Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now!

The Myth of American Moral Authority

Pulitzer Prize winner, Ron Suskind, has come out with a book entitled ‘The Way of the World’ that asserts convincingly that the Bush administration ordered the CIA to forge a letter covering their collective derriere about WMDs in Iraq and Saddam’s taking delivery of yellow cake uranium from Niger.

As despicable as this recounted action is (one of so many the Bushites have perpetrated that a whole new lexicon is presently being developed by the Oxford Dictionary) and as dismally unsurprising as this latest criminal subterfuge is (the Bushies, after all, have been preparing for the ‘End Time’; with ‘Owl-mighty Gawwd’ on your side, you can do whatever the Hell you want, apparently) there is, regrettably, one ‘Revelation’ that Mr Suskind has not experienced; that regarding the prevailing myth of American moral authority. At least, not as evidenced by his interviews on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! there isn’t.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=178981

Mr Suskind ended his pitch on the Daily Show by reiterating his ‘book-tour blurb’, which Stewart had stifled half-way through the interview with a jibe about how crassly Suskind was touting his book. Suskind, in summation, stated melodramatically that “The book’s all about how America’s moral authority has bled away and we need to restore it to fight the battles that we need to fight and, y’know, the way to do it’s with truth!”

Can I get an ‘Ay-man’ for the rapturous delusion of American moral authority?

The vain, prideful fantasy that America possesses intrinsic moral authority is both a ludicrous and harmful one. It has been used to white-wash the ruinous, foul effects of American foreign and domestic policy for centuries. The American people, from the cradle to the grave, are inculcated with the precept that America can do no moral wrong; that America has a ‘lock’ on righteousness and so, ipso facto, any apparent wrong-doing is done by ‘loose cannons’ and renegades. The promulgation of this appealing, though unsubstantiated testament has resulted in its being piously accepted as a basic tenet of the secular pseudo-religion of ‘Americanism’.

Supporting examples which demonstrate this claim of moral authority are rarely if ever offered. Why should they be? Like any belief system, ‘Americanism’ requires no proof. Notwithstanding ‘faith’ in Americanism, the maxim has little relationship to fact and so creates a cognitive dissonance amongst the citizens of the United States. The specious myth of American moral authority is worn by American leaders (and the American people) as a precious, reverential vestment to cover up the numerous, depraved, heinous acts of murderous violence and dehumanizing social injustice that comprise the history of the American Republic. Given America’s contemptible history, Americans cannot rightly lay claim to moral authority or the moral high ground yet, they do. For to reject the tenet of American moral authority is to renounce one’s faith in Americanism, declare oneself ‘unpatriotic’ and so suffer derision and ostracism from the body politic.

Although doctrines of faith, by definition, are held to be unassailable by logic, even so, examples of America’s moral failures might serve to contravene the indiscriminant, unthinking acceptance of the sacrosanct belief in America’s inherent moral ascendency.

Let’s start with the unconscionable exclusion of indigenous Americans, African-Americans and women of all races from those who were granted ‘Liberty’ at the signing of America’s most hallowed documents and the effective denial of the rights of full citizenship to those citizens for the greater part of the life of the Republic. Not exactly brimming with righteousness and moral rectitude, one might say. Then again, such injustice was part and parcel of early, less civilized times and one might facilely shoo away guilt over these shameful inequities, if one were a true believer in the dogma of Americanism.

Moving on from social injustice to the atrocities of war, perhaps the ‘True Believe’ will consider the slaughter and subjugation of (fill-in-the-blank) by America the righteous as permissible evidence of moral turpitude.

1. The indigenous people of the American continent, the Native Americans
2. The indigenous people and citizens of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War
3. The indigenous people of the Hawaiian archipelago
4. The civilian population of Viet Nam
5. The people of Haiti
6. The people of Guatemala
7. The people of El Salvador
8. The people of Nicaragua
9. The people of Panama
10. The people of Iraq
11. All of the above and more

If could be argued that war is a monstrous aberration in which atrocities are an unfortunate, yet integral part. (Collateral damage is the modern, accepted terminology for the slaughter of civilians and while euphemisms such as this and ‘non-combatant’ are wide spread, they do not negate or excuse criminal, immoral acts.) Notwithstanding the parenthetical proviso, as General William Tecumseh Sherman correctly observed, “War is Hell!”. Thus one might be disposed to dismiss the aberrant behavior of men on the field of battle fighting for their lives as admissible to this argument.

The heat of battle, however, would not mitigate the murderous result of aerial bombardment, as the orders and the executions for such ruthless assaults are done at a cool, calculated distance. Since the Second World War, the people of China, Korea, Indonesia, Cuba, Peru, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Libya, Iran, Kuwait, Somalia, Sudan, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia have all suffered ‘death from above’ delivered by the United States in undeclared wars. These horrific, cold-blooded incidences of mayhem might register as contravening evidence with those whose faith in American’s moral strength is less certain.

Furthermore, if the many adherents of Americanism would stop even for a moment to meditate on the documented assassinations committed by CIA operatives as part of numerous coup d’états when the brutal and corrupt dictatorships of Mobuto, Trujillo, Somoza, Marcos, the Duvaliers (pere et fil), Suharto, Noriega and Saddam Hussein were installed and maintained to suit American interests, they would start to sense that not even the US State Department could be so naïvely bumbling in the matters of statecraft as to fail to recognize the glaring lack of moral fiber displayed, not only by these despots - certainly not by the murderers in the service to these men - but also by the US administration officials who befriended them and ordered and carried out extra-legal executions.

(Visit the site of ‘Friendly Dictator Trading Cards’ for more fun facts about America’s propensity to support fascist autocrats when the money is right.) http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Dictators_Home.html

Possibly, borderline apostates should more closely examine and consider the presidentially ordered, CIA directed and financed coups in Chile, Guatemala, Haiti, Iran, etc. that violently and bloodily over-threw the democratically elected governments of those nations because their policies, which strove to place the needs of their own people above the greed of US-based multi-nationals in defiance of the long-standing dictum for subservience to American interests, were perceived and propagandized as committing the odious ‘crime’ of promoting ‘leftist/Marxist’ policies.

Conceivably, the Faithful might note America’s determined, decades-long obstruction by veto of repeated UN resolutions calling for a Palestinian State and fair and equitable distribution of vital resources – resolutions supported by near world-wide unanimity which in all likelihood would end most of the animus and violence in the region - while at the same time successive American administrations have been politically, materially and financially supporting the continued dehumanization of the Palestinian people in gruesome, slow-motion genocide by the State of Israel. How might 30 years of America stone-walling the basic human rights of the people of Palestine be viewed as just and righteous?

Should the adherents to the creed think the above examples reference events too remote in the past to be conveniently pondered, how ‘bout the recent spate of bi-partisan windging and grousing over the astronomical costs of rebuilding Iraq and the accompanying morally bankrupt proposal that the Iraqis pony up and pay for reparations themselves for the diabolical mess the Bush administrations have made of their country? Such a base, execrable retreat from accountability can hardly be seen as a manifestation of charity, fair-mindedness or moral superiority.

Indeed, if the Faithful were simply to focus on the holy ‘War on Terror’ as decreed by Bush the Second in his infamous State of the Union speech in January, 2002, there is a virtually endless list of atrociously immoral actions committed, codified and condoned that coldly testify to a deplorable absence of virtuousness, moral strength, honor and honesty.

To Wit:

• The suspension of habeas corpus, the keystone of the British and American legal systems
• The denial of due process,
• The kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of suspects,
• The torture and dehumanizing abuse of those illegally detained,
• The lying, dissembling and prevaricating about torture, kidnapping, extraordinary rendition, etc.
• The murder of thousands upon thousands of Afghani men, women and children,
• The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children,
• The criminal, forced displacement of 5 millions Iraqis,
• The slaughterous assaults on the people inhabiting the tribal areas of Pakistan,
• The effective revocation of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of:
• freedom of speech
• freedom of assembly
• redress of grievances
• freedom from self-incrimination
• freedom of privacy
• The forging of documents indemnifying and exonerating Bush apparatchiks of wrong-doing
• The perjurious and evasive testimonies given before Congress by Bush operatives
• The blatant, contemptuous refusal to answer Congressional subpoena to give testimony regarding the aforementioned points
• Etc
• Etc

In light of the extremely long check list of recent atrocities, war crimes and institutionalized injustice, coupled with those committed over the course of the history of the American Republic and presented with rigorous brevity herein, what justification does anyone have to profess America’s moral authority?

A chorus of indignation at the effrontery of the charge laid here that America’s traditional claim to the cherished tenet of its ‘moral authority’ is naught but vapid propaganda must surely have reached a fevered pitch of apoplexy, sending some to grope for needed cardiovascular medication and compelling others to furiously bang out flaming blogs of condemnation and setting still other devotees to shrieking vile epithets and accusations of un-Americanism.

Heaven, forefend!

“At least, Americans don’t strap C4 to the backs of women and children to blow up shopping malls.” one can hear the patriots piously clamor. “At least, Americans don’t suicidally fly airliners into buildings killing thousands of innocent people!”

The response to this straw man’s retort should be obvious: When America has cruise missiles, smart bombs, cluster bombs, bunker busters approaching the destructive power of small nuclear devices, unmanned aircraft armed with laser-guided Hellfire missiles, F-16’s and satellite surveillance, where is the need for such primitive methods of assault as suicide bombers or kamikaze flight plans?

The disparity in the result of an attack by a flight of B-52s or B-2s or A-10s or AC-130s or even a single MQ-1 Predator ‘drone’ when compared to that of a young extremist liveried in a bandoleer of high explosives or that of the 9-11 hijackers need not be examined in detail except by those irredeemably blinded by their faith in Americanism or those simply depraved. All of the aforementioned methods of attack are horrific but, to belabor the obvious for the sake of completing the argument, coordinated attacks by the most formidable military force in human history leave tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties in their wake. Even the horrendous loss of life on September 11, 2001 pales in comparison to the probably casualties wrought during the opening night of Operation Enduring Freedom. Though the comparison in no way decriminalizes the malevolent acts perpetrated on that bright, sunny day it may provide a fresh perspective from which to view the murderous immoral acts of the American government.

Granted, the American people and American administrations have undertaken many noble, humanitarian projects. The premise being argued here is not that Americans are wholly without merit or virtue. The contention is that Americans, demonstratively, do not have the right to claim intrinsic moral authority. There is no denying that the Marshall Plan was of true benefit to the people of Europe, for instance. (Never mind that the lion’s share of the funds went directly into the pockets of American corporations.) Charitable, humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, C.A.R.E. and others depend on the contributions of generous, compassionate Americans. Moreover, slavery was eventually abolished though its abolition in the USA took place long after all other industrialized nations had made slavery illegal and anathema. Suffrage was eventually won by American women after a prolonged struggle though glass ceilings and inequality in the work-place persist to this day.

Therefore, no doubt, there are a few bright lights in American history which play a counterpoint to the many harsh, immoral discordances outlined previously. These contrapuntal incidences only obscure, as through a distorted lens, the sanguine, savage landscapes which have been the result of American foreign and domestic policy and serve as rationale for the reprehensible, megalomaniacal, holier-than-thou conceit expressed by the aphorism in question.

We, as Americans, must ask ourselves if there has ever been any other nation on earth that has so brazenly used such a hypocritical, self-serving, self-deluding, propagandistic platitude to gloss over inveterate wrong-doing. Indeed, there are and there have been, but none of the possible comparisons are in the least bit complimentary.

That this polemic has not made effort to differentiate the citizens of the United States from the policies of the government is not an oversight nor a tactful omission. As a republic, we, the people, are ultimately responsible for the actions of our elected representatives and their appointees. Claiming that the White House, the Houses of Congress, the State Department, the CIA or any other branch or agency of our government have taken actions for which the American electorate shares no responsibility or culpability is an untenable assertion if America is a truly functioning democracy. To excuse American citizens from the sins of its government is to confess that the United States is a ‘failed state’, one having only hollow, insubstantial rituals of democracy rather than viable democratic processes. Much more can and will be said on this matter at another time.

America’s supposed ‘moral authority’ is a sham; a fantasy that any bright adolescent could perceive as a charade if only the straight, unspun facts were presented honestly. It is regrettable that a journalist of Mr Suskind’s stature has not seen beneath the reverential cloak that disguises the bitter, sorry truth of America’s political character and as an apostate, publically renounced the false creed of America’s moral authority. By so doing, his investigative journalism would be under-scored and elevated to loftier heights and his service to Truth and the American public would have greater, lasting effect than does merely exposing the political iniquities, however heinous, of specific culprits.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

In an interview on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez on June 12, 2008, Vincent Bugliosi , renowned prosecuting attorney, had this to say about his latest book , “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”.

“One of the underlying emotions behind this whole thing that prompted me to do this book—well, the main thing is that he took this nation to war under false pretenses. But throughout this hell on earth that George Bush created, the evidence is very, very clear that with over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children and babies and 4,000 American soldiers dying horrible violent deaths and hundreds of thousands of their survivors crying out hysterically and having no way to cope with the unspeakable horror of it all and having nightmares over what happened, George Bush—the evidence is very, very clear—smiled through it all. In fact, you look at a photograph of Bush and six or seven other people—they’re all smiling—who has the biggest smile on his face? George Bush.

The evidence is very clear that while young American soldiers, who never even had a chance to live out their dreams, were being blown to pieces by roadside bombs in Iraq, George Bush was having fun and living life, enjoying life to the very fullest. I’m talking about running, bicycling, joking with friends, slapping backs, dancing and swiveling his hips like Elvis to blaring music, eating his hot dogs and blueberry pies, almost always seeming to be in the very best of good spirits.

And you don’t have to take my word for this. I have the photographs in the book and everything. But you don’t have to take my word for this. George Bush himself has had no hesitancy in saying things like this, and as I quote George Bush, I want you to think of two things: number one, the incredible horror and savagery and mutilation of bodies and beheadings and the sea of blood and the screams going on at the time he’s making this remark, and try to think, if you can, of Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, during their respective wars, saying things like this. Here’s George Bush right in the middle of all this horror: “Laura and I are having the time of our lives. It’s going to be a great—it’s going to be a perfect day. I’m in a great mood.” As recently as December 2007, “I’m feeling pretty good about life."

Now, Amy and Juan, even if George Bush was only guilty of making an innocent mistake in taking this nation to war—not murder, as I firmly believe—with all of the death and the horror and the suffering he has caused, what type of a monstrous individual is it who could literally be happy with his life? And that’s part of the emotional underpinning for this book.”

“The evidence is overwhelming that this guy is guilty. And if we get a competent prosecutor, he’s going to end up getting convicted of first- degree murder. ... I’m going to be reaching out to prosecutors who do have clout, who do have the authority, to go against George Bush. I’m sending them a copy of my book with a cover letter telling them to read the book, and if they agree with me that the evidence of Bush’s guilt is clear and they feel that they have jurisdiction—and I’ve spent hundreds of hours at the law library establishing this all-important point of jurisdiction…”

At the end of the interview, Ms Goodman asked Bugliosi to provide a 30-second summation to the jury. Mr Bugliosi offered the following:

“…the evidence is overwhelming that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie, under false pretenses, and therefore, under the law, he’s guilty of murder. And if justice means anything in America, I want you to come back with a verdict of guilty. If we’re going to become a great nation again, we cannot become a great nation—we used to be—we cannot become a great nation unless we take the first step of bringing those responsible for the war in Iraq to justice.”

Amen to that.

Read the entire interview at DemocracyNow!
http://i2.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent

An excerpt from Mr Bugliosi's book can be read at the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html

Bush's Murderous Vision

Can anybody be so naïve as to persist in the belief that Bush/Cheney et al. actually had a ‘grand vision’ of delivering ‘Democracy’ to the people of Iraq by going to war, particularly in light of the demands by the US which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq; immunity for American troops and contractors, a free hand to conduct military operations without Iraqi approval, control of Iraqi airspace, and maintaining fifty-eight permanent military bases in Iraq?

Apparently, yes.

Despite his nagging conscience which prompted him to write his expose, Scott McClellan, given his “deep affection for the president”, still clings to the nonsensical illusion that George W Bush’s intentions in Iraq were altruistic.

Here is an exchange from an interview with McClellan conducted by Amy Goodman on ‘Democracy Now!’:

Goodman: Scott, you said you believed the President was pushing for democracy in Iraq and that you still believe that, and yet Bush and Cheney’s closest allies were the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. How could you believe they were pushing for democracy?

McClellan: Well, I came to learn that by sitting in on meetings with the President. He cares very passionately about this vision. I think that’s what he put his hopes in, and that’s what he looked at as a chance to really achieve a lasting legacy of greatness.

Talk about denial. Or maybe that’s indicative of how everybody in the Bush administration plays fast and loose with reality.

No one in their right mind could conclude, after looking at the facts, that the primary goals of the Bush administrations’ waging the illegal invasion and ruinous occupation of the Republic of Iraq had anything to do with promoting democratic values or political freedom. The primary, over-riding purpose for this war was control of the oil. Note: the war was not about guaranteeing US access to oil but rather full, absolute US control of the resources of Iraq.

Considering the previous statement as the generally accepted truth of the matter, Bush’s war is a calamitous, disastrous failure. The war has not left US in control of Iraqi oil. Furthermore, the US has less access now to Iraqi oil than before the war due to the destruction of the infrastructure of the petroleum industry in Iraq as a direct result of the conflict.

And Bush’s ‘passionate vision’ to deliver Democracy to the people of Iraq, like a 16-inch pizza?

Perhaps Messrs Bush, Cheney and McClellan should ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, the estimated millions of Iraqis wounded, the millions of displaced Iraqis and the millions of justifiably bitter survivors of this illicit war if they appreciate their high-minded gift.

Or they could ask the 4000+ US servicemen and women who have given their lives for Bush’s ‘lasting legacy of greatness’. Or the 300,000 returning veterans the Rand Corporation estimates suffer from emotional and mental disorders such as post traumatic stress disorder. Or the 6,256 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom who ended their emotional and mental torment by killing themselves in 2005 – the victims of the ‘suicide epidemic’ that has been discovered by a CBS News investigation.

Yet, our Commander-in-Chief has proclaimed that he has “no regrets” about his decision to invade Iraq.

Really, George? No regrets? Not even for the fact that your ‘lasting legacy’ will be in the infamous, exclusive company of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Suharto as the most heinous mass murderers in history?

Impeach Bush.

Impeach Cheney.

Bring all of the complicit war criminals and war profiteers to justice. It won’t bring back the dead but it will provide a desperately needed sense of comfort to the survivors of the Neo-con-men scourge not only in the US and Iraq but around the world.

Maybe that’s being naïve.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/11/former_white_house_former_white_house

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/bush.europe/index.html

Mr Bush, May I Have a Moment?

On Wednesday 28th May 2008, George Monbiot, columnist and author, attempted a citizen’s arrest of John Robert Bolton, former Under-Secretary of State, US State Department, for the crime of aggression, as established by customary international law and described by Nuremberg Principles VI and VII.

He was unsuccessful, having been stopped by Bolton’s security detail.

Mr Monbiot, however, encourages people everywhere to attempt a citizen’s arrest of the principal instigators of the Iraq war; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfelt, Bolton, Rice, Wolfowitz, Powell, Blair, et al. for the supreme international crime: a war of aggression. Even though the arrest itself may not be successful, the action would draw attention to the issue of holding these greedy, soulless bastards to accounts for their deeds.

In an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, Mr Monbiot outlined his plan and the reasoning behind the charges he was planning to file against Mr Bolton. He states that the war was not simply errors in judgment but rather were calculated steps to deceive the world in an attempt to justify a war of aggression against a much weaker nation.

“This is not an ordinary political mistake which was committed in Iraq. This was the supreme international crime, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Those people were not killed in the ordinary sense; they were murdered. And they were murdered by the authors of that war, who are the greatest mass murderers of the twenty-first century so far.”

The video and the complete text of the interview are at the following link.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/30/alleging_war_crimes_british_activist_writer

Here are the charges he was planning to file against Mr Bolton. They can also be read at Mr Monbiot’s site.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/27/arresting-john-bolton/

These state the following:

“Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

…

“Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”

The evidence against him is as follows:

1. John Bolton orchestrated the sacking of the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Bustani. Bustani had offered to resolve the dispute over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and therefore to avert armed conflict. He had offered to seek to persuade Saddam Hussein to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, which would mean that Iraq was then subject to weapons inspections by the OPCW. As the OPCW was not tainted by the CIA’s infiltration of UNSCOM, Bustani’s initiative had the potential to defuse the crisis over Saddam Hussein’s obstruction of UNMOVIC inspections.

Apparently in order to prevent the negotiated settlement that Bustani proposed, and as part of a common plan with other administration officials to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties, Mr Bolton acted as follows:

In March 2002 his office produced a ‘White Paper’ claiming that the OPCW was seeking an “inappropriate role” in Iraq.

On 20th March 2002 he met Bustani at the Hague to seek his resignation. Bustani refused to resign.

On 21st March 2002 he orchestrated a No-Confidence Motion calling for Bustani to resign as Director General which was introduced by the United States delegation. The motion failed.

On 22nd April 2002 the US called a special session of the conference of the States Parties and the Conference adopted the decision to terminate the appointment of the Director General effective immediately. Bolton had suggested that the US would withhold its dues from OPCW. The motion to sack Bustani was carried. Bustani asserts that this ‘special session’ was illegal, in breach of his contract and gave illegitimate grounds for his dismissal, stating a ‘lack of confidence’ in his leadership, without specific examples, and ignoring the failed No-Confidence vote.

In his book Surrender is Not an Option Mr Bolton describes his role in Bustani’s sacking (pages 95-98) and states the following:

“I directed that we begin explaining to others that the US contribution to the OPCW might well be cut if Bustani remained”.

“I met with Bustani to tell him he should resign … If he left now, we would do our best to give him ‘a gracious and dignified exit’. Otherwise we intended to have him fired”.

“I stepped in to tank the protocol, and then to tank Bustani”.

Bolton appears, in other words, to accept primary responsibility for Bustani’s dismissal.

Bustani appealed against the decision through the International Labour Organisation Tribunal. He was vindicated in his appeal and awarded his full salary and moral damages.

2. Mr Bolton helped to promote the false claim, through a State Department Fact Sheet, that Saddam Hussein had been seeking to procure uranium from Niger, as part of a common plan to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties.

The State Department Fact Sheet was released on the 19th December 2002 and was entitled ‘Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United States Security Council’ . Under the heading ‘Nuclear Weapons’ the fact sheet stated –

“The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.

Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?”

In a US Department of State press briefing on July 14th 2003 the spokesman Richard Boucher said “The accusation that turned out to be based on fraudulent evidence is that Niger sold uranium to Iraq” .

Bolton’s involvement in the use of fraudulent evidence is documented in Rep. Henry Waxman’s letter to Christopher Shays on the 1st March 2005. Waxman says “In April 2004, the State Department used the designation ‘sensitive but unclassified’ to conceal unclassified information about the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, in the creation of a fact sheet distributed to the United Nations that falsely claimed that Iraq sought uranium from Niger”.

“Both State Department intelligence officials and CIA officials reported that they had rejected the claims as unreliable. As a result, it was unclear who within the State Department was involved in preparing the fact sheet”.

Waxman requested a chronology of how the Fact Sheet was developed. His letter states –

“This chronology described a meeting on December 18,2002, between Secretary Powell, Mr. Bolton, and Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs. According to this chronology, Mr. Boucher specifically asked Mr. Bolton ‘for help developing a response to Iraq’s Dec 7 Declaration to the United Nations Security Council that could be used with the press.’ According to the chronology, which is phrased in the present tense, Mr. Bolton ‘agrees and tasks the Bureau of Nonproliferation,’ a subordinate office that reports directly to Mr. Bolton, to conduct the work.

“This unclassified chronology also stated that on the next day, December 19, 2003, the Bureau of Nonproliferation “sends email with the fact sheet, ‘Fact Sheet Iraq Declaration.doc,’” to Mr. Bolton’s office (emphasis in original). A second e-mail was sent a few minutes later, and a third e-mail was sent about an hour after that. According to the chronology, each version ‘still includes Niger reference.’ Although Mr. Bolton may not have personally drafted the document, the chronology appears to indicate that he ordered its creation and received updates on its development.”

Both these actions were designed to assist in the planning of a war of aggression. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”.