dogs and the goats: quadrants that were sealed off by the victorious Americans for mysterious scouring operations after the battle. Others told of widespread use of cluster bombs in civilian areas: a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions, but a standard practice throughout the war.

The few fragments of this information that made it through the ever-vigilant filter were instantly dismissed as anti-American propaganda, although they often came from civilians who had opposed the heavy-handed insurgent presence in the town. Rejected too were the innumerable horror stories of those who had seen their whole families – women, children, the old and sick – slaughtered in the "liberal rules of engagement" established by Bush's top brass. Most of the city was declared "weapons free": military jargon meaning that soldiers could shoot "whatever they see – it's all considered hostile," the New York Times reported, in a story buried deep inside the paper.