Article by Bill Wilson, a member of the Scottish Parliament: Tell the truth, but keep one foot in the striurp Recently I had an article in the Scottish Left Review which was also published on a number of websites. It described the horrific situation in Fallujah where women have been advised to avoid becoming pregnant due to the very high risk of gross birth deformities in their children. It is notable that the first signs that something odd was happening (changing birth gender ratios) appeared shortly after the first gulf war. Since then, evidence has been mounting that a significant factor in the very high level of genetic abnormalities is the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons. Generally I open an article on DU with the events in Fallujah not because Fallujah is an isolated case, but because the situation – doctors advising an entire city of women not to become pregnant – is so extreme. However, the use of DU was not limited to Fallujah. In Basra there is a new cancer hospital, necessary due to the substantial rise in childhood cancers, and man’s inhumanity to man extends beyond Iraq. Think of the nations of former Yugoslavia, think Gaza, think Afghanistan. Though does it stop even there? Once in a while dust will arrive in Scotland from North Africa. Once DU particles enter the water, once they become dust, where does the pollution end? Even if the dust never arrives, the effects will. Our servicemen and women are no more immune from breathing in, or drinking, the DU particles than are the civilians in the target zones. Of course the MoD and the DoD (US) continue to deny that DU presents a risk. Yet the Italian government paid some 170 million Euros in compensation to their soldiers, and a coroner’s report in the UK quite specifically identified DU as the cause of death. However, it is not my intention to discuss the evidence or effects of DU in this short article. Those interested can check my home page (www.billwilsonmsp.com) and use the search function to find all the articles and information on DU, or you can read the article on SLR (online). One could even push the boat out and do both? This article looks specifically at disinformation. When challenging the vested interests of the powerful, it is not unusual to have to deal with disinformation campaigns (think of smoking and climate change, for example). Such campaigns are fairly standard. So that there is no room for doubt, I am not referring to genuine scientific debate, but specifically to disinformation: 1)the use of errors in minor details to cast doubt upon an entire case; 2)the distortion/misrepresentation of facts; 3)the creation of new facts lacking any evidence for such (might also be referred to as lying);4)character assassination.It did not take long for me to become aware of a disinformation campaign surrounding DU and its effects. Perhaps the first clear indication I had was from a former US Colonel, who wrote an angry email to me noting that the DU campaign was based on lies, that there were no such things as DU weapons. He insisted that the use of the word weapon was misleading. He insisted that “There is no such thing as a uranium weapon. That is term that they made up to make DU kinetic energy penetrators look like weapons of mass destruction instead of tank killing bullets”. As the argument goes it certainly fits into category 2), I cannot really see any difference between a bullet and a weapon; an attempt at 1), even if a bullet is not a weapon the end result, particulate DU, is the same; certainly 3), DU is also used in ‘bunker busters’ and other munitions used to attack buildings and is not restricted to use against tanks (hence its use in Gaza where the Palestinians have a distinct lack of tanks). In case you think that I am splitting hairs, I should note that this self-same Colonel went on to argue that DU could not have been used at Fallujah because there were “no tank battles in Fallujah”. In effect, he was using the ‘fact’ that DU was only used in anti-tank shells to cast doubt on their use in Fallujah. Thus the point is not one of hair-splitting but rather more significant than that. All this within a matter of hours of my dipping my toe into the DU nightmare!Dr Doug Rokke is a retired army major. He was appointed by the Pentagon to devise the protocols in handling DU, and how/if it might safely be used. Doug duly provided the Pentagon with the required report and protocols. Doug also had responsibility for the limited clear-up of some sites in Iraq. There is a tragic side to this paragraph: Doug Rokke, an honourable and decent man, is dying, and many of his team are dead or likewise dying. He has no doubt why they are dying; DU does not just affect civilians.Why the short detour to describe Doug Rokke and his team? Well the disinformation did not stop at modifying or redefining facts. It went on from there. I was reading a blog article on DU and glanced at the responses below. I was immediately confused. A respondent angrily attacked Doug Rokke because he had been supporting the DU lobby in viciously attacking him when the respondent had written on DU. This was bizarre, really bizarre. Doug was actually accused of working with a man who had regularly smeared him. More confusing was that Doug, arch anti-DU campaigner, had suddenly become a DU supporter. What the heck was going on? It was clear the original author of the blog was equally dumfounnart (the Scots word for dumbfounded). There then followed a confused and lengthy exchange between the blog author and the respondent. It moved on to the respondent wondering about Doug’s email address: it looked a little odd, his IP address seemed similar to a notorious DU supporter – even odder. To cut a long story short, the respondent, after a very lengthy exchange, finally concluded with, “I am now watching the real Doug Rokke on YouTube”. Somebody had gone out of their way to make it appear that Doug was working with the pro-DU lobby. A man seriously ill from the effects of DU, who is furious that the Pentagon has ignored his advice and protocols – insult to injury!The above would certainly fall into my fourth category of disinformation: character assassination. A pretty unpleasant form of character assassination, given the circumstances: to be portrayed as a supporter of DU. But of course it does not stop there. I have received a large number of emails specifically attacking the qualifications and character of various individuals with whom I have corresponded or to whom I have referred in my articles/press releases. Doug Rokke is specifically accused of having lied about his army service, lied about his depleted DU findings, and having very unpleasant connections (apparently somebody he knew had written something which may have used something else which may have come from an organisation with dubious repute – no, seriously!), and finally he is accused of smearing the man who sent me the email smearing Doug Rokke (I assume the latter works on the principle of distracting people from your own thieving by shouting, “Catch the thief!”) I have concentrated on Doug not because he is the only individual about whom I have received unpleasant (and dishonest) allegations, but rather because he seems to have earned the most vitriol.I became rather tired of all this, so I wrote to the US ambassador asking if the individual who had been putting out many of the smears (I named him in the letter), worked for or had worked for, the US Government. I await the reply with anticipation.Let me end with some useful (Arabian) advice for Doug and my other correspondents fighting for justice, “Tell the truth, but keep one foot in the striurp”.