Here's a kind of different view of the Iraqi War

[thebullet]

Who Is Fighting for Whom in Iraq?
By Mustafa Malik
The San Diego Union-Tribune

Wednesday 29 December 2004

A tiger killed a fawn and began munching on it, according to a popular Bangladeshi folk tale. A hungry bear jumped on the tiger to snatch the carcass away. The two fought until both lay mortally wounded, unable to move. A fox, which was watching the fight from a bush, scampered to the dead fawn and feasted to its heart's content.

The United States overthrew Saddam Hussein only to be overwhelmed by Sunni Arab insurgency. But Sunni Arabs, being a minority, can't come to power through the Jan. 30 elections. This is why most of them are boycotting the vote.

A pro-Iranian electoral alliance of the Shiite majority is predicted to win a majority of parliamentary seats and form the government. The Iranians are helping the alliance with money and volunteers, ignoring President Bush's warnings against "meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq."

During an appearance on an Iranian TV show recently, I was asked by an interlocutor what gave "invaders from the other end of the world the right to question our help and support" to his fellow Shiites in Iraq. Iran had been sheltering Iraqi exiles, he
added, since before "(Defense Secretary) Donald Rumsfeld and (former New York Congressman) Stephen Solarz were making pilgrimages to Baghdad (in the 1980s) with your president's goodwill messages to Saddam."

The war to overthrow Saddam, a bitter enemy of Israel, was masterminded by a group of neoconservatives, and Patrick Buchanan and others accused them of dragging America into "Israel's war." Now Arab commentators are saying that America is fighting "Iran's war." The U.S. invasion has, besides facilitating the creation of a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, wrecked the military power of Iraq, Iran's historic adversary.

Iraqi Shiites aren't a monolith, and the elections could be followed by an intra-Shiite power struggle, alongside a broader one among Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds. And the United States is deepening the Shiite-Sunni divide.

President Bush got his Sunni Arab protégés, King Abdullah and interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawar, to denounce Iranian "interference" in Iraqi affairs. Also, the Americans are prodding interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi to try to put together a Sunni-dominated party to counter the pro-Iranian
Shiite alliance. All these are alienating America from Iraqi Shiites, prompting them to align more closely with Iran. If ethnic and sectarian strife splits Iraq, the Shiite south would be the natural ally of Shiite Iran. If Iraq stays in one piece, the Iranians are
likely to exert influence on its politics and policies through its Shiite majority.

Iran isn't the only "fox" making hay from the fall of Saddam. The war has mobilized anti-American and anti-regime forces in the region to an unprecedented level. Muslim guerrillas from neighboring countries have joined the Iraqi insurgency. Islamist activists have ratcheted up their campaign against Jordanian and
Saudi Arabian monarchies, citing these regimes' tacit support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

An Arab American friend who has returned from a tour of the region tells me that in Jordan's cafes and on college campuses King Abdullah II is being openly denounced as America's "lackey" and "collaborator." My friend had not seen Jordanians criticize the monarchy so harshly and publicly before.

Unprecedented, too, was the recent attempt to stage anti-government demonstrations in Saudi Arabia. The London-based Movement for Islamic Reforms, which U.S. intelligence sources suspect is linked to Osama bin Laden, called for the protest. Hundreds of activists were preparing to pour into the streets of
Riyadh and Jeddah when police dispersed them.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah came under a brazen attack from "al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," and bin Laden was quick to release an audio tape commending the guerrillas. More ominous is his call to supporters to target America's oil
supplies, which prompted a series of attacks on Iraq's oil infrastructure. Bin Laden may have set his eyes on the most vital U.S. interest in the region, which seemed to be safe before the Iraq war.

Maybe America is fighting bin Laden's war, too.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The failure to anticipate the repercussions on an invasion of Iraq is the one factor that makes me think that maybe Bush really did think there were WMD's there and that something had to be done ASAP and damn the consequences.

Otherwise it's simply incomprehensible that we could have been so blind as to what would happen once Saddam was removed from power. You know, you like to give your leaders the benefit of the doubt, and it's very hard to believe that the hawks could just be so bare-naked stupid. Or maybe it's just too scary to think about.

In any case, this little article is a nice reminder that the rest of the world doesn't see the Iraq war in the same benign light that we do in the US. We may like to think that we're there to bring deomcracy, but that's not how most of the Arab world sees it.

---dr.M.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Very interesting, bullet. Very worrying, and very interesting.

Dr. M., I still give GBW benefit of the doubt on that one. I read all I could coming up to the invasion of Iraq, and there were many unanswered questions, obscure motivations, and unnerving suggestions. I think that he probably did believe that Iraq was a danger to us. I think he read Hussein's intrasigence as a sign that he must have something to hide, and acted as he thought he needed to. That this has all be executed disastrously, and that he seems to have missed many significant and very troubling long-term ramifications, I think is undeniable. But I still grant that he may have entered into this with good intentions, if not with a thorough understanding of what was likely to happen.

Good intentions, of course, seem worth very little with tens of thousands of people dead. I only observe that I do not think this was his goal, or that he anticipated it when he acted.

Shanglan

 

[okie45]

Bush wanted to believe.

Bush had some good intentions but we are not wanted.

We should admit we were wrong and get the hell out. It is no longer our fight.

It's screwed up our economy and Iraq won't be better when we leave. Cut off the dollar and people drain.

Leave it to them and the next time, if we go in, don't be so stupid as to leave the young men, who had to have been in the military, standing around to bite you in the ass.

You can't fight a war as a nice guy. We have to decide.

We lost. Admit it and get out.

 

[thebullet]

Otherwise it's simply incomprehensible that we could have been so blind as to what would happen once Saddam was removed from power. You know, you like to give your leaders the benefit of the doubt, and it's very hard to believe that the hawks could just be so bare-naked stupid. Or maybe it's just too scary to think about.

Dr. M:
I've been watching this administration for four years now and haven't seen them do one smart thing yet.

I was one of those before the war who just didn't believe in the WMD's. I figured if they had any at all it was too little to do any damage. The UN had been at it for ten years trying to eliminate them. I gave the UN some credit for getting the job done.

And who couldn't see that the post-war period would be a nightmare? The Rumsfeld "They'll throw flowers at our feet" theory just didn't work for me.

My theory is that Bush wanted the war so badly that he was willing to believe the poor evidence (or pretend that he believed) just so he could have his little war. Even Powell thought the evidence for WMD's was bogus.

Yes, Virginia, they can be that stupid.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Our leaders have forgotten that there is always more than one way to perceive the world. They have even forgotten that there must be at least one way of actually perceiving the world. Instead, they shut their eyes to what their eyes should be showing them and hold fast to their bright shining lie— the one which brought them into this sad adventure.

They laud themselves upon having ‘faith’ but their ‘faith’ is in nothing laudable. It is their unshakable ‘faith’ in their own infallibility.





Funny. There’s a lot of that going around.

 

[thebullet]

They laud themselves upon having ‘faith’ but their ‘faith’ is in nothing laudable. It is their unshakable ‘faith’ in their own infallibility.

Funny. There’s a lot of that going around.

As usual you are right, VB. It's just been a long time since we've had an administration who have run things while on a testosterone rush.

 

[Songcatcher]

Who Is Fighting for Whom in Iraq?
By Mustafa Malik
The San Diego Union-Tribune

Wednesday 29 December 2004

A tiger killed a fawn and began munching on it, according to a popular Bangladeshi folk tale. A hungry bear jumped on the tiger to snatch the carcass away. The two fought until both lay mortally wounded, unable to move. A fox, which was watching the fight from a bush, scampered to the dead fawn and feasted to its heart's content.

The United States overthrew Saddam Hussein only to be overwhelmed by Sunni Arab insurgency. But Sunni Arabs, being a minority, can't come to power through the Jan. 30 elections. This is why most of them are boycotting the vote.

A pro-Iranian electoral alliance of the Shiite majority is predicted to win a majority of parliamentary seats and form the government. The Iranians are helping the alliance with money and volunteers, ignoring President Bush's warnings against "meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq."

During an appearance on an Iranian TV show recently, I was asked by an interlocutor what gave "invaders from the other end of the world the right to question our help and support" to his fellow Shiites in Iraq. Iran had been sheltering Iraqi exiles, he
added, since before "(Defense Secretary) Donald Rumsfeld and (former New York Congressman) Stephen Solarz were making pilgrimages to Baghdad (in the 1980s) with your president's goodwill messages to Saddam."

The war to overthrow Saddam, a bitter enemy of Israel, was masterminded by a group of neoconservatives, and Patrick Buchanan and others accused them of dragging America into "Israel's war." Now Arab commentators are saying that America is fighting "Iran's war." The U.S. invasion has, besides facilitating the creation of a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, wrecked the military power of Iraq, Iran's historic adversary.

Iraqi Shiites aren't a monolith, and the elections could be followed by an intra-Shiite power struggle, alongside a broader one among Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds. And the United States is deepening the Shiite-Sunni divide.

President Bush got his Sunni Arab protégés, King Abdullah and interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawar, to denounce Iranian "interference" in Iraqi affairs. Also, the Americans are prodding interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi to try to put together a Sunni-dominated party to counter the pro-Iranian
Shiite alliance. All these are alienating America from Iraqi Shiites, prompting them to align more closely with Iran. If ethnic and sectarian strife splits Iraq, the Shiite south would be the natural ally of Shiite Iran. If Iraq stays in one piece, the Iranians are
likely to exert influence on its politics and policies through its Shiite majority.

Iran isn't the only "fox" making hay from the fall of Saddam. The war has mobilized anti-American and anti-regime forces in the region to an unprecedented level. Muslim guerrillas from neighboring countries have joined the Iraqi insurgency. Islamist activists have ratcheted up their campaign against Jordanian and
Saudi Arabian monarchies, citing these regimes' tacit support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

An Arab American friend who has returned from a tour of the region tells me that in Jordan's cafes and on college campuses King Abdullah II is being openly denounced as America's "lackey" and "collaborator." My friend had not seen Jordanians criticize the monarchy so harshly and publicly before.

Unprecedented, too, was the recent attempt to stage anti-government demonstrations in Saudi Arabia. The London-based Movement for Islamic Reforms, which U.S. intelligence sources suspect is linked to Osama bin Laden, called for the protest. Hundreds of activists were preparing to pour into the streets of
Riyadh and Jeddah when police dispersed them.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah came under a brazen attack from "al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," and bin Laden was quick to release an audio tape commending the guerrillas. More ominous is his call to supporters to target America's oil
supplies, which prompted a series of attacks on Iraq's oil infrastructure. Bin Laden may have set his eyes on the most vital U.S. interest in the region, which seemed to be safe before the Iraq war.

Maybe America is fighting bin Laden's war, too.

bump

 

[oggbashan]

For a long time I have had difficulty in understanding the UK government's stance on the invasion of Iraq.

We had many experienced people in the Foreign Office who understood the way the various factions in Iraq were divided.

It cannot have been a simplistic decision in the UK. Apart from the WMD issue there had been enough contact with Iraq to inform the decision process.

Saddam Hussein's likely reactions to an invasion, and those of the Iraqi forces, must have been studied and predicted in great detail with 'what if' and probabilities for various scenarios.

It should have been no surprise that post-war Iraq would split up in the way it has, with the former 'haves' fighting to retain what they had, and the former 'have-nots' fighting to claim the spoils.

Did they over-analyze?

Og

 

[Songcatcher]

Did they over-anal?

I am sorry.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Very interesting, bullet. Very worrying, and very interesting.

Dr. M., I still give GBW benefit of the doubt on that one. I read all I could coming up to the invasion of Iraq, and there were many unanswered questions, obscure motivations, and unnerving suggestions. I think that he probably did believe that Iraq was a danger to us. I think he read Hussein's intrasigence as a sign that he must have something to hide, and acted as he thought he needed to. That this has all be executed disastrously, and that he seems to have missed many significant and very troubling long-term ramifications, I think is undeniable. But I still grant that he may have entered into this with good intentions, if not with a thorough understanding of what was likely to happen.

Good intentions, of course, seem worth very little with tens of thousands of people dead. I only observe that I do not think this was his goal, or that he anticipated it when he acted.

Shanglan

Back when we were still fighting in Afghanistan, I remember reading in The Atlantic magazine that the Washington buzz was that the Neocons wanted to go into Iraq. I’m bad on dates, but this was like a year before we launched the invasion.

There were a confluence of reasons given for the proposed invasion, but WMD’s weren’t high on the list at the time. Basically, GWB was in an ass-kickin’ mood after 9/11, and they figured that as long as they had the men and materiel over in Afghanistan, they’d just go on and set things to rights in the Iraq and finish what they started in ‘91. The original plan was to knock off Iraq’s army, which was easy enough, and then either just intimidate Iran and Syria into being good, or go on and invade them as well.

Their main motivation seemed to me to be a mixture of arrogance and ignorance. They were right in their arrogance. We walked right over the Iraqi army, as everyone knew we would. It was the ignorance and ineptitude that did us in. They were totally and willfully ignorant of the geopolitical situation over there, and chose to believe the whispering of Chalabi, who convinced them that Iraq was a democracy just waiting to happen. The State department and Powell tried to warn them, but they were shoved aside and marginalized.

So as much as I’d like to believe that Bush & co. really felt that they had to act and act fast, that’s not the way it happened. Richard Clarke, the former head of anti-terrorsim inder Clinton and Bush before he quit, also says that plans for the invasion of Iraq goit under way the day after 9/11, even before it was decided to hit Afghanistan. All the WMD talk was essentially just rationalization.

---dr.M.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

For a long time I have had difficulty in understanding the UK government's stance on the invasion of Iraq.

We had many experienced people in the Foreign Office who understood the way the various factions in Iraq were divided.

It cannot have been a simplistic decision in the UK. Apart from the WMD issue there had been enough contact with Iraq to inform the decision process.

Saddam Hussein's likely reactions to an invasion, and those of the Iraqi forces, must have been studied and predicted in great detail with 'what if' and probabilities for various scenarios.

It should have been no surprise that post-war Iraq would split up in the way it has, with the former 'haves' fighting to retain what they had, and the former 'have-nots' fighting to claim the spoils.

Did they over-analyze?

Og

I wondered about that too, the UK’s response.

I kind of figure that Bush assured Blair that it would be fast, clean, and neat, and that they’d be in and out in a matter of weeks. Certainly that’s what Bush believed at the time, and as far as the war itself went, he was right

Could it also be that Blair wanted to cozy up to the US just to spite the EU?

---dr.M.

 

[oggbashan]

Could it also be that Blair wanted to cozy up to the US just to spite the EU?

---dr.M.

We annoy the EU very successfully without needing to plead the special relationship with the US.

We do recognise the US as our allies and will be inclined to help whenever we can - even if we might express reservations in private.

Og

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . Did they over-analyze? . . .

I believe they fell prey to Bander-log Syndrome.

They squatted in their upholstered, air-conditioned think-tanks for nearly a decade explaining to each other how to change the face of the world. Of course, no one who did not agree with them could be made privy to their deliberations, so they never heard a discouraging word.

When the skies cleared, and Osama gave them the opportunity they had been begging for — a Pearl Harbour-like sneak attack — they hopped onto their great opportunity to bring all their plans to fruition.

There were a few people in government — intelligence, military and state — who said that they were wrong, but those were outsiders. They hadn’t heard the wonderful plan, and so they were pushed aside, squashed, or replaced with people who would give them the right kind of information. So what if I became necessary to lie, the end justified the means.

Nobody else had heard their wonderful plan. When a few in whom they had previously placed confidence, told them their wonderful plan was full of holes, they pushed them away and ignored them. Nobody would like to learn that their last ten years were spent producing tosh.

And so, listening only to each other, they rode roughshod over all obstacles. They were great. They were the best and brightest people in Washington. They all agreed with each other that this was so, so it mus be true.

The curse of the Bander-log!

And I bet no one ever once thought about Rudyard Kipling.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There were a confluence of reasons given for the proposed invasion ...
.

Yes, and this was the chief qualm I had at the time. It wasn't that any one of the reasons was so very bad in and of itself, but that the whole thing together began to sound a bit like the OJ Simpson defense - a sort of "spin your own justification" exercise.

Shanglan

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Anybody who wants to know how we got where we are should research
the Project for the New American Century.

A good Gobblety-Gook- to- English Dictionary and a strong stomach are all the requirements.

 

[cantdog]

When the skies cleared, and Osama gave them the opportunity they had been begging for — a Pearl Harbour-like sneak attack — they hopped onto their great opportunity to bring all their plans to fruition.

By Pearl Harbor standards, every US military action since 1945 has been a sneak attack. We have declared no war since then, and that's all the Japanese did to deserve the epithet. And they did declare, just a day or so late. We are still fighting undeclared sneak attacks.

 

[rgraham666]

VB. I'm not good with Kipling, but Jane's, the people turn out all kinds of useful books and magazines on armaments and conflict, have a term for what you described. That term is incestuous amplification.

When you hear only your own opinion, your mistakes are magnified.

The most famous example is Adolf Hitler. he surrounded himself with 'yes' men and got the living shit kicked out of his country.

Even at the end he was planning how to win the war. Moving little flags on maps as if it was the real thing. Until he blew his brains out.

Hope it doesn't come to that in your country.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . every US military action since 1945 has been a sneak attack. . .

I hate to disagree with you Cantdog, but I really would not wish to describe the start of the Vietnam War as a sneak attack . . . unless you mean to indicate how we sneaked into it so gradually that we barely noticed until we were up to our necks in it.

At least, that was how my father characterized it.

rg

The Bander-log were the monkey people in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books. You have probably forgotten them by now.

They always thought that they were the smartest animal in the jungle because they all said so, so it had to be true.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm afraid I've never read any of Kipling's stuff except for Rikki-Tikki-Tavi and his poem Macdonough's Song.

Sigh. The limitations of being a high school dropout.

 

[cantdog]

I hate to disagree with you Cantdog, but I really would not wish to describe the start of the Vietnam War as a sneak attack . . . unless you mean to indicate how we sneaked into it so gradually that we barely noticed until we were up to our necks in it.

At least, that was how my father characterized it.

rg

The Bander-log were the monkey people in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books. You have probably forgotten them by now.

They always thought that they were the smartest animal in the jungle because they all said so, so it had to be true.

It was an academic snit. We didn't declare war. Neither did the Japanese. That's all. I'm not entirely responsible; I'm on the patches again today.

 

[cantdog]

I'm afraid I've never read any of Kipling's stuff except for Rikki-Tikki-Tavi and his poem Macdonough's Song.

Sigh. The limitations of being a high school dropout.

A lot of the Laureate's stuff is not worth looking up. Captains Courageous is very good writing, but novel length. For a short, near-perfect jewel, I recommend the little story The Man Who Would Be King.

cantdog

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . Sigh. The limitations of being a high school dropout.

Hey!

That's my Alma Mater — Class of '95!

 

[Seattle Zack]

The invasion of Iraq (the world's second-largest oil producing country) would have happened with or without the tragedy of 9/11. As early as 1997, the Project for the New American Century, a neo-con think tank obsessed with getting Clinton and his Democratic henchmen out of office, suggested a unilateral invasion of Iraq under the pretenses of removing this "ruthless dictator" (which we had put in power during a previous administration).

Their policy document, Rebuilding America's Defenses openly advocates total global military domination.

(I know, it's ninety pages. Better to stick to Yahoo news than read the actual source document. Maybe Google for "New American Century" and you'll get a synopsis.)

You might recognize a few names ... many members hold high-level positions in the G.W. Bush administration:

Elliot Abrams is a senior member of the National Security Council, who pled guilty to the charge of lying to Congress in the Iran/Contra scandal. He is an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.

Kenneth Adelman is a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. He is not an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles, but has signed one of its position papers sent as a letter to president George W. Bush in 2002.

Richard V. Allen is a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and the National Security Advisory Group.

John R. Bolton is Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. He is not an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles, but has signed at least five PNAC position papers sent as letters to presidents and members of congress advocating military aggression abroad.

Stephen Cambone is Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

Dick Cheney is Vice President and an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.

Seth Cropsey is Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau.

Devon Gaffney Cross is a member of the Defense Policy Board and Donors Forum on International Affairs.

Paula Dobriansky is Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.

Aaron Friedberg is the Vice President's Deputy National Security Advisor and the Vice President's Director of Policy Planning.

Francis Fukuyama is a member of the Cloning Panel, President's Council on Bioethics.

Daniel Goure is a member of the 2001 DoD Transition Team.

Fred C. Ikle is a member of the Defense Policy Board.

Zalmay Khalilzad was appointed in December 2002 as the president's "special envoy and ambassador at large for free Iraqis." According to the White House announcement, Khalilzad would "serve as the focal point for contacts and coordination among free Iraqis for the U.S. government and for preparations for a post-Saddam Iraq." Khalilzad's qualifications include not only advocating Saddam's ouster since the 1980s, but also his proven prowess in orchestrating the installation of the Hamid Karzai regime in Afghanistan after being appointed special U.S. envoy to Afghanistan in December 2001. He is an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick is the U.S. Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

John F. Lehman is a member of the National Commission to Investigate Attacks on the U.S. (9-11 Commission).

I. Lewis Scooter Libby is Chief of Staff and the Vice President's Assistant for National Security Affairs to Dick Cheney and an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.

Richard N. Perle became chairman of the 30-member Defense Policy Board in July 2001, which meets regularly with Rumsfeld. The board's meetings are classified and members are allowed access to top-secret intelligence reports. He resigned in early 2003 upon allegations that he was essentially profiting from insider trading with classified defense intelligence. Perle is not an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles, but has signed at least eight PNAC position papers sent as letters to presidents and members of congress advocating military aggression abroad.

J. Danforth Quayle is a member of the Defense Policy Board.

Peter W. Rodman is Asst. Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs.

Henry S. Rowen is a member of the Defense Policy Board.

Donald Rumsfeld is US Secretary of Defense and an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles in 1997.

William Schneider, Jr. is Chairman of the Defense Science Board.
Abram Shulsky is Director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans.

Chris Williams is a member of the Defense Policy Board and Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, as well as Special Assistant to Rumsfeld on Policy, 2001.

Paul Dundes Wolfowitz is Deputy Secretary of Defense and an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.

R. James Woolsey, Jr. served as director of Central Intelligence for the CIA from 1993-95, and was ambassador to the negotiation on conventional armed forces in Europe from 1989-91. Woolsey went to Geneva as delegate at large to the U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Talks and Nuclear and Space Arms Talks from 1983-86. He was also Under Secretary of the Navy and advised the U.S. delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Woolsey, one of the most high-profile hawks in the war against Iraq and a key member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital. The company was set up three months after the terrorist attacks on New York and sees the events and aftermath of September 11, 2001 as a business opportunity which 'offer substantial promise for homeland security investment'. He is not an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles, but has signed at least seven of its position papers sent as letters to presidents and members of congress advocating military aggression abroad. According to RightWeb, Woolsey is a member of the Defense Policy Board, the Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, and a special envoy of Rumsfeld to investigate the Czech-al Qaeda connection (?).

Dov S. Zakheim is DoD Comptroller.

Robert Bruce Zoellick was appointed United States Trade Representative.

Don't kid yourself. The 2000 election was bought and paid for by Big Oil, and they had every intention of invading Iraq as soon as W was sworn in. And they got their wish, because 9/11 provided a convenient excuse.

 

[TheEarl]

I believed the WMD. I really did. This is from an Englishman's perspective, who was travelling in Australia atthe time. Teflon Tony had just brought out the '40-minutes' dossier which conclusively proved that Iraq had WMD that could attack Southern Europe within 40 minutes. The English intelligence services had gathered definitive proof.

The Australian media were all over this, demanding evidence of this proof, wanting sources and dates and times, and names of spies. I was outraged - quite apart from the fact that that data would be impossible to give for security reasons, this was proof collected by the finest intelligence services in the world. If England told you that we knew there were WMD there and that we had proof, then by God it should be taken as gospel. Don't you trust us?

Well, the Australians did trust us in the end. They actually entered the war on the basis of that dossier and Britain's lobbying.

But as we all know now, that dossier was written using incomplete, out-of-date and blatantly skewed data that Teflon Tony had had compiled to back up his point. Decide the result you want to prove, then go and find the data that backs that up. I'm still appalled and doubly so that he rigged the inquiry to make the driven snow look murky next to him. "You have to look at the totality of my statements."

Well, I have. How can we ever trust you again? You may not have lied in the strictest sense of the word, but you mislead at least two countries into war, based on intelligence that you knew to be false.

I don't get why people still won't vote Tory?

The Earl