Prior to war, Bush argued that Iraq’s use of “minders” violated UN disarmament demands and constituted proof that the UN inspections program to disarm Iraq would not work and therefore the UN needed to adopt a resolution for use of force against Iraq. The White House argued that Iraq’s use of “minders” prevented exposing the truth as to whether Iraq had WMDs and it ridiculed the use of “minders” as simply presenting the government’s propaganda rather than the truth. No question that use of “minders” is one way to censor information. Question is why is Bush using “minders” now to censor US government scientists from disclosing information to the American people?
Bush is using “minders” to censor and control what information is released to the American people. James E. Hansen is a NASA scientist who revealed that “political appointees at NASA had made it hard for him and other researchers to convey their findings on climate change to the public.” Hansen now reveals that NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is using “minders” to censor what information their scientists reveal when speaking with journalists. The use of the “minders” to censor by intimidation is working: “Hansen said he knows of NOAA scientists who are chafing at the administration’s restrictions but are afraid to speak out.”
Bush’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. In January 2003, Reuters reported that Bush was “skeptical over Iraq scientist interviews” because of Iraq’s use of “minders.” This was prior to the start of the Iraq war when UN weapons inspectors were trying to determine if Iraq had WMDs by interviewing Iraqi scientists.
The US even wanted to remove the scientists and their families from Iraq so that the interviews could be conducted without the presence of minders.
The US cited Iraq’s use of “minders” as another one of the multiple grounds for war. A US official claimed the use of “minders” constituted interference in the interview process, which would violate UN disarmament demands and the terms of the UN disarmament resolution.
In February 2003, Bush pointed to Iraq’s use of “minders” to argue for a new UN resolution. At this time, a majority of UN Security Council favored using UN weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq and opposed a resolution for the use of force against Iraq. While the world and UN inspectors viewed “unprecedented private” interviews with Iraqi scientists as a “sign for hope,” the White House dismissed these Iraqi overtures, saying “”The only one they’re interviewing without a minder is a minder.”
No question that the use of “minders” is one method for governments to censor information that is revealed to the public. And, the presence of “minders” would intimidate Iraqi scientists from revealing the truth in interviews. But, why is it okay to intimidate American scientists but not okay to intimidate Iraqi scientists?
