Saddam's Chemical Weapons

Status Report:

Saddam's Chemical Weapons :  Existed, sold to him by the US / European companies, covered up by Pentagon at the cost of their own soldier's health due to potential embarrassment.

My cynicism : Undiminished.

The Cowardice of Iraq Hawks

Gawker nails it :

Cowardice defined the public debate leading up to the Iraq War. How is it that millions upon millions of ordinary citizens around the world could plainly see that the case for war was a farce, yet our nation's most respected pundits, with their inside access, could not? Even then, you did not have to be a genius to see that Iraq's connection to 9/11 was tenuous at best. And you did not have to be an insider to know that a war would kill and maim and destroy the lives of millions of people. And you did not have to be a great philosopher to draw the conclusion that it was a bad idea. The fact that pundit class supported the war en masse is not evidence of some great and sophisticated trickery on the part of the White House. It is evidence of cowardice. Liberal politicians and thinkers—the very set of people who were supposed to form the opposition to such rash violent imperial crusades—talked themselves into supporting the war because it was popular. It is that simple. They allowed themselves to be taken for a ride, because that ride was more comfortable for them than facing the loud backlash of post 9/11 war machine, which had captured public support—with the help of the very pundits and journalists and politicians who were supposed to be providing the counterbalance to it.

Iraq Oil War

Everything you cynical people thought about the Iraq War was ... er ... right

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

You know, I was actually wrong on this. I thought that the UK government wasn't so influenced by the immediate oil angle as it was by a more general global realpolitick. Guess I was naive.

Whatever happened to Iraq?

Iraq. Remember them?

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

Proof

It's a bit old, but I'm quite impressed by this article by Johann Harri about the pro-war left.

(See also : Eustonism)

More good stuff from Jay Rosen

Worth reading Michael Moore on liberal complicity in the Iraq War.

BBC :

Mr Davis said it appeared the Bush administration had "threatened" the UK government about the repercussions should details of the case be made public.

"Frankly it is none of their business what our courts do," he said, adding this was "plain fact" not merely an allegation.

"They should not seek in any circumstances to put pressure on British courts. That's completely beyond the rule of law."

What kind of excuse is this for someone handing out legal advice?

Lord Goldsmith said his critic was "entitled to his own legal perspective".

"But at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully," he said.

It either *was* legal or it wasn't. But "everyone else was doing it too" is wholly irrelevant!

Update : by coincidence, the Captcha for this blogpost is "fangs".

Now an optimistic counter to the Winer piece.

Executive Summary : the "surge" proved George Bush wasn't going to run away, so opponents backed down, then found that Americans were their best friends (compared to other sects and factions.)

Naomi Klein is good here.

What, really, this late in the day, can anyone say?

US justifications for Iraq war were built on evidence of an accused thief on the run from the Iraqi government? Who was distrusted by the senior CIA and UN inspectors. But the US government went ahead anyway, starting an unneccessary war which killed ... well let's remind ourselves again :








+ over 4000 US service personel at the alleged cost of 3 trillion dollars.

Oh yeah, but we all have "fatigue" from this kind of story. We all know that the Republican machine is corrupt, dishonest, cynical, hate-spewing, mass-murdering and yet somehow utterly incompetent at anything except fooling the American public into voting for it. Somehow people just keep on ignoring this.

John Robb and Nir Rosen debunk Bush's "surge".

While everyone's side-tracked on the new US election and recession, let's not forget this, shall we?

The real issue here is that there's going to be a huge temptation for people who went along with Bush, or were enthusiastic supporters, to try to brush this aside saying "oh well, we weren't to know then" and "this is all academic because now Bush is on his way out."

It's not fucking academic! The same system, the same propaganda machinery, the same values, the same hidden agendas, the same media owners who hyped this up, the same public ignorance that let so many people find these stories plausible ... all the same conditions are all still operant.

Won't get fooled again? Sure you will.

Could Iraq finally be recovering? Becoming a success?

This is what Bush should have been doing on 12th September, 2001.

UK's secret weapon in Iraq.

Huh? Why exactly are British troops concerned about people smuggling cars??

Hands up who's suspicious ...