November 5, 2009

On August 22, 2007, Jonathan Schwarz wrote a column for his website, www.tinyrevolution.com, called "Advancing the Debate on My Faith in Saddam Hussein." In it, he related to a recent dialogue he had with Michael Cohen, a former speechwriter for the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. during the Clinton administration.

Evidently, Cohen had written a few false statements about Iraq and Schwarz pointed out his errors. For instance, Cohen said that Saddam Hussein kicked out U.N. inspectors from Iraq in 1998. Also, he stated that Iraq never publicly admitted it was free of WMD.

From reading Schwarz’ account, he is knowledgeable of these subjects as well as other information concerning the lies about Iraq and Saddam. During the dialogue, Cohen stated, "Why you put so much faith in the words and deeds of Saddam Hussein is beyond me."

Cohen’s response is identical to those of many who, when confronted with facts, immediately dismiss them because they concern Saddam Hussein. When these people become cornered with reality, they can only rely on the trump card of denigrating Saddam.

One thing about this article stood out: the title. Rarely does a Western scribe admit that Saddam told the truth and the U.S. lied. Logically, with a track record of lies vs. truth, Saddam should come out on top in the information war. But, it is so simple that people do not want to believe the truth.

For years, I have been writing and speaking about the lies put forth about Saddam Hussein that were thrust upon him and his regime by the U.S. government and media. Don’t think for one minute that I have had a smooth and positive experience in defending truth vs. deceit, a much more comprehensive and accurate description than solely defending Saddam Hussein.

In the buildup to Desert Storm, I read or heard about so many preposterous atrocities attributed to Saddam that I discounted them. Hindsight shows I was right. Only a duped individual could believe that Saddam enjoyed watching people boil in acid, or that Iraq’s soldiers threw babies from incubators in Kuwait and they died on the hospital floor. I did not realize that the general public would be sucked into such fables. But, in reality, there were millions of duped individuals; more than there were people with clear thinking who use logic.

In 1992, I decided to write a book on the buildup to and the execution of Operation Desert Storm. The book, The Sledgehammer and the Ant was published in early 1993.

This was my first book and I had to gain publicity, so I arranged various speaking engagements at bookstores and universities as well as presentations to various social groups. The fun was about to begin.

One of my first engagements was to speak to a Humanist group in San Diego. The event drew more than 100 people. After my presentation, I took questions and answers. The first person said, "You’re a paid agent of Saddam Hussein," and he left the building. The next one said, "George Bush should have nuked Iraq," and he left the building.

I was 0 for 2, but I kept calling on people who wanted to make a statement or ask a question. The third person’s message was a surprise. He stood up, looked at the crowd, and said:

He did not leave the room. Then, a few people began to ask legitimate questions.

I realized that speaking to groups would entail sticking up for the Iraqi government in the subject of truth vs. lies. This was my first experience in seeing that the public still had not understood the reality of the U.S. propaganda against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Shortly after, I held a booksigning at a San Diego bookstore. The place was packed. When I was done, I announced the question and answer segment and did not know what would happen.

The first person I called on, a woman who stated that she was Jewish, said, "I can’t think of anything more scary than Saddam Hussein with an atomic weapon." I quickly remarked, "I can." She then asked, "What?" My immediate response was, "Israel with 600." Everybody in the room, except the Jewish woman, cheered.

After a few engagements, I began to be comfortable in my presentations. I also realized that I had to have my facts in order so I could rebut any ludicrous statement about Saddam’s lust for human flesh. I had to have a comprehensive knowledge of the lies and the debunking of them. There was no room for factual error.

Over the years, I gained a reputation of being a Saddam sympathizer. But, not all the people who listened to me took that as a negative. Every time I spoke, a few people would approach me and tell me that they held similar views but were afraid to publicly mention them. I told them that it was not my style to be in the closet. Most thanked me and said I gave them the courage to speak out.

During the 1990s, El Cajon, CA, a city of 100,000 people, was the home of several Iraqi-American clubs and organizations. If I entered an anti-Saddam club with an Iraqi friend, people would whisper and point at me. I was known to them as a "pro-Saddam" agent. On the other hand, when I entered a pro-Saddam club, people ran up to me and invited me to their tables and offered me food. Instead of people at tables pointing at me, these Iraqi-Americans waved to me and gave me a thumbs-up.

My initial response in 1990 to ignore the ridiculous allegations against Saddam Hussein were prompted by common sense, not research. Today, I can say that I have put in thousands of hours of research on Iraq and its struggle against U.S. imperialism and that my sixth sense in 1990 has been corroborated by my scrutiny.

Many journalists who opposed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq have written about the excellent Iraqi education system prior to the bombing of the country in 1991. But, there is always a disclaimer. A standard statement is, "Iraq had a fine education system. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sticking up for Saddam Hussein." This illogic is a main reason why Iraq was destroyed by the U.S. One cannot speak of the former education system of Iraq without attributing it to the legacy of Saddam Hussein. The education system was outstanding because of, not despite, Saddam Hussein.

Not everybody denigrated Saddam. The late Jude Wanniski, former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, wrote tens of thousands of words defending Saddam Hussein. He did his research and debunked every lie put out against the Iraqi president. The truth about Iraq and Saddam was a passion for Wanniski.

Wanniski challenged each and every politician who made preposterous statements about Saddam. Not one could refute Wanniski other than accusing him of being a "Saddam dupe."

The automatic denigration of someone who says anything good about Saddam Hussein has led to the atrocities occurring in Iraq today. All one has to say is "Saddam did it" and the subject then is closed. With no opposition, the myths become facts.

I interviewed Captain Eric May, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer about the deception put forth by the U.S. government about Iraq. Here is a question I asked him and his reply:

Captain May hit the nail right on the head. To this day, if one wants to shut up a war critic, all he/she has to do is say, "Well, at least Saddam is gone," and the discussion ends.

It is precisely because Saddam is gone that Iraq is in such a diabolical state: a condition that may be irreversible. To some Iraqis, the country of Iraq no longer exists. There is sound reasoning and evidence to justify this theory.

Recently, Eric Margolis, an internationally-known foreign correspondent, was interviewed about Iraq. He made the point of truth vs. lies as he stated that President Saddam Hussein told the truth about WMD and President Bush and Vice President Cheney lied. He pulled no punches. Then, he added the most important aspect of the argument; an aspect that is not even considered a possibility with today’s U.S. government. Margolis said that there is much speculation and jockeying for position among the newly-converted anti-war Democrats as to who is more anti-war. But, not one has said, "The war was wrong."

This has been my point since March 2003. Not one U.S. politician has said "The war was wrong." They only criticize the war strategy, not the concept of the war.

Those of us who have researched the subject of Iraq in detail must repeatedly state "The war was wrong." We must do it in an unapologetic manner. When speaking of the positive aspects of Iraq prior to its destruction by the U.S., we must not use qualifying statements such as, "I’m not sticking up for Saddam." The facts must be put forth without an apology. Most importantly, we must say, "Iraq was better off under Saddam," over and over again.

If the truth about Iraq is not allowed to be heard without qualifying statements, the truth will be lost. If the truth is lost, there will be more horrendous U.S. attacks against innocent countries in the future. The script is the same each time: demonize a leader and the public will think the U.S. has launched an epic battle against the most diabolical person in history. It worked with Ghadaffi; it worked with Noriega; it worked with Aidid; it worked with Milosevic; and it certainly worked, and still is working, with Saddam Hussein.

My conscience is clear. In all my writing about Iraq, I never qualified a statement or apologized for my words. If telling the truth and exposing the lies about Iraq and its government earns me the moniker "Saddam defender," "Saddam apologist," "Saddam dupe," so be it. At least I did not sell out or succumb to the lies or find myself in a position of assisting the pro-war and imperialist agenda of the U.S., all the time being an opponent to the war.