Iraq war: Weapons of Mass Deception

The war in Iraq and the “war on terrorism” are merging with the Sunni/Shiite conflict into what looks like civil war. Harper’s index reminds us of the continuing deception directed at the American public by its leaders:

The minimum number of people convicted on “terrorism-related charges” since 2001, according to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in April 2005, was 200.

The actual number convicted on charges related to terrorism or national security was 39.

and

The number of Iraqi troops that had been “trained and equipped,” according to US President Bush in April 2005 was 150,000.

The number that the US military considered ready to deploy independently was 1,500.

Despite ongoing misinformation from the leadership, the American public is rethinking its support for the war. I wonder how Americans would respond if they were being told the truth?

Comments

[USA on 11.04.06 at 01:33]

Stuart,
In both cases these statements have meanings that can be clearly mis-interpreted. In the first statement my question is how about appeals? Would this not knock down the number of convictions, even if they may have had evidence which proved otherwise or may have plea bargained out to a lesser charge?
In the second case Bush states that 150,000 have been trained and equipped but did he say were ready for battle?
Most of the US public hears everything that the news states but does not believe it to be gospel. Does everyone think that we are ALL idiots?
I think your argument is weak and how is it that you feel that you know the truth about everything that is going on? Do you have insider info. that the rest of us do not? Please!

[USA on 11.04.06 at 01:40]

Oh and by the way...what makes you think that Americans have ever felt that they are being told the truth by the Govt. and news medias?
Is the Bermudian Govt. telling you all the truth?

[observor on 11.04.06 at 06:46]

Good morning Stuart

I think it would be helpful to similarly include in your comments Harper's source which appears to be at odds with the US Attorney General, namely a Washington Post reporter.

[Slowhand on 11.04.06 at 06:57]

I'd be interested in hearing what your solution would be in this situation Stuart. From now if you like, but maybe from before the war if you like.

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 09:00]

Stuart, much as I disagree with US foreign policy and this war in particular, your tone is a little condescending and even insulting to Americans.

[Bill Cook on 11.04.06 at 09:10]

It is an interesting question indeed.

I cannot recall the last time the American public were told the truth about the ME so wont be holding my breath awaiting that historical moment.

Most people who actually do their own research knew that there was little liklihood of Iraq having WMD other than those supplied by the US when Iraq was at war with Iran.

It seems that Kuwait was better armed than Iraq at the time of the pre emptive strike on Iraq.

If the American public were even interested in what the government policies were towards the rest of the world why is it that 52% of them do not even bother to vote ?

[Shark on 11.04.06 at 09:15]

I think the reason Americans are re-thinking support for the Iraq war is not misinfomation from the goverment its that American solders are dying trying to hold together a country that they may see as not carring what they are trying to do. US troops and even the British troops are caught between one of the oldest religious conflicts in Islam and that is Suni and Shias. Under Sadam this was stoped but now its free to play out.

Also why do people think the news is the truth? Need I remind you all that all news cant be taken as the literial truth. News only shows
events in a in the light the media outlet likes.

Plain truth Goverments lie (that is a part of politics) also the media lie's to get there own political message across acording to were they are between the Left and Right of politics.

USA to what you said while i dont think everyone thinks American's are idiots (i dont as there are smart and stupid people in all countries) alot do. This may be already known but outside the USA American's are not painted in the best light

[lost in flatts on 11.04.06 at 09:19]

I think the bottom line in the US is that people who want the 'real' facts will do the small amount of research necessary to find them, and those that don't really care will happily watch Fox News telling them whatever Bush would like.

And unfortunately at the moment there are more of the latter voting in elections than the former.

If one does the research into the Bush administrations reasons for the Iraq war, almost every one can be dismissed as blatant lies or some sly misrepresentation of the truth. It is possible that there may be behind the scenes reasons for the invasion (I like to imagine all of those up on Capiotl Hill aren't idiots) but the reasons given to the public don't stand up.

[fact check on 11.04.06 at 09:34]

I just came back from a conference which had a program on Iraq. Iraq was not the central focus and it the conference was put on by an organization that tends to be labelled liberal-to-neutral rather than conservative.

The speakers for that portion included, among others, a female iraqi attorney active in women's civil rights and the government, a kuwaiti attorney in iraq, and the regional director of the US trade and development agency for the Middle East who was responsible for updating the skills of Iraqi accountants, oil technicians, etc. who were trained in those fields but whose skills had stagnated under Saddam due to lack of contact with their international peers.

Naturally the conversation turned to security at one point. All of the speakers acknowledged that security situation had deteriorated in the red zone, but stressed that this area represented a minority of the country. Most of the country was described as stable.

Even in the areas that were said to be violent the speakers indicated that life went on. It was compared to Israel during the intifada where, despite bombs, people needed to eat and work therefore life went on.

They stated that in Iraq commerce was slowed but not halted and surprisingly (to me at least) large scale capital projects, such as refineries and residential developments, were being completed on time and on budget (maybe bombs in bermuda are the answer?) The main idea was that progress was being made. Draw whatever conclusions you wish to from that.

With the exception of the US Trade person, who was not speaking on behalf of the government but in a personal capacity, none of the speakers had any obvious biases for or against.

A statement was made by the panel that while technically accurate, media reports on Iraq are sensationalized. They said one might watch the local news from any big city in the US and hear about robberies, stabbings, shootings, muggings, car chases, etc. but that those events are not necessarily how that city really is.

Obviously the level of violence would not be comparable because there are warzones in the country, but their statement was that those warzones were far from representative of most areas in the country. This made sense to me (south central LA is not exactly comparable to all of California or the US).

As a lurker I note that no one seems to trust the Gazette or the MON very much in bermuda. Most US citizens distrust their media too for similar reasons. The media's job is to sell papers or commercial time, reporting the truth, or more accurately, the media's version of the truth is secondary.

I think one might be oversimplifying to assume the "truth" of this complex situation may be revealed solely by mainstream media reports provided by individuals with a very similar persepectives, backgrounds, and personal (unconscious) biases.

[Ethiops on 11.04.06 at 09:41]

It would take much more than a common idiot to be able to lead a nation of people into the depths of utter fockery. One would have to be cold without regret, calculating, vicious, appear determined, and sound convincing for starts. The corny side of lil g is probably his greatest strength, people think he’s stupid and it’s that they probably feel they can relate to. Does this mean Americans think of themselves as stupid? Is this why outsiders throw rocks at the throne in mockery of what they think they see. Who knows? Not I!

One thing I’d bet my bottom dollar on though is, had Saddam not announced that he had intentions of changing the Petro dollar system from US to EURO in 2002. None of all this would have happen. To add had Iran not voiced the same interest we wouldn’t be talking of the need to interfere with their affairs either.

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 10:01]

Ethiops - nailage on the headage! That's something I brought up in another thread on this topic and I'm still surprised as to why no-one responded. It's always been about oil being traded in Euro's, why do you think France opposed the war?! It also explains why Blair would support the US with North Sea oil drying up.

[Ethiops on 11.04.06 at 10:11]

sandgrownan

I would think more important than the physical oil would be the currency that it was traded in. Petro dollars becoming euro is a bad thing even for Europe. Think of all the countries that would have follow suit had Saddam had a chance to implement his idea. At least 15 countries trading in Euro and not American dollars! The American way of life as many know it would change and it’s this that they went to war to protect. Of course I’m reserving the right to be wrong but, it seems ever so clear.

[Denis Pitcher on 11.04.06 at 10:19]

An interesting article.

I read something very facinating that I wanted to share for other readers out there. There is a woman who lives in Baghdad who has her own blog http://www.afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/.

LAWeekly wrote an excellent article of her recent trip through the states expressing her views of american feminism and it's misunderstood views that iraq women need to be liberated when they already are.

It gives a very interesting and different viewpoint of the Iraq war.

[Denis Pitcher on 11.04.06 at 10:21]

Forgot to add the link for the LAWeekly article:
http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/an-untamable-voice/13048/

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 10:25]

I agree, those who's base currency was the Euro would be fine. But for those on the "outside" i.e. Britain and the US, it would spell disaster.

Imagine trying to "sell" invasion to the masses based on economics. Virtually impossible. However, trade on the post 9/11 paranoia, create link between Al Queda nad Saddam where non-existed, lie about WMDS's and the republican dumberati are salivating and baying for blood.

[silencedogood on 11.04.06 at 10:59]

"republican dumberati"
Posted by sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 10:25

Let's all be thankful that Bermuda is in the middle of the ocean so its smug can't join with that from George Clooney's acceptance speech.

To think that I get called condescending for suggesting people who can't fill out a voter registration form might not be people we want voting and you classify roughly 150 million people you know nothing about as "dumberati"--where is Jake when you need him?

You guys have fun. I'm tired of the rehash.

[stuart J Hayward on 11.04.06 at 11:06]

USA:
I’m assuming the straight-forward meaning: that US officials inflated the figures to mislead the public about the state of the war.

As to belief in the news, according to a US poll I saw not so long ago, some Americans are convinced, for example, that US troops actually found WMDs in Iraq.

Slowhand:
I don’t have a “solution”. I’m inclined toward the policies proposed by US Presidential candidate John Hagelin, PhD. You can get the feel of them in this quote from a statement he made after 9/11 and before the war began:

America has this year taken a first step to establish a Department of Peace (HR 2459) whose mission includes the prevention of violence and the strengthening of nonmilitary means of peacemaking. This could be the answer.

Sandgrownan:
No condescension or insult intended.

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 11:09]

The rabid support for Dubya's Iraq policy inidcates an inability to have any critical thoughts or question that policy. I think "republican dumberati" is rather kind. To blindly follow is plainly stupid.

If Dubya had said, "Look we need to control the oil supply and it's price" then a least we couldn't have a reasonable debate about the merits of such a policy. Instead opponents are called liberals, un-patriotic, un-American and so on. And now we have a mess which may or may not be as bad we think it is.

It's not about being condescending or a Smug..I told you so..it's about getting these people to admit they were wrong.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 11.04.06 at 11:18]

Silenced...

First, it's not condescending to say that, it's just plain undemocratic and elitist. One man, one vote, no matter how stupid or illiterate. THAT it what democracy is about. If a citizen can't fill out a form, they should be helped. EVERYONE deserves a vote. That's why they call it the RIGHT to vote.

Second, this may be just me, but I read dumberati as a select group and not the bulk of Republicans.
However, you don't hit on the meat of Sand's point and that is that the pre-war reasons for going to war have been proven to be at the best misleading, at worst, outright lies. Do you deny this? Or are you just so indulted by the word "dumberati" that you dismiss the rest of the sentence?

[silencedogood on 11.04.06 at 11:33]

Elvis,

I'm not getting engaged in a discussion on this topic given the type of comments posted but will respond on the other thread about voting.

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 11:36]

Fact check:

If most of the country is stable then what on earth is the purpose of the Anglo-American occupation?

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 11:37]

Elvis - Silencedogood is sulking.

So, it's OK to rubbish opponents of the war and policy but it's not OK to question that policy? This is republican hypocrisy at its finest.

[observor on 11.04.06 at 11:47]

I see the dumberati remark as typical of many Hollywood types who are hung up on being both anti-Republican & anti-Bush yet in reality are (for the most part) nothing more than political dimwits choosing to ride the left of centre bandwagon as it parades down Sunset Blvd. from one party to the next ... laughing all the way to the bank to cash their not so modest paycheques.

[stuart J Hayward on 11.04.06 at 11:51]

What's the chances we could discuss policy and refrain from going to war with each other?

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 11:56]

It would be nice to be a Hollywood type!

Observer - tell me in one (or even two or three sentences) Why the policy to invade was correct? Tell us all why Dubya felt it neccessary to lie to the American people and tell us why we have to "shut up" and quit whinging.

It's nothing to do with being hung up on being anti-Bush or anti-Republican. I'm just an average Joe wanting answers from a bunch of lying hypocrites.

[Lisa on 11.04.06 at 12:03]

I don't wish to sound disrepectful but... if I wanted to read anti-iraq war opinions I wouldn't be reading limey in Bermuda (unless Bermuda was involved somehow like... when Blair was actually here.. and I enjoyed that thread a lot).

There are A LOT of blogs with people's opinions and thoughts on the war in Iraq and this post doesn't doesn't seem to fit here. I know it's not my blog, it's the Limey's and I realise I don't have any say in the matter but what the hell - I thought I'd give my two cents - because I always do, even when it's not welcome. That's one of the great things about being loud and opinionated :-D

L.

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 12:14]

Lisa,
I guess what Stuart was driving at, before I and others ranted, was would the Iraq war had as much support if the mainstream media had been more effective in its questioning.

The mainstream media is often branded as being liberal. That doesn't jive with me, since logically if that were the case there would have been more opposition. Unless they are just crap of course which is also a possibility.

So, the real crux of the matter is can the media be held accountable for presenting "news" that they feel fits their political leanings. the answer is no, it's impractical. As viewers and readers we have to sift through all the news and make our own conclusions. What upsets Dubya supporters is that some of us were right all along and they can't stomach the fact that they were wrong.

[SmokingGun on 11.04.06 at 12:25]

Amen to that Lisa.

Maybe we should just set up "a Limey in Iraq" and everyone can take their pot shots at Dubya there. Now, how 'bout those Red Sox...

[Bill Cook on 11.04.06 at 12:33]

Somewhere I have the special insert that the RG printed outlining the reasons for going to war with Iraq.

It was to educate its readers presumably.esp school children etc.

Gavin Shorto wrote extensively on support of the war and in strong support of the occupation and colonialisation of Palestinian land by Israel.

He has been rather silent of late on his updates on progress in both areas.

The press may be seen to be liberal at times because in my experience many of its reporters are but certainly the stance by the RG does not reflect that in my opinion.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 11.04.06 at 12:53]

Shhhh, guys. We don't matter. Out opinions don't matter. We should just shut up and let Bush and his cronies have their way!
We're not 'Merkin, so we don't get a say. It doesn't matter that the 9-11 attacks affected us, too, as well as many other nations. This is all about 'Merca.
You guys should know by now that we aren't allowed to mention the fact that one of the reasons 'Merca declared war on Iraq was failure to comply with the UN. Actually, we're allowed to mention that, but not the fact that 'Merca went against the UN by going to war. Hypocrites? Nah.

So keep it down, there, peanut gallery. Don't make your voices heard. Don't speak out against lying and corruption and treachery and treason. Valerie Plame got what she deserved for marrying that guy!
Be quiet, be good and let the big boys do whatever they want.

[silencedogood on 11.04.06 at 13:06]

Stuart,

We may disagree from time to time but the more often you post the more you establish that you are a gentleman. It is too bad more people don't have the capacity to disagree without resorting to personal attacks. Which brings me to...

Sandgrownan,

I'm not sulking and don't particularly care if that's your view. I have no idea who you are but having seen the childish way in which you conduct yourself on the blog I have no desire to discuss much of anything with you. Personal attacks are the last resort of a bad argument and seem to be your opening gambit.

Elvis,

No one is saying we aren't entitled to our opinions, I think the point being made is that no one involved in the Iraq war will give those opinions much weight.

[jsm on 11.04.06 at 13:09]

" your tone is a little condescending and even insulting to Americans."

Oh those poor humble americans...give it a rest.
Have you never heard americans talk about any other country/people? They are the most arrogant, condecending people there are....stop apologising for them, they are, apparently the greatest, and need no outside help.

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 13:18]

Bill:

Shorto's views have vanished into much deserved obscurity although you will be relieved to learn that he is still busy hunting for WMDs and promoting neo-conservative nonsense on www.pondblog.com

The best part is the number of comments that his blog attracts - roughly an average of 0.00000000001 per thread. Gives you an idea of how seriously he is taken.

Just as it should be.

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 13:21]

Silence - OK - so you don't like me referring to some supporters of the war as "republican dumberati". I'm sorry about that, but the self righteous indignation isn't a viable argument for defending Dubya's policy nor should it be a way of ducking the central issues in the debate.

And your comments to Elvis is the usual "I know more than you do" comment. I've been reading an increasing number of reports where the guys on the ground in Iraq have much different views from the guys in suits in Washington. Who do you believe?

[Phil on 11.04.06 at 13:23]

Lisa

The focus of this blog is Bermuda, but it has never been exclusively such, nor do I see any need to restrict it in such a way.

Not only am I interested in the views of those on this blog on global issues, but discussion of non-local topics can highlight areas of agreement between commenters who would normally disagree while arguing about local politics. I think that's a good thing.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 11.04.06 at 13:23]

Those involved in the Iraq war don't give ANYONEs opinion much weight, from what I can see.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out and it doesn't mean we shouldn't point out hypocrisy, lying and deceit every single time it happens, as often as we can until everyone knows about it.

Pointing out that Mr. Bush lied through his teeth about the war, shucking and jiving his way through "reasons" for doing it, isn't anti-war, it isn't Bush Bashing and it isn't Anti-American.
It's pointing out the fact that Mr. Bush lied to the American people and the people of the world and took his country to war with another with no provokation at all. That's all it is.
What I want to know is: Where are all the people who were screaming "An American President that lies to its people should be impeached" are now? I don't seem to hear from them so much in this instance, do you?

[Ethiops on 11.04.06 at 13:24]

jsm lol

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 13:26]

Ethips - JSM: Made me laugh too! But you come on JSM, you know..some of them are ok..

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 13:29]

Elvis writes: What I want to know is: Where are all the people who were screaming "An American President that lies to its people should be impeached" are now? I don't seem to hear from them so much in this instance, do you?

How true how true.

[fact check on 11.04.06 at 13:33]

Njegos,

I was only reporting what I observed. Would have done it as "observer" but that name is taken. However, I would not suggest that a country with active warzones would be a-ok without the army there or that those warzones would not spread without its presence.

I have to agree with some of the posters above that this thread is entirely too snarky.

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 14:07]

Fact check:

Understood but I have my doubts.

The fact that Iraq has no prime minister 3 months after national elections, that it imports oil, that several thousand dead Iraqis are turning up in morgues each month (a fact suppressed by the Ministry of Health under the orders of the occupation forces), that Sunnis and Shias are blowing up each others mosques and fleeing from each others neighbourhoods etc, suggests that the problem is bigger than the conference delegates may care to admit.

Was the conference aimed at foreign investors by any chance?

However, I would not suggest that a country with active warzones would be a-ok without the army there or that those warzones would not spread without its presence.

Which tends to undermine the claim of genuine stability, no? Sounds very similar to Lebanon in the late 70s/early 80s.

[fact check on 11.04.06 at 14:41]

Njegos,

No, not foriegn investors.

As far as stability goes, I don't take such a dim view. If you removed the army and the insurgency in the sunni triangle I think things would be fine. I may have not been clear. What I meant is that the army is keeping that insurgency from spreading, not that it's holding together a shaky ship in those areas. In any case, time will tell.

[SmokingGun on 11.04.06 at 14:52]

Have you never heard americans talk about any other country/people? They are the most arrogant, condecending people there are....stop apologising for them, they are, apparently the greatest, and need no outside help.

Posted by jsm on 11.04.06 at 13:09

Yeah! Right On! And as soon as I get a chance to I'm gonna kick down their tee-pees and set fire to their wig-wams. And for all the other so-called Americans they're as bad as those from where they came from. Except the French Americans of course. They're a whole lot better than the French French.

Jeesh. Dubya gets voted in by a margin of a few thousand votes and y'all want to break out the paint brush.

Short story: When I was a 14 year old kid spending half my life being shuttled around the world in search of an education I had a similar naivety about Americans. Until a friend of my father's pulled me aside and asked me if I'd ever really spent some time with any Americans. Needless to say I was shipped off to Boston for three weeks to spend some time with some friends of my dad. It was a lesson learned that I shall always cherish.

Just because some of our political leaders treat many of our citizens with similar manners as Dubya doesn't mean I think Bermudians are all a bunch of prissies.

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 15:55]

Fact check:

I can understand the pride of ordinary Iraqis (assuming the delegates were ordinary Iraqis and not political stooges sent to shore up US/UK support) in not wanting to admit failure or the very human need to express hope but it just does not square with the behavior of an administration that only recently was talking about sending even more troops.

And please note that "the sunni triangle" is merely a term invented by the US military to convey the impression that the insurgency is confined and manageable. In fact, there have been alot of sectarian murders in Basra and other cities outside of the "triangle". British troops have abandoned security to Shiite militias in some towns in exchange for scheduled safe passage on their patrols.

[H Reardon on 11.04.06 at 16:14]

Stuart, you asked about support for the war, which has to mean the decision to go to war. Saying that the Iraqi troops aren't sufficiently trained today should not change an American's view of the decision to go to war, but rather possibly change an American's view on the handling of the war--two issues that get confused too often.

To have a legitimate criticism of going to war, you really need to come up with an alternative--some other decision that the Bush Administration could have made. (Stuart, Njegos and others, I will agree with you that there are several legitimate criticisms of the US's handling of the war and mis-estimation of Iraqi support, but let's concentrate on the decision of going to war).

I assume most everyone can agree that Saddam with a nuclear weapon is a very bad situation. If he had no intentions of building one, why did he kick out inspectors? There have been conflicting reports on how close he was to being able to produce one (anywhere from 2 years to 10 years) but it was never in doubt that Saddam wanted nuclear capability.

Now back to late 2002, the UN had just issued a resolution threatening "dire consequenses" if Saddam doesn't comply with UN inspectors. What does he do? Nothing--until the US and others begin amassing troops on his doorstep. Then he tries to play the delay game selectively allowing limited announced inspections--knowing that if he can hold off the attack until late April or May that the sand storms will allow Iraqi troops to hold on longer and cause much more casualties to the attacking forces. His tactics also win out with the Germans, Russians and French thus neutering the second UN resolution confirming a mandate for war.

If you are Bush and the first UN resolution is passed, what would you do differently? If the answer is sanctions--why are your sanctions going to work when the sanctions of the previous 12 years hadn't? Each option I come up with other than invade leads to the world now dealing with an Iran nuclear threat, a North Korean nuclear threat, an Iraqi nuclear threat, and possibly even a Libyian nuclear/WMD threat.

The US and UK made the tough choice, committing troops and significant amounts of cash--and now we get shit on by couch-QBs. Saying "Bush lied" is more of a fabrication than Bush's statements. I thought Duke was going to win the NCAA basketball championship based upon the research I did--did I "lie?"

I have some direct knowledge of the situation in Iraq through a construction firm I insure. The power plants and schools they build don't get reported much. They've been in country (300-500 people) since the beginning and have yet to lose a person--and hopefully they will all come back. From what I hear from them, the threat is real but not as bad as what you see on the news.

Njegos, explain to me how the world would be a safer place today if the US didn't back up the UN resolution. Tell me how the world would be better with one of the worst offenders of genocide were still in power (be sure and use the standard "this guy is worse" argument).

[fact check on 11.04.06 at 16:19]

Njegos,

I'm not the biographer of these people so I can't speak with absolute certainty but I didn't get that impression.

The female Iraqi attorney was a second generation immigrant to the US and struck me as quite radical. I could not say for sure but given her pro-feminist comments I doubt she's a fan of the Republican administration.

I also doubt the Kuwaiti national would feel inclined to gloss over details on the grounds you described.

The speaker from the US Trade department certainly has a bias, but taking that and the others' comments into consideration I think he was being on the level. My personal opinion of course.

Again, I leave it to everyone to draw their own conclusions but for what its worth I think these people were being true to their personal opinions of the situation.

In any case it was fascinating to listen to an unfiltered source with first hand knowledge. Another topic discussed was whether tribalism was more salient than the sunni/shia divide.

[Njegos on 11.04.06 at 16:34]

Fact check:

"Another topic discussed was whether tribalism was more salient than the sunni/shia divide."

A very interesting point. My understanding is that tribal loyalties span the Sunni/Shia divide which probably explains why Iraq hasn't collapsed into full-scale civil war although it is clear that some elements are determined to provoke it. My sense, however, is that the US is using all this talk of potential civil war to extend the occupation.

[sandgrownan on 11.04.06 at 16:41]

There's no doubt great efforts are being made to do good in Iraq, and against the odds I might add.

Where to start, H, dismantling the propoganda.

The first point is the myth that Saddam was a threat. Gen Tony Zinni points out that "Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. " He continues - “Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”

On top of that, the PentAGON WAS receiving bad intelligence about WMD's from Iraqi exiles. Forged documents about uranium from Nigeria (uncovered in the UK press months ahead of the invasion). There was no plan for managing a post Saddam Iraq. This was the wrong war at the wrong time and not one favoured by the military. The war was, however, favoured by the suits. Zinni goes on to say that once the decision was made that the Pentagon supplied too few troops and that disbanding the Iraqi army was the wrong thing to do.

The Middle East is a volatile region, invading Iraq was not high up the list of priorities. Bush made it so. Bush ignored his military commanders and listened to the policy makers instead. He lied to the public and used paranoia to garner support.

WHat cracks me up is that these are the same people who hounded Clinton out of office just becasue he lied about getting a blow job.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 11.04.06 at 16:43]

"Saying "Bush lied" is more of a fabrication than Bush's statements. I thought Duke was going to win the NCAA basketball championship based upon the research I did--did I "lie?"

How is it a fabrication. He lied. It's been proven that he lied.
In the scenario you put forth, no, you didn't lie.

However, I'm not quite sure how it applies to what we're talking about.

Mr. Bush KNEW that the yellowcake intelligence was wrong, but still used it as a reason.
Mr. Bush KNEW there is no link between Al Quaeda and Saddam, but said there was.
Mr. Bush had NO evidence of WMDs, but said he had.

If these aren't lies, what are? How is this a fabrication?

[silencedogood on 11.04.06 at 16:44]

HReardon,

I agree which is a shock to those on the blog I'm sure. ;) I've asked that question before but seriously doubt anyone will answer it.

Most countries are content to let the US make the tough calls and then take the piss out of them. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

I went round and round with bloggers the last time this entire blogdrama came up but the response always seems to ignore the realities of the day in favor of hindsight.

This is why I'm sick of this topic. It's the same arguments by the same people each time and nothing gets resolved. Just a lot of pissing, moaning, and conspiracy theories (see Njegos' comments about civil war).

One can't have a meaningful discussion without answering your question but no one is willing or able to do so.