±«Óătv

Yes, here's the "selfish" United States, sacrificing more than three trillion dollars and thereby putting its own economy in jeopardy, because it's only ever on the lookout for itself.

It was for the oil, they say. Then where the hell is it? We could use some of it! It was for the economic advantages. Then where are they? It was a personal vendetta to benefit Bush. Then where is the benefit to Bush? The monetary figures by themselves demonstrate that America was not in this war for its own good. It would have been more selfish never to have gone to Iraq in the first place. And the fact that many now regret the decision to go to Iraq does not detract from the fact that there was a consensus of decent intentions and good reasons to go in the first place, based on the information available at the time.

Do I think we should bring the troops home? Yes, enough of my tax money has been pushed into the big sinkhole in the Middle East. But it's asinine for the same anti-war geniuses who said that the purpose of the war was to line American pockets with cash, now to lament the huge American cost of the war to further the same witless agenda.

John,

You are talking nonsense. You are more intelligent than that. There is a basic fallacy in your argument, namely the fact that Bush and co. have not achieved their aims does not disprove their intentions.

If you actually listen to the programme to which William refers (Start the Week, ±«Óătv Radio 4), you will hear that on the eve of the war Larry Lindsey, Bush’s economic adviser, suggested that the cost could reach $200bn, about one fifteenth of the total estimated by Stiglitz and Bilmes. Lindsey’s ‘high’ estimate was dismissed as ‘baloney’ by Rumsfeld, who suggested $50-60bn (about one sixtieth of the real cost), and Rumsfeld’s deputy, Wolfowitz, even stated explicitly that postwar reconstruction could pay for itself through increased oil revenues.

The fact that it hasn’t worked out that way and that they grossly underestimated the cost doesn’t mean that those who planned it didn’t do so out of self-interest, Even Lindsey, who was fired for his 'pessimism', suggested that the prosecution of the war would be good for the economy, and this was the general consensus. In their book Stiglitz and Bilmes argue that these warriors were catastrophically wrong.

So, please don’t praise for them an imaginary altruism that simply doesn’t exist! I’m afraid we’re not to fall for that ‘baloney’.

Brian, the US estimate of 50-60 billions is much more than one sixtieth of the 3 trillion total (to date). According to Stiglitz, it's a mistake of the order of roughly x200.

There is so much wrong here it's hard to know where to begin. 3 trillion dollars over 5 years is 600 billion a year, about 5% of the US GDP. The first thing wrong with this is that the numbers don't make sense. The President's worst critics in Congress claim the war is costing 2 billion a week or 100 billion a year which is less than 1% GDP and they have access to every number Stiglitz has and a lot more. But which ever number you pick the fact is that until recently and as the result of the totally unrelated sub prime lending fiasco in the real estate and banking sectors, the US economy has done well, the recession starting in 2000 was short and shallow by historic standards. Growth since recovery has been good and sustainable. A lot of people who have a political axe to grind make up a lot of lies about numbers and most people are too lazy to see through even the most blatant of them taking them at face value instead. Take for instance the Lancet report in the summer of 2006 which said that 650,000 Iraqis had died as the result of the war subsequent to the invasion. That was just about 1000 days after the end of the war and so 650 people would have had to have died resulting from the war every single day on average. It was absurd. How did Lancet arrive at these numbers? They asked a relatively small sample of Iraqis in the worst areas of Baghdad how many of their relatives died, took their answers at face value and then extrapolated the results to the entire country. But people took it as fact. And nobody even asked of that number, how many who died were the enemy.

Then there was the fact that money had nothing to do with the war. How quickly the public forgets and the media obfuscates the real issues behind the war. The US had only been attacked a little over a year earlier because its intelligence "had failed to connect the dots." That was followed by the anthrax attack and the scare it provoked. And then there were the dots. There was the fact that EVERY major intelligence organization in the world believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. George Tenet the Director of the CIA who was appointed by Clinton when asked directly by Bush if Iraq had them said it was "a slam dunk." Tony Blair believed it. The dodgy dossier was a British invention, not an American invention. If Blair believed it, why shouldn't the US government as well, it fit a consistent tapestry. To this day we still do not know for sure if he had them or not. His own generals thought so. He certainly wanted them and the corrupt governments of France, Germany, Russia, and China looked the other way while their wealthiest citizens were making huge profits selling Iraq what it wanted circumventing the UN sanctions. The UN itself was thoroughly corrupt. And then there was President Putin's warning to Bush that his intelligence service believed Iraq was preparing to attack the US on its own soil. How many of you America haters conveniently forgot that? Meanwhile, the UN inspectors looked like the Keystone Kops as Saddam Hussein played a cat and mouse game with them. The timing of the invasion was at the last possible moment because the weather was about to become much hotter and the prospect of fighting in the heat in chemical weapons gear was very disadvantageous to the US. Saddam Hussein was trying to buy time stalling hoping that the US could not sustain its huge force in the region long enough for another opportunity when the weather broke later in the year.

And then there is the fact that the US Congress and the majority of American people fully supported the invasion. Hillary Clinton can dance around it all she likes, she had access to all of the intelligence information President Bush had and so did everyone else in Congress.

The invastion was correct. It achieved its goal, eliminating whateveer threat Iraq posed. It made no new enemies for the US, what it did was reveal old ones we mistook for friends...like France, Germany, and Belgium...and the majority of the populations of Western Europe. It also removed one of the most brutal mass murdering dictators and his entire regime in the world. What does the sanctimonious anti-American crowd have to say about the morality of opposing that? And it upset the whole apple cart of Middle East politics. 9 million Iraqis voted in free and fair elections three times, the first free and fair election in their history, once for a temporary government, once for a constitution, and once for a permanent government (even the EU population will not have a chance to vote on its constitution, it will be jammed down their throats as a series of treaties by its own dictators.) And who opposes the US presence? The insurgents who would restore tyranny to Iraq under one guise or another and Europeans who hate America because it is obviously a far superior civilization in every conceivable meaningful way...including its clear thinking.

BTW, the number of American military casualties in six years in Iraq is approximately the number dead in combat as are killed in motor vehicle accidents in the US in an average 4 to 5 week period about (4000) and the number wounded is about the number injured in motor vehicle accidents in the US in about 4 to 5 days (about 250,000 to 300,000.) That's one more area where the critics love to fudge the numbers.

As for the Nobel Prize in economics, I am reminded that two "brilliant" American economists who won it started an investment hedge fund for mega-millionaires only, and lost every penny every one of their investors put in it. So much for the value of the Nobel Prize in voodoo economics.

William,
My calculation, where 1 trillion = 1,000 billion, is:
50 billion to 3 trillion
= 50 of 1,000 x 3
= 1/20 x 3
= 1/60.
But, whether we are talking about 1/60 or 1/200, the fact remains that the American people were massively deceived by their government over the cost of the Iraq War.

Moreover, the deception went further and maintained that the economic benefits would exceed the costs. These are just two more deceptions to add to the others:

Deception: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, repeated ad nauseam.
Truth: There were none.

Deception: Iraq would be a quick war with minimal casualties, thanks to ‘shock and awe’.
Truth: It was and remains a bloodbath, with deaths possibly in millions (Oxford Research Bureau: 1.3 million, confirming Lancet report of last year). Iraq is a land of wreck and ruin.

Deception: Iraq would help resolve the Middle East crisis.
Truth: It has worsened and Muslim suspicion of the West is greater.

Deception: Freedom would be strengthened.
Truth: Civil liberties have been curtailed, especially in countries such as the USA and UK which pursued the war most vehemently in defence of 'freedom'.

Deception: Al Qaida would be defeated.
Truth: The leader is still alive 7 years after 9/11 and Al Qaida now seem to be everywhere.

Deception: The world would be made safer.
Truth: Tell that to the relatives of the victims of the Madrid train bombings or the 7/7 London bus bomb, or to the security services who expect more attacks.

I use the word ‘deception’ deliberately because it was not all lies; much of it was self-deception and, reading the postings of John and Mark, it is obvious that many Americans are in denial: they don’t want to face up to the reality of a despicable war created by government propaganda machines and hopelessly compliant media.

As we approach the fifth anniversary, we opponents who demonstrated in our millions may not have prevented the war, but let us celebrate the hope that we may have prevented the next one.

Oh dear. Who should we believe on the calculation of the US mistake of 50 billion? The nobel prizewinning author who calculated the error? Or Brian from the Will and testament blog? Hmm. Not sure.

Bottom line. Let's just give in to the nut-hamburger libs and listen to these pussy never-shot-a-gun squeeblers that wouldn't even be around if it weren't for real men to feed them. rant about how they dont want 60 trillon dollars on a war that means something to a universal health care system where everyone gets screwed. I wonder how much money out of our tax dollars that will cost in the next 100 years. I'm hoping 70% of my paycheck goes to taxes. I forgot libs don't use the smart part of the brain.

Unlike the EU where nobody knows where the money goes and the books have not been accredited by accountants for over a decade, the US government's spending is under the scrutiny of both the Executive branch's OMB (Office of Management and Budget) and Congress' counterpart the GAO (General Accounting Office.) They are accountable to the Bush Administration's worst critics in Congress and so those in Congress get the real numbers which they use in their own political rhetoric. The rest like Stiglitz's numbers are made up by people with a political axe to grind, that's is where the real fiction lies.

Anyone who thinks 4000 dead soldiers in a war which has lasted 5 years is massive doesn't know anything about war. That many an more often died in a single battle, sometimes in a single day in the history of wars. As for the Iraqi casualties, nobody knows how many there are but if there were 650,000 or 1.3 million they'd be piled up everywhere like cordwood.

It wasn't the war which did the American economy in, it was the sub prime mortgage lending fiasco. Before that broke the economy was doing well. Periodic slowdowns are normal in the US and these kinds of scandals occur at least once a decade. Even so, right now the Federal Reserve projects the economy will pick up in the second half of 2008. Watch their short term interest rates. They are very cautious because the actions they take don't have effect for 6 to 18 months and they don't want to overcorrect one way or the other. If rates do not continue to go down, that means they expect a return to growth.

There is a major difference between the reason Europeans opposed the invasion and the reason some Americans oppose it now. Most Americans supported it at the time. They oppose it now because they are disillusioned and disappointed at the results. Their expectations were too built up and have not materialized. Europeans opposed the invasion because they wanted America to be attacked. They hate America because they know that no matter how many faults they can find in it, it is a far better place than they have and it was built on a philosophy which completely rejected every notion their societies held as gospel truths and still do. If there was one good thing which came out of all of this it is that we in America can now clearly see that Europe is our enemy. If I were Bill Gates' I'd pull the plug on it. He can on any give day if he wants to just by refusing to sell any more of his products there and now he has a good reason. They hate his success so much they are fining him over a billion dollars because he hasn't divulged his industrial trade secrets and will try to fine him more if he continues to refuse. Europe hates the success of others because it reminds it of its own miserable failure.

Brian-

Your assertion that I am "talking nonsense" is interesting.

You say: "There is a basic fallacy in your argument, namely the fact that Bush and co. have not achieved their aims does not disprove their intentions."

And the fact that you have no proof that their aims were any different than those laid out publicly does not prove that their intentions are what you claim they were either.

"The fact that it hasn’t worked out that way and that they grossly underestimated the cost doesn’t mean that those who planned it didn’t do so out of self-interest..."

And you haven't proven that they did, which leaves a lot of explaining to do per your theory. There was nothing in it for America except better security for its citizens (and don't forget that there are more American citizens living in the Middle East than there are citizens of any other non-regional nation) and the chance for Bush to fulfill a 'tough stance' on those pesky UN resolutions, particularly following 9/11. But don't get sidetracked by that: I'm not making an argument justifying the war, I'm making an argument refuting the idiots who are convinced (a) that Bush lied, (b) for his gain or (c) for America's reward (somehow). Not happy with that explanation? Face it; you're a conspiracy theorist on a par with those who say 9/11 was an inside job.

"So, please don’t praise for them an imaginary altruism that simply doesn’t exist! I’m afraid we’re not to fall for that ‘baloney’."

I wouldn't expect you to know anything about the altruism of the United States, because you never engage with anybody who's likely to know about it or, even less, be keen to share it with you if they did. Big Bad America has never done anything for anybody but itself, isn't that right, Brian? (And if it's not, how come nobody in your camp ever points that out?)

With regard to the war, if you prefer to occupy a leftist fantasyland in which the Great Satan's ultimate political goal is to reap imaginary rewards from military action around the world at the expense of other nations, you're welcome to stay in it, particularly since you can bet your ass that your life would be worse if it really were the case in reality.

Mark,
This is a reply to #4. I shall respond to your later rant and that of John in due course.

But before I do, let me say that I admire people like Stiglitz, Chomsky, Nader, etc, who are prepared to swim against the stream and have the courage to speak out. And they are Americans too! Which proves that you are not all mad. BTW, one would have thought that ‘libertarians’ like you two would admire people like that. Apparently not. You want all Americans to be exactly like you! And if they don’t, they’re ‘fantasists’! How ‘libertarian’ of you! Anyway, here are some facts but, of course, Mark, you never let the facts get in the way of an ingrained prejudice, do you?

COST
Your calculations are wrong. Stiglitz and Bilmes give estimates of the real costs over time, not just over 5 years, and they include not just the budgetary cost (about $1.5 trillion) but also the cost to the American public at large ($1.5 trillion). Their figures therefore include, for example, the cost of caring for wounded veterans, the cost of replacing military equipment and the effect of the war on the rising oil price.

There is also the opportunity cost, which is the real cost. What could the money and resources have been used for instead? Removing world illiteracy for one.

One more point: they give a budgetary figure of $12.5 billion a month for 2008, or $16 billion if you include Afghanistan (i.e. about twice your figure of $100 billion for the year).

DEATHS
The Lancet survey (conducted by an American organisation, the John Hopkins Bloomberg School in Baltimore) gave a total in October 2006 of 654,965. In September 2007 the Oxford Research Bureau (or Group) published the estimate by Opinion Research Business (based in London) gave the total war casualties in Iraq as 1,220,580. If we split the difference we get a figure of nearly 1 million.

Moreover, 2 million Iraqis have fled the country since 2003. This is 7% of the total population. An interesting question, Mark, how much destruction in terms of deaths and refugees would convince you that the war was wrong? Or would it not matter, even though you want to argue over the figures?

WMD
Ah, the elusive Iraqi WMD that threatened ‘far superior civilisations’ in 45 minutes (which we now know was not included in the original Blair dossier)! The missiles, the bombs, the anthrax, the botulinium toxin, the mustard gas, the artillery shells, the mobile biological weapons labs, the secret facilities for the development of nuclear weapons. They seek them here, they seek them there, they seek them everywhere. Those cursed elusive WMD.

I am convinced that both the US and UK administrations wanted a war in Iraq and invented the weapons threat to justify it. Let’s face it. Many countries have WMD (most of them are in the USA!), including nuclear weapons (though apparently Iraqi weapons weren’t WMD in that league). Theoretically, all these countries are a threat to one another. There was no evidence that Iraq had any more such weapons than any other country. The UN inspectors couldn’t find any (I know, you think they are willing tools of a corrupt organisation! Poor Hans Blix and his Keystone Cops to be rumbled by people in a ‘far superior civilisation’!) and the US military haven’t found any (these Keystone Cops are too busy acting like ‘a far superior civilisation’ making Iraq safe for ‘democracy’ to look for them).

SUPPORT

The biggest antiwar protests in history took place in February 2003 in Rome with over 3 million people and of course there were rallies across the USA. Whatever public opinion was in 2003, and it seemed to waver a lot, it has certainly changed its mind. A USA Today/Gallup Poll in April 2007 found that 58% of the participants stated that the invasion was a mistake. In May, 2007, the New York Times and CBS News released similar results of a poll in which 61% of participants believed the O.S. ‘should have stayed out’ of Iraq.

SUPERIOR CIVILISATION

America, you say, is ‘a far superior civilisation in every conceivable meaningful way’ to Europe’. America has indeed given many useful things to civilisation, but I think that, on balance, the civilisation which gave us Michelangelo and Mozart, Bach and Beethoven is superior to the one which gave us Walt Disney and Bugs Bunny, John Wayne and Brad Pitt. As for France, well, I think I’ll take Montaigne and Voltaire, and you can have Norman Mailer and Ernest Hemingway.

Yet we might have to fight over your namesake, Mark Twain, who said: “Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please”. He also said: “It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful to miss it”.

Brian- First, Mark never claimed to be a libertarian, as far as I know, and I've never commented on Stiglitz. So leave libertarianism out of it!

Second, I don't know Mark and frequently disagree strongly with much of what he says.

Third, I'm not American! :-)

I hope this helps put my comments in perspective for your response 'in due course'.

brian mcclinton
I'm glad you enjoy reading my postings. It's always nice to know you have an appreciative audience. Poor Robin Lustig. Almost nobody posts on his blog. I wonder how many even read it. Sometimes I post there just so it won't look so empty.

We could duel this back and forth issue for issue, item for item and while I know that's what you want to do, I really am in too good a mood today to do that. I could for instance point out that in addition to Michelangelo, Mozart Bach and Beethoven, Europe gave the world Hitler, Stalin, Marx, The Inquisition, feudalism, imperialism, absolute monarchy, the black slave trade and the Spice Girls.

I could point out that in addition to Disney and Bugs Bunny, the US gave the world airplanes, transistors, the internet, Henry Ford, and Thomas Edison. Would Farnsworth have been able to invent television had he stayed in Russia? Einstein would have died in a concentration camp had he stayed in Germany. The Germans exploited Von Braun's genius by bombing and terrorizing London, America exploited it by sending men to the moon. In fact, even though the industrial revolution started in Britain, the modern world as we know it was "made in America."

Does it bother you that one man could wipe out Europe single handedly, not by sending armies to invade and conquer it but simply by refusing to sell his products there? Personally, were I him, I'd just put a surcharge on every Microsoft product sold in Europe to cover the fines and keep raising them as the fines increased. As for opening up "the black box" and revealing its secrets, I'd tell the EU to go to hell. BTW, 8 years ago, the US Department of Justice went to War against Bill Gates too....and lost.

It really doesn't matter what the war in Iraq cost, America was able to afford it. America carried on business as usual. That was part of the problem, unless you watched TV, you hardly knew there was a war on at all. And where did all that money go anyway? Well a lot of the money the government spent was American taxpayers buying products and services from other Americans, that's where it would have gone anyway. BTW, in case you didn't know, EVERY American in combat went into military service voluntarily, there hasn't been military conscription in the US for 35 years. When Congressman Charles Rangell proposed a return to the draft, the military told him to shut up, they don't want people anymore who don't want to be there. Believe it or not, there are some people, a lot of people who love war just as others love soccer or cricket. They even pay money to pretend they are in wars and play in realistic war games. We call them weekend warriors. Put a 19 year old kid at the wheel of an M1A1 Abrams tank or in the cockpit of a fighter jet and he is on top of the world. That's what I wanted to do when I was a kid, be a jet fighter pilot but you couldn't if you didn't have 20-20 vision.

I don't know why you try to take issue with the Lancet's report and the Opinion Research Business Report by trying to fudge a compromise to reconcile their errors. With any luck both of them are true. 650,000 Iraqi deaths by the summer of 2006, 1.2 million by September of 2007. At that rate it won't be much longer until we are rid of all of them. So 2 million Iraqis have fled since 2003. That's OK with me as long as they don't come here. We've got all we can handle with the illegal aliens from Mexico. With any luck, we will maintain the status quo with the Mexicans, they will continue to be paid wages far below the legal minimum with no benefits or rights and we will continue to get cheap food and other services as a result. The Iraqis can go to Syria, Lebanon, Jordon, and Iran. They'll be among their own kind and reminisce about the good old days under Saddam and his two darling sons.

Now why do you suppose the CIA was so sure Saddam Hussein had WMDs (actually VX and anthrax) with or without the dodgy dossier? You mean you haven't figured it out yet? Isn't it obvious? BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES WHO SOLD IT TO HIM. They were supposed to ber used for killing the Iranians, now we will have to do that job ourselves too.

So you would trust your nation's security to the likes of Happy Hans Blix and his band of Bozos. Not me. Have you forgotten or just overlooked the fact that the Iraqis hid their nuclear weapons program from the UN inspectors from 1991 until 1995 when Saddam's brother-in-law who ran it defected to Jordon and revealed it to the world? And you think Americans have buyer's remorse over the war? I remind you that Bush was re-elected (fair and square the second time) AFTER the invasion. And so was Blair and his Labouuuuur party. You'll see buyer's remorse for real a year or two into the Obama Administration when prices soar due to inflation, the US economy is in a train wreck, and we're in a new war in some new far corner of the globe we never heard of. Of course he'll blame it all on the legacy Bush left him, the in's always blame the outs when things don't go well. Blair used that line on the Tories for ten years.

Why is removing world illiteracy a good thing? The more people who can read, the more terrorists will learn how to make bombs to blow up the London underground. Would that be a bad thing or a good thing? Ask members of the Real IRA.

Hasn't it occurred to you that there are far too many people in the world? Take global warming. If we had say 1 billion people in the world istead of 6 billion it wouldn't be a problem. Well one thing Europe gave us was Malthus. Too bad nobody listened to him, he got it right.

BTW, ever see John Wayne and Maureen O'hara in the movie, "The Quiet Man?" Just wondered. It's a favoUrite among a lot of people I know.

Hey, looks like you got your wish, I dueled you issue for issue. At least it wasn't in that order. Oops, almost forgot Chomsky, Nader, Stiglitz, and the kooks of their ilk. While they may be favored by many so called "intellectuals" in Europe, among most Americans, if they even know who they are, the are regarded by all except the extreme left as wackos. Nobody here really pays much attention to them. Even the Democrats are angry that Nader will run for President. They still blame him for President Bush's victory.

John,

Ok, I wrongly assumed that you were American because you live and work there and you make certain remarks, such as: “we should bring the troops home” etc. On the other hand, neither you nor your blog has a monopoly of libertarianism, and I would say from what I have read that, politically, Mark and you are not so far apart: you are both highly suspicious of the state, though you maniacally defend the agents of the American state in foreign policy, and ethically he is also clearly an egoist. On religion, certainly, there is a bigger gap, and here Mark is closer to my own position.

You seem obsessed with the concept of ‘proof’, whether political or religious. Haven't you heard of probability? No one can prove what was in Bush’s mind (according to the ‘European’ view, of course, it’s because his brain is missing). But there is evidence that the war against Iraq was planned for some time and that the motives for war were far from being altruistic.

DECEPTION ABOUT PLANS

You refer to the ‘idiots who believe Bush lied’ (the European image, of course, is that Bush is the idiot). But being an idiot and lying are not opposites: indeed they are common bedfellows. There is actually evidence that the Bush administration lied. I offer you the following 8 sources:

1. The Project for the New American Century, which included Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle etc., wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998 advocating a war with Iraq, claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States. Clinton rebuffed the advice. See the letter at:

2. The PNAC published a report in September 2000 recommending policies for preserving and expanding U.S. dominance in world affairs, including an aggressive policy for deposing Saddam Hussein. The report stated: "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein".

3. On 13th September 2001, during a meeting at Camp David with President Bush, Rumsfeld, and others in the Bush administration, Wolfowitz said he discussed with Bush the prospects of launching an attack against Iraq, for no apparent reason other than a ‘gut feeling’ Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and there was a debate ‘about what place if any Iraq should have in a counter-terrorist strategy’.

4. Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to the book Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward.

5. Watch this item about Paul O’Neill, former Treasury Secretary, who says that war on Iraq was planned within weeks on Bush’s inauguration in January 2001.
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0

6. Look at this website:

which gives evidence of:
‱ Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
‱ Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
‱ The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
‱ The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war

‱ The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society

7. Jack Straw, then British Foreign Secretary, stated in the ‘Downing Street Memo’, 2002: “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran”.

8. Hans Blix stated in April 2003: “The invasion of Iraq was planned a long time in advance, and the United States and Britain are not primarily concerned with finding any banned weapons of mass destruction”.

All the evidence points to the conclusion that Hans Blix’s judgment (8) is sound.

MOTIVES FOR WAR

Five of the main stated motives for invasion were:
1. Iraq had WMD (there were none).
2. Saddam’s regime was a threat (it wasn’t: it was a clapped-out dictatorship).
3. Saddam’s regime had links with Al Qaida (Saddam was an ‘infidel’ to Al Qaida).
4. To free the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictatorship.
5. To spread democracy in the Middle East.

I don’t believe that motives 1-3 had any relevance, though the American public were told otherwise.
Motives 4 and 5 were possibly present, and certainly the Bush administration convinced themselves of them, in a process of self-deception. They are laudable aims but, you see, John and Mark, we can only use past experience as a guide in these matters. The USA has bombarded more than 26 countries since WW2 (China, Korea, Guatemala (three times), Indonesia, Cuba, Congo, Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia) and intervened militarily in many more. The motive has consistently been seen by the people of these countries as self-interest, and the idea of 'American benevolence' is nothing but a delusional mirage. if they are wrong, then you have a lot of convincing to do, and you won't do it by hurling abuse at your critics.

All of this also applies to Iraq.
The real motives were primarily:
1. To reaffirm American power in the new century
2. To gain control of the world’s second largest oil reserves.
In other words, power and greed were paramount. To dress these baser motives up in moral altruism is in line with the established tradition of American foreign policy and clearly explains why it has such a bad image throughout the world.

Mark,

you say that Europeans opposed the invasion because they wanted America to be attacked. But there was no such threat from Iraq. You say: “They hate America because they know that no matter how many faults they can find in it, it is a far better place than they have”. I don’t think that Europeans hate America, but I do think that you hate Europeans and almost anybody else in any other country that gets in America's bullying way.

In your latest posting (#12), which descends into an abusive and crazy rant, you have demonstrated yet again this hatred and anger towards the rest of the world. As predicted, when you are confronted with the facts, you say they don’t matter, and your attitude to the Iraqi people is contemptible. It tends to substantiate the view that America (not all the people but certainly many of them, and certainly its government) is the Arnold Schwarzenegger of international politics, obtrusive, intimidating and destructive (the PNAC have even referred to ‘creative destruction’).

BTW: The Quiet Man is an overlong collection of clichĂ©s about Ireland: the town where everyone staggers around in a stupor, the thatched cottages, the pigs in the parlour, the horses and carts, the drunken stage Irishman, the fiesty colleen, the blarney in the bar, the husband who drags his wife by the hair across a field or throws her onto the bed, the peculiar brand of Irish logic (“Do you see that road over there? Well, don't take that, it'll do you no good"). The only thing missing is leprechauns, except that Barry Fitzgerald is definitely dressed to look like one.

Ford described it as the ‘sexiest picture ever made’, which probably explains why he should have stuck to westerns. The turgid romance between Wayne and O’Hara simply doesn’t work. O’Hara’s character fluctuates too abruptly and Wayne is, well, just Wayne (truly this man was not the son of the Gawd of acting). O’Hara is much better as Esmeralda and her relationship with Quasimodo (Laughton) is much more moving in the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

John,

Ok, I wrongly assumed that you were American because you live and work there and you make certain remarks, such as: “we should bring the troops home” etc. On the other hand, neither you nor your blog has a monopoly of libertarianism, and I would say from what I have read that, politically, Mark and you are not so far apart: you are both highly suspicious of the state, though you maniacally defend the agents of the American state in foreign policy, and ethically he is also clearly an egoist. On religion, certainly, there is a bigger gap, and here Mark is closer to my own position.

You seem obsessed with the concept of ‘proof’, whether political or religious. Haven't you heard of the more realistic concept of probability? Of course, no one can prove what was in Bush’s mind (according to the ‘European’ view, of course, it’s because his brain is missing). But there is evidence that the war against Iraq was planned for some time and that the motives for war were far from being altruistic.

DECEPTION ABOUT PLANS

You refer to the ‘idiots who believe Bush lied’ (the European image, of course, is that Bush is the idiot). But being an idiot and lying are not opposites: indeed they are common bedfellows. There is actually evidence that most of the Bush administration lied. I offer you the following 8 sources:

1. The Project for the New American Century, which included Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle etc., wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998 advocating a war with Iraq, claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States. Clinton rebuffed the advice. See the letter at:

2. The PNAC published a report in September 2000 recommending policies for preserving and expanding U.S. dominance in world affairs, including an aggressive policy for deposing Saddam Hussein. The report stated: "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein".

3. On 13th September 2001, during a meeting at Camp David with President Bush, Rumsfeld, and others in the Bush administration, Wolfowitz said he discussed with Bush the prospects of launching an attack against Iraq, for no apparent reason other than a ‘gut feeling’ Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and there was a debate ‘about what place if any Iraq should have in a counter-terrorist strategy’.

4. Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to the book Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward.

5. Watch this item about Paul O’Neill, former Treasury Secretary, who says that war on Iraq was planned within weeks on Bush’s inauguration in January 2001.
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0

6. Look at this website:

which gives evidence of:
‱ Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
‱ Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
‱ The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
‱ The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war
‱ The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society

7. Jack Straw, then British Foreign Secretary, stated in the ‘Downing Street Memo’, 2002: “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran”.

8. Hans Blix stated in April 2003: “The invasion of Iraq was planned a long time in advance, and the United States and Britain are not primarily concerned with finding any banned weapons of mass destruction”.

All the evidence points to the conclusion that Hans Blix’s judgment (8) is sound.

MOTIVES FOR WAR

Five of the main stated motives for invasion were:
1. Iraq had WMD (there were none).
2. Saddam’s regime was a threat (it wasn’t: it was a clapped-out dictatorship).
3. Saddam’s regime had links with Al Qaida (Saddam was an ‘infidel’ to Al Qaida).
4. To free the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictatorship.
5. To spread democracy in the Middle East.

I don’t believe that motives 1-3 had any relevance, though the American public were told otherwise.
Motives 4 and 5 were possibly present, and certainly the Bush administration convinced themselves of them, in a process of self-deception. They are laudable aims but, you see, John and Mark, we can only use past experience as a guide in these matters. The USA has bombarded more than 26 countries since WW2 (China, Korea, Guatemala (three times), Indonesia, Cuba, Congo, Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia) and intervened militarily in many more. The motive has consistently been seen by the people of these countries as self-interest and nothing whatsoever to do with democracy or human rights. if they were wrong, then you have a lot of convincing to do, and you won't do it by hurling abuse at your critics.

The same applies to Iraq.
The real motives were primarily:
1. To reaffirm American power in the new century
2. To gain control of the world’s second largest oil reserves.

In other words, power and greed were paramount. To dress these baser motives up in moral altruism is an established tradition of American foreign policy and clearly explains why it has such a bad image throughout the world, summed up by the three 'g's:
greed, god and gung-ho militarism.

Mark,

you say that Europeans opposed the invasion because they wanted America to be attacked. But there was no such threat from Iraq. You say: “They hate America because they know that no matter how many faults they can find in it, it is a far better place than they have”. I don’t think that Europeans hate America, but I do think that you hate Europeans and almost anybody else in any other country that gets in America's bullying way.

In your latest posting (#12), which descends into an abusive and crazy rant, you have demonstrated yet again this hatred and anger towards the rest of the world. As predicted, when you are confronted with the facts, you say they don’t matter, and your attitude to the Iraqi people is contemptible. It tends to substantiate the view that America (not all the people but certainly many of them, and certainly its government) is the Arnold Schwarzenegger of international politics, obtrusive, intimidating and destructive (the PNAC have even referred to ‘creative destruction’).

BTW: The Quiet Man is an overlong collection of clichĂ©s about Ireland: the town where everyone staggers around in a stupor, the thatched cottages, the pigs in the parlour, the horses and carts, the drunken stage Irishman, the fiesty colleen, the blarney in the bar, the husband who drags his wife by the hair across a field or throws her onto the bed, the peculiar brand of Irish logic (“Do you see that road over there? Well, don't take that, it'll do you no good"). The only thing missing is leprechauns, except that Barry Fitzgerald is definitely dressed to look like one.

Ford described it as the ‘sexiest picture ever made’, which probably explains why he should have stuck to westerns. The turgid romance between Wayne and O’Hara simply doesn’t work. O’Hara’s character fluctuates too abruptly and Wayne is, well, just Wayne (truly this man was not the son of the Gawd of acting). O’Hara is much better as Esmeralda and her relationship with Quasimodo (Laughton) is much more moving in the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Fascinating. Marks anti-European rants are nothing new. But it is interesting to see him slowly morph into pb: his posts becoming more and more a matter of quantity over quality as the thread progresses.

Mark, can you tell me why before 9/11 the Bush administration itself was proudly stating how well they were dealing with Saddam Hussein, how they were so effective in denying him the ability to ever become a threat again etc? One way or the other, their story stinks. If they thought their post 9/11 stories were true, then it doesn't absolve the Bush administration as misleading the US public, it merely means that their old story line was untrue, rather than the one they adopted after 9/11.

No matter how willing you are to swallow what the administration feeds you before or after 9/11, it's impossible to hold both to have been true at the same time. It's a bit like what Thomas Paine said when explaining why he knew the bible to be rubbish: 'The best evidence against the bible, is the bible'. Similar for the Bush administration foreign policy.

Peter Klavier;
I don't recall the Bush Administration saying anything of the kind about stating how well it was dealing with Saddam Hussein. How could it have? If it did, why did it need to build up a huge force in the region to thraten Iraq? What it may have said was what little cooperation Iraq gave the UN inspectors was only due to the presence of that force and the threat it posed to Iraq. In fact it was Iraq's strategy to stall for time hoping that the presence of that force was unsustainable and that was the Bush Administration's fear as well. But even what little cooperation was given was too little too late. I recall that in the fall of 2002, Iraq gave the UN data on a much awaited CDROM computer disc about disposal of its WMD materials which the US government dismissed as old news merely repackaged and rehashed. I recall Iraq saying it had secretly destroyed much of its chemical weapons without any outside witnesses or any records and therefore had no evidence to present. Why should anyone have believed them? I recall the US wanting to take action in the autumn of 2002 but waited because Tony Blair wanted another UN resolution to cover his own domestic political backside. This gave Saddam Hussein plenty of time to hide WMDs if he had them before the invasion while Iraq's agents and apologists in Europe like George Galloway and his counterparts in Germany, France and elsewhere used their influence to try to block any UN Security Council resolutions which would have threatened any real consequences for Iraq. I recall Iraq had ignored 17 prior UN resolutions. I recall that based on those resolutions and Iraq's constant violations of the terms of the truce ending armed conflict in 1991, there was no need for any resolutions to resume the conflict. I see the same thing happening now with Iran as it tries buy time to acquire nuclear weapons. I also recall a piece mentioned only briefly in the news in early 2003 that large convoys of trucks were moving from Iraq to Syria as reported by Israeli intelligence. By March 2003, the time for talking was up, the continued perceived threat whether it was backed up with actual weapons or just a deliberately invented ruse was more than those responsible for America's security could stand. The support for the invasion of Iraq by Americans including Congress and the public based on a long history with Iraq and the available evidence was overwhelming.

If the US made a mistake, it was not bombing to dust the first building refused inspection to the UN when they requested it and a warning that the next time it refused, the war would be on again and wouldn't stop until Saddam Hussein's regime was removed. America only gets in trouble when it shows weakness and lack of resolve, exactly what Europeans almost always want it to do. That's reason enough not only not to listen to them but to do exactly the opposite of what it wants. Even without the facts, that's a safe bet that it will be the right thing to do...at least for America.

It seems to me that many Europeans and their governments still don't understand or accept the fact that they have NO control over what the United States does. This was true when America was a small weak remote nation. Do you know that one of the American goals in the war of 1812 only a few years after it won its independence from Britain was to capture Canada? Do you know that America's problems with France began just a few years after the American Revolution with the XYZ affair. Do you know that the 19th century saw enormous conflict between the US and Spain through its colony Mexico and that much of what is now the Western US was once part of Mexico? Do you know what the Monroe Doctrine was about? The Spanish American War was a long time in coming and finished off Spain having any pretense as a world power. Why should the US kowtow to Europe in an era when it is far stronger, larger, relatively wealthier, and more influential then it was over a century ago? Not only has Europe been reduced in importance in the American calculus of world geopolitics, Europe's perception by Americans as an ally in mutual national security has been shaken to its roots. Can anyone mention even one advantage America got from its relations with any European country after the American Revolution (yes we have heard interminably about how the French "did it for us" against the British endlessy.) If Europe has any value to the US, it is that it is much closer and will likely be attacked sooner and more easliy by those who pose a treat to world peace. At the moment, the major threat is Islamic extremism based in the middle east and in south central Asia but there are other possibilities. Europe is a buffer and attacks on it are a clear warning to America not to be complacent.

BTW, I don't think I have anything in common with the poster pb. If you can access the archives of this blog site, you will see that in the past, we have had very sharp differences of opinion on virtually every subject on which we expressed our views.

John,

Ok, I wrongly assumed that you were American because you live and work there and you make certain remarks, such as: “we should bring the troops home” etc. On the other hand, neither you nor your blog has a monopoly of libertarianism, and I would say from what I have read that, politically, Mark and you are not so far apart: you are both highly suspicious of the state, though you maniacally defend the agents of the American state in foreign policy, and ethically he is also clearly an egoist. On religion, certainly, there is a bigger gap, and here Mark is closer to my own position.

You seem obsessed with the concept of ‘proof’, whether political or religious. Haven't you heard of the more realistic concept of probability? Of course, no one can prove what was in Bush’s mind (according to the ‘European’ view, of course, it’s because his brain is missing). But there is evidence that the war against Iraq was planned for some time and that the motives for war were far from being altruistic.

DECEPTION ABOUT PLANS

You refer to the ‘idiots who believe Bush lied’ (the European image, of course, is that Bush is the idiot). But being an idiot and lying are not opposites: indeed they are common bedfellows. There is actually evidence that most of the Bush administration lied. I offer you the following 8 sources:

1. The Project for the New American Century, which included Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle etc., wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998 advocating a war with Iraq, claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States. Clinton rebuffed the advice. See the letter at:

2. The PNAC published a report in September 2000 recommending policies for preserving and expanding U.S. dominance in world affairs, including an aggressive policy for deposing Saddam Hussein. The report stated: "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein".

3. On 13th September 2001, during a meeting at Camp David with President Bush, Rumsfeld, and others in the Bush administration, Wolfowitz said he discussed with Bush the prospects of launching an attack against Iraq, for no apparent reason other than a ‘gut feeling’ that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and there was a debate ‘about what place if any Iraq should have in a counter-terrorist strategy’.

4. Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to the book Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward.

5. Watch this item about Paul O’Neill, former Treasury Secretary, who says that war on Iraq was planned within weeks on Bush’s inauguration in January 2001.
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0

6. Look at this website:

which gives evidence of:
‱ Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
‱ Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
‱ The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
‱ The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war
‱ The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society

7. Jack Straw, then British Foreign Secretary, stated in the ‘Downing Street Memo’, 2002: “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran”.

8. Hans Blix stated in April 2003: “The invasion of Iraq was planned a long time in advance, and the United States and Britain are not primarily concerned with finding any banned weapons of mass destruction”.

All the evidence points to the conclusion that Hans Blix’s judgment (8) is sound.

MOTIVES FOR WAR

Five of the main stated motives for invasion were:
1. Iraq had WMD (there were none).
2. Saddam’s regime was a threat (it wasn’t: it was a clapped-out dictatorship).
3. Saddam’s regime had links with Al Qaida (Saddam was an ‘infidel’ to Al Qaida).
4. To free the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictatorship.
5. To spread democracy in the Middle East.

I don’t believe that motives 1-3 had any relevance, though the American public were told otherwise.
Motives 4 and 5 were possibly present, and certainly the Bush administration convinced themselves of them, in a process of self-deception. They are laudable aims but, you see, John and Mark, we can only use past experience as a guide in these matters. The USA has bombarded more than 26 countries since WW2 (China, Korea, Guatemala (three times), Indonesia, Cuba, Congo, Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia) and intervened militarily in many more. The motive has consistently been seen by the people of these countries as self-interest and nothing whatsoever to do with democracy or human rights. if they were wrong, then you have a lot of convincing to do, and you won't do it by hurling abuse at your critics.

The same applies to Iraq 2.
The real motives were primarily:
1. To reaffirm American power in the new century
2. To gain control of the world’s second largest oil reserves.
In other words, power and greed were paramount. To dress these baser motives up in moral altruism is an established tradition of American foreign policy and clearly explains why it has such a bad image throughout the world.

Mark,

you say that Europeans opposed the invasion because they wanted America to be attacked. But there was no such threat from Iraq. You say: “They hate America because they know that no matter how many faults they can find in it, it is a far better place than they have”. I don’t think that Europeans hate America, but I do think that you hate Europeans and almost anybody else in any other country that gets in America's bullying way.

In your latest posting (#12), which descends into an abusive and crazy rant, you have demonstrated yet again this hatred and anger towards the rest of the world. As predicted, when you are confronted with the facts, you say they don’t matter, and your attitude to the Iraqi people is contemptible. It tends to substantiate the view that America (not all the people but certainly many of them, and certainly its government) is the Arnold Schwarzenegger of international politics, obtrusive, intimidating and destructive (the PNAC have even referred to ‘creative destruction’).

BTW: The Quiet Man is an overlong collection of clichĂ©s about Ireland: the town where everyone staggers around in a stupor, the thatched cottages, the pigs in the parlour, the horses and carts, the drunken stage Irishman, the fiesty colleen, the blarney in the bar, the husband who drags his wife by the hair across a field or throws her onto the bed, the peculiar brand of Irish logic (“Do you see that road over there? Well, don't take that, it'll do you no good"). The only thing missing is leprechauns, except that Barry Fitzgerald is definitely dressed to look like one.

Ford described it as the ‘sexiest picture ever made’, which probably explains why he should have stuck to westerns. The turgid romance between Wayne and O’Hara simply doesn’t work. O’Hara’s character fluctuates too abruptly and Wayne is, well, just Wayne (truly this man was not the son of the Gawd of acting). O’Hara is much better as Esmeralda and her relationship with Quasimodo (Laughton) is much more moving in the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Hello Mark,

Thanks for your response. You wrote

"I don't recall the Bush Administration saying anything of the kind about stating how well it was dealing with Saddam Hussein. How could it have? If it did, why did it need to build up a huge force in the region to thraten Iraq?"

Take it straight from the horses mouth on how the Bush government was well satisfied they were keeping Saddam Hussein from obtaining WMDs before 9/11. Like what Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice said in various interviews. I could only find a small bit of it during a very quick YouTube search, but here is a token of what I meant:

Let's go through the rest of that paragraph then where you explain why you thought Saddam Hussein was such a threat.

"What it may have said was what little cooperation Iraq gave the UN inspectors was only due to the presence of that force and the threat it posed to Iraq."

Lack of cooperation with weapons inspectors is no direct proof of WMDs or that his regime was becoming a military threat again. Let alone proof of your repeated assertions that he was preparing an attack on American soil.

"I recall that in the fall of 2002, Iraq gave the UN data on a much awaited CDROM computer disc about disposal of its WMD materials which the US government dismissed as old news merely repackaged and rehashed."

Outdated documentation on Iraqs WMD program is no proof of WMDs or that his regime was becoming a military threat again. Let alone proof of your repeated assertions that he was preparing an attack on American soil.

"I recall Iraq saying it had secretly destroyed much of its chemical weapons without any outside witnesses or any records and therefore had no evidence to present. Why should anyone have believed them?"

Unverifyable claims by the Iraqi regime are no direct proof of WMDs or that his regime was becoming a military threat again. Let alone proof of your repeated assertions that he was preparing an attack on American soil.

"I recall the US wanting to take action in the autumn of 2002 but waited because Tony Blair wanted another UN resolution to cover his own domestic political backside. This gave Saddam Hussein plenty of time to hide WMDs if he had them before the invasion"

Speculation that he had WMDs and hid them is no proof of WMDs or that his regime was becoming a military threat again. Let alone proof of your repeated assertions that he was preparing an attack on American soil.

"I recall Iraq had ignored 17 prior UN resolutions. I recall that based on those resolutions and Iraq's constant violations of the terms of the truce ending armed conflict in 1991, there was no need for any resolutions to resume the conflict."

Being in violation of UN resolutions regarding the truce in 1991 is no proof of WMDs or that his regime was becoming a military threat again. Let alone proof of your repeated assertions that he was preparing an attack on American soil.

"I also recall a piece mentioned only briefly in the news in early 2003 that large convoys of trucks were moving from Iraq to Syria as reported by Israeli intelligence."

If there was anything to that, the Bush administration would likely have saturated every form of media with it to exonerate themselves. You recalling a short piece of news that noone, even those desperate to justify their actions, ever bothered to follow up on, is no proof of WMDs or that his regime was becoming a military threat again. Let alone proof of your repeated assertions that he was preparing an attack on American soil.

"By March 2003, the time for talking was up, the continued perceived threat whether it was backed up with actual weapons or just a deliberately invented ruse was more than those responsible for America's security could stand."

Oh dear! Those responsible for America's security being the ones who created much of the ruse, they could not stand their own concoctions?

"The support for the invasion of Iraq by Americans including Congress and the public based on a long history with Iraq and the available evidence was overwhelming."

Given that you've produced so many statements and not one of them supports the claim of WMDs or Iraq being a military threat otherwise, then stating that the evidence is overwhelming seems a bit self-congratulatory. In that, you do have something in common with pb.

And another thing in common with his posts was your paragraph on how you see US history from shortly after independence: rather less relevant.
I know you have disagreed with pb many times in the past. And to be fair to you, your posts have at least something of build-up through structured paragraphs rather than pbs mostly separate and uncorrelated single sentences. But in terms of poor sources to support your story and writing lengthy posts of which only a small portion is relevant to what was being discussed, there is quite a bit of similarity.

greets,
Peter

Peter Klavier,
The statements in your video clip were from February and July of 2001 before the still in office at the time Director of the CIA George Tenet straightened the new administration out. Remember, George Bush only took office on January 20, 2001. What they said in those clips was what they believed to be true at the time they said it which is not the same as lying. This puts the lie to whomever was reporting this deliberately twisting facts to conform to their own political agenda. Was it ±«Óătv? It wouldn't surprise me. The narrator had a distinctly British twang in his voice to my ears.

"Lack of cooperation with weapons inspectors is no direct proof of WMDs or that his regime was becoming a military threat again. Let alone proof of your repeated assertions that he was preparing an attack on American soil."

Lack of cooperation may not be proof that he had WMDs but it is strong evidence that he had something big to hide. What was it and why was he hiding it. After all, had he cooperated fully, he could have brought about a quicker end to the sanctions and started up his WMD development program more quickly...unless it was already in progress. I wasn't the one who said Saddam Hussein was planning to attack the US on America soil, that was what was widely reported in the press to have been said by Vladimir Putin to President Bush based on what his own intelligence service told him.

You seem to be preoccupied with proof. What are you a lawyer? I don't need to prove anything to anyone and I am not going to research the internet to demonstrate that my memory is correct, it's only been a few years ago, not all that long when you recall what the mood here was like after my nation was attacked first by Arab terrorists and then by someone with anthrax just as I distinctly recall what happened around the time of the Cuban missile crisis over 45 years ago. See my posting above about Kennedy, I didn't need to research that either. You don't forget these things if you are aware of what is going on. (Nor do I need to prove to you that I have nothing in common with someone who posts under the moniker pb.) Issues of national security are not decided by iron clad proof of a threat, they are decided by weighing all of the evidence, the risks of various actions and inactions, the consensus of opinion about the available facts, and then the best course of action is taken whether it is proven to be right or wrong in the aftermath. This happens every single day in the White House, the threat assessment briefing is one of the first things on the President's agenda every morning. Congress also watches closely what is happening and congressional leaders of both parties are in direct contact with the White House constantly, especially when there is the perception of a serious threat to national security and required action may be imminent. The US government doesn't need to prove itself to anyone, it is only accountable to the American People and it will stay that way. Based on the fact that President Bush was re-elected AFTER the invasion, and fairly the second time I might add, it appears that the collective judgement of the voters was that the invasion was justified under the circumstances. People around the world can rant and rave about American policies all they want, they constantly do no matter what the US does or doesn't do anyway. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference to either the American government or its electorate and it never will. The US made that clear for over 40 years when it made no secret of the fact that it would sooner end all human life on earth in an atomic war than submit to the slavery of Communism. It certainly won't submit to the slavery of Euro-ism.

Hello Mark,

Thanks for replying again. You wrote

"The statements in your video clip were from February and July of 2001 before the still in office at the time Director of the CIA George Tenet straightened the new administration out. Remember, George Bush only took office on January 20, 2001. What they said in those clips was what they believed to be true at the time they said it which is not the same as lying."

Then there should be plenty to show why they changed their mind in the period between 'the old position' held in early 2001 and the new one, as e. g. held up in front of the UN by Powell. The aftermath of that episode suggests the original position was the correct one and that somebody snuck in a load of false information somewhere after Bush jr. had taken office. Putting the lie to those who broadcast that clip you said?

But debating these issues further would seem futile:

"The US made that clear for over 40 years when it made no secret of the fact that it would sooner end all human life on earth in an atomic war than submit to the slavery of Communism."

You seem to suggest there is no way in between wiping out all human life on earth or submitting to the slavery of communism. What a wonderfully broad view you have.

Peter