Les faussaires derrière les barbares

Les faussaires derrière les barbares

22 mars 2003 — Parmi les possibilités qui sont des probabilités : que les Américains mettent en place, une fois l’Irak conquis, des “preuves” de l’existence d’armes de destruction massive. D’ores et déjà, on doit considérer certains signes avant-coureurs de cette sorte de manoeuvres, qui prendra place dans l’Irak libéré par les bombardements massifs américains.

(Outre l’exemple développé ici, des sources françaises nous indiquent que des articles récents de William Safire, courroie de transmission habituelle des milieux neo-cons et de l’entourage de Rumsfeld, pourraient préparer le terrain pour l’apparition bien coordonnée d’indications d’une implication française dans certaines “preuves” de l’existence d’armes de destruction massive [chimiques], découvertes opportunément dans l’Irak libéré. Safire ne s’en cache pas, et tout doit être prêt pour le show : «  What will the world discover, after the war is over, about which countries secretly helped Saddam obtain components for terror weapons? Last week, I wrote that French brokerage was involved in the illicit transfer of the chemical HTBP, a rubbery base for a rocket propellant, from a Chinese company through Syria to Iraq. » Comme dans le cas de Cheney ci-après, les Américains développent la technique d’annoncer quasiment sans dissimuler le montage qui va être effectué. La technique est celle du bombardement massif : le pilonnage des mêmes affirmations, même lorsque la fraude est évidente, finit par acquérir un semblant de crédit par l’accumulation de la répétition.)

Imar Khadduri, scientifique irakien spécialisé dans les questions nucléaires installé depuis 1998 au Canada, développe ici la thèse selon laquelle les Américains voudraient “planter” en Irak, entre deux sites dévastés par leurs bombardements, des “preuves” de l’existence d’armes nucléaires. Khadduri trouve des indications d’une telle possibilité dans des déclarations du vice-président Cheney, lors d’un passage à la télévision le 16 mars. Les Anglo-Américains avaient fourni, en décembre aux inspecteurs de l’ONU, à l’insistance de ces derniers, des informations sur les sites où leurs agences de renseignement identifiaient du nucléaire, mais rien de semblable n’avait été trouvé lors des fouilles ; cette fois, note Khadduri, Cheney laisse entendre que la CIA a des indications sur le nucléaire irakien ... Nous voilà au moins avertis, Cheney ayant fameusement préparé le terrain pour toutes les suspicions possibles si effectivement une “preuve” du nucléaire irakien apparaissait miraculeusement. (Si cela se produit, épiloguera-t-on sur la maladresse de Cheney, ou en prendra-t-on prétexte pour n’y voir qu’une coïncidence et croire à la version US de “vraies” preuves ? L’explication est, comme toujours, beaucoup plus simple, outre l’explication technique de l’affirmation-répétition mise en évidence plus haut à propos de Safire : à l’instant où il parle, Cheney s’adresse à une audience US qui doit être convaincue de soutenir la guerre. Le reste importe peu, et certainement pas les soupçons non-US qui peuvent naître.)

Ci-dessous, nous publions le texte de Khadduri, qui présente cette possibilité, texte diffusé le 19 mars par le site YellowTimes.org

Cheney's bogus nuclear weapon

By Imad Khadduri, Former Iraqi nuclear scientist, March 19, 2003

On NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday, March 16, 2003, Vice President Cheney audaciously reiterated an ominous note.

NBC: ''And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?''

Cheney: ''I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. … We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong.''

After 218 inspections of 141 sites over three months by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei charged that the U.S. had used faked and erroneous evidence to support the claims that Iraq was importing enriched uranium and other material, notably the aluminum tubes and small magnets for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. ''After three months of intrusive inspections, we have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq,'' the chief atomic weapons inspector had told the U.N. Security Council on Friday March 7, 2003.

In December 2002, the American and British intelligence communities did provide, under Blix's insistence, a list of 25 sites garnered from Iraqi defectors and other intelligence sources. The inspectors visited all of these sites, including one site that intelligence communities had claimed would be a promising find. Tellingly, the inspectors found nothing and their ''hush hush'' information was referred to by one inspector as ''garbage after garbage after garbage.''

So why is Cheney, after the total disrepute of all American misinformation about a rejuvenated Iraqi nuclear weapons program, still claiming that the U.S. has untold intelligence information about this program?

I now tend to believe there is a more sinister implication behind Cheney's continued assertions so late in the misinformation campaign and so close to the war.

Iraq claims it has no nuclear weapons related components left. Cheney claims that U.S. intelligence can prove that Iraq does have these components. What if the U.S. goes in and, after killing possibly hundreds of thousands, cannot find any components?

Would they not want to reiterate up until the last minute, as Cheney seems to be doing, that their ''intelligence'' does confirm that Iraq has nuclear weapons components to justify their criminal war?

However, in the event that no such components are to be found in Iraq, would it not be past the American intelligence community's bag of dirty tricks to place some bogus evidence (in places where the inspectors have not been so they can't be refuted by them) to vindicate the tens of billions of dollars spent on this war crime and the devastation it will undoubtedly incur?

It would otherwise be hard to challenge the timing and triviality of Cheney's claim on March 16, with Bush declaring war only one day later on March 17.

[Imad Khadduri has a MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan (United States) and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Khadduri worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 until 1998. He was able to leave Iraq in late 1998 with his family. He now teaches and works as a network administrator in Toronto, Canada. He has been interviewed by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, FOX, the Toronto Star, Reuters, and various other news agencies in regards to his knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear program. Imad Khadduri encourages your comments: imad.khadduri@rogers.com.]

[YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.