Saddam's Accomplices Absent At Trial: John Pilger Poses Perfectly Proper Questions ...
This Old Brit and Richard are
Since you can safely bet a GBPound to a piece of pigeon pooh, that the blogosphere will be bombarding you with such stuff for (at the very least), several days to come.
Therefore, we'd prefer to point people in the direction of John Pilger, one giant gem of a journalist, from Australia.
Take a look at these teasers we've taken from his latest piece for 'The New Statesman' - wherein, the press professional-par-excellence asks some of the most perfectly pertinent questions it's probably possible to pose.
The following, we've pinched from aforementioned article's first paragraph.
John Pilger wonders why Saddam should be alone in the dock. Surely, those who aided and abetted his crimes, and were accomplices in other great crimes committed against the Iraqi people, should be prosecuted, too.And to continue to clip & paste ...
Let's start with George Bush senior, Saddam's sponsor, and let's not forget those journalists who echoed Bush junior's and Blair's lies that justified the invasion of Iraq.
Why isn't George Bush Snr being charged? In 1992, a congressional inquiry found that Bush as president had ordered a cover-up to conceal his secret support for Saddam and the illegal arms shipments being sent to Iraq via third countries.
Why isn't Douglas Hurd being charged? In 1981, as Britain's Foreign Office minister, Hurd travelled to Baghdad to sell Saddam a British Aerospace missile system and to celebrate the anniversary of Saddam's blood-soaked ascent to power.(snip)
Why isn't his former cabinet colleague, Tony Newton, being charged? As Thatcher's trade secretary, Newton, within a month of Saddam gassing 5,000 Kurds at Halabja (news of which the Foreign Office tried to suppress), offered the mass murderer £340m in export credits.
Why isn't Donald Rumsfeld being charged? In December 1983, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad to signal America's approval of Iraq's aggression against Iran. Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad on 24 March 1984, the day that the United Nations reported that Iraq had used mustard gas laced with a nerve ...(snip)
Why isn't Madeleine Albright being charged? As President Clinton's secretary of state, Albright enforced an unrelenting embargo on Iraq which caused half a million excess deaths of children under the age of five.(snip)
Why isn't Peter Hain being charged? In 2001, as Foreign Office minister, Hain described as gratuitous the suggestion that he, along with other British politicians outspoken in their support of the deadly siege of Iraq, might find themselves summoned before the International Criminal Court.
Above all, why aren't Blair and Bush Jnr being charged with the paramount war crime, to quote the judges at Nuremberg and, recently, the chief American prosecutor, that is, unprovoked aggression against a defenceless country?
And why aren't those who spread and amplified propaganda that led to such epic suffering being charged? The New York Times ...
Over here, the BBC all but celebrated the invasion with its man in Downing Street congratulating Blair on being conclusively right ...
And there's plenty more powerfully-penned, no-punches-pulled, vintage Pilger from whence came that little lot.
See for yourself at this link.