The war in Iraq went exactly the way Wolfowitz wanted. He must be very pleased. Isreal is more secure. His own country, not so much.

Walt

If Clegg believes it was illegal, then when will his government start paying war reparations? If he doesn't pay reparations, then doesn't he actually not believe that it was illegal?

The British found themselves between a rock and a hard place regarding Iraq. They realized that the neocon enchanted Bush Administration was bent on war and the purpose of the American intelligence community was to explore and find a plausible rational for that war. The Brit’s, no slouches in the intelligence field understood the motives of Washington but felt obligated to continue to play the role of dog on a leash to the Americans thus following Churchill’s sage advice to never allow too much daylight to come between America and Britain. In today’s world, Great Britain is a middling European power with pretentions (an artifact of their extraordinary history) to play a role larger than their weight-class in world affairs. They also depend on their ‘special relationship’ (not so special to Americans who in their conceit pretty much disdain everyone except Israel) to give heft and influence to their policy goals. For too long the British-American relationship has been pretty much a one-way street leading to Washington that is not probably what Churchill had envisioned. It is probably long past time for the Brit’s to regain some independence and back of a bit on American led mad dashes into disaster and let the dinosaur struggle in the tar pit on its own for a while. The resulting American condescension couldn’t be any worse than it is now.

Regarding Iraq it is a shame that he Blair government did not tell Bush & Co. that they perfectly understood the mendacity of their Iraqi policy and could do it on their own. They should have said that British forces were available to cooperate with the Americans in counter-terror operations but state on state invasions were not on. During Vietnam the British government pretty much followed that policy. They knew (being much more worldly) that the American war in Vietnam was unwise and that we were investing way too much into a game where the stakes were just not that high. Forty years after that war the British point of view is found to be correct and now we have excellent relations with unified Vietnam whose economy is robust and with a growing American trade presence.

JPWREL wrote:
Regarding Iraq it is a shame that he Blair government did not tell Bush & Co. that they perfectly understood the mendacity of their Iraqi policy and could do it on their own

That wouldn't have happened because Bush and Blair had the same view about Iraq. Both felt that Saddam was a nagging threat since the Gulf War and when 9/11 happened that provided them the opportunity to take care of that unfinished business. Basically both leaders ultimately went with what they knew and were familiar with, Iraq, then with what they weren't, Al Qaeda. As soon as Afghanistan had been invaded both Bush and Blair put all their emphasis upon getting rid of Saddam. Blair was a willing partner despite what his advisers and intelligence services were telling him.

"Funny that just seven years after the invasion, the British and American governments both basically feel this way -- but I bet the Iraqi government doesn't. "

Why would the Iraqi gov feel the war's illegal? *THEY* -- meaning the guys now in power, are the direct beneficiaries from a U.S. invasion. The decks are now re-shuffled, in their favor.

@NYGDAN, the previous government, one which Clegg had not been a decision maker, made a mistake. That's what Clegg is saying. But it's clearly his personal opinion as JPWREL succinctly put it.

I think it's fair to say that without Blair and Powell seeming to vouch for the false Vulcan case for war, I would have been writing my congressional delegation urging great caution in 2002. As it was, I had to assume the wise men knew more than I did, and rely on Blair and Powell's reputations as honorable and intelligent public servants.

If all that is required for evil to prevail is that good men stand by and do nothing, Powell, Blair and the Democrats who stood in line to declare Saddam's Iraq to be a greater danger than the architects of 9/11 did a lot worse than stand by.

I did stand by and hope that it was a grand bluff, that our military would succeed in it's primary mission of making war unnecessary. If GWB had taken Saddam's (reported) offer, met his price to carry his secrets into exile, Pres. Bush would be the winner of a Nobel today, and Rumsfeld a respected senior statesman who had outlived his 1984 handshake with the devil we knew. Albeit possessed of their same character.

and if it is done by an honest and competent scholar it will be seized and hidden - protected from exposure by the 800k plus Knights of the TS/SCI order feasting upon the latest treasury investment and heritage depleting bubble.

Coming from a British government led by Conservatives, this should be profoundly revealing to American Republican Party. Now will the Senate Republicans join British Conservatives in denouncing Bush’s Iraq war as total waste of US taxpayers’ money?

It's a pity Eliza Manningham-Buller wasn't head of MI6 rather than MI5, since it was the top guys in the foreign intelligence service who were key to selling the Iraq WMD - most obviously MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove. Luckily for Dearlove his hearing at the Iraq inquiry was in private - he was up to his ears in the WMD fiasco as much as Blair and is now active in the Henry Jackson Society, the home of neocons within the British establishment.

Even though Mannigham-Buller knew that the intelligence about Saddam was nonsense she still went along with the war - if she'd had taken a stand and resigned she might have derailed Britain's involvement in this debacle. Instead she joins the ranks of those who knew better but for whatever reason held their tongues like Colin Powell and Jack Straw.

I know that's a popular claim but if you go through the 2 Senate intelligence reports and the Robb-Silberman report you'll see that they exaggerated a bunch about Iraq-Al Qaeda connections and implied ties, but when it came WMD they pretty much said what the intelligence agencies were saying but without caveats.

In the Al Qaeda case there were a bunch of meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda but they never decided to work together. The administration turned that into saying that the two had long standing ties. There was a captured Al Qaeda commander Libi who was tortured and ended up lying by saying that 2-3 Al Qaeda members got sent to Iraq for WMD training, so that was used as well. Libi didn't recant his story until after the invasion. Then you had that intelligence unit working out of Feith's office who said the two were actually working together. They implied that Iraq was involved in 9/11 as well and let that sit with the public. In fact, I think Bush and definitely Wolfowitz really believed that part.

When it came to WMD however U.S. intelligence and the Bush White House were hand in hand. The State Dept. for example was the only group in the government that didn't think Iraq was expanding its nuclear weapons program. There were debates about the aluminum tubes, but everyone else said not only was Iraq working to get a bomb, but that the work was growing. Same thing with the WMD. U.S. intelligence assumed that when U.N. inspectors left Iraq went right back to working on them, and this just grew and grew based upon a lot of shoddy evidence but it was a firm belief in the intelligence community that Iraq's WMD program was active and larger than before the Gulf War. Intelligence might've been lying to themselves because they were so biased about Iraq and its weapons programs based upon Saddam's treatment of the U.N. inspectors after the Gulf War, but it's what they firmly believed, so there was plenty of ammo for the Bush White House to use there.

If you're talking about the White Paper and the NIE on Iraq that said "we therefore conclude" Iraq has WMD, those were written by the intelligence agencies not the White House. There was very, VERY little dissent within the U.S. intelligence community about Iraq having WMD and that it was working on its nuclear program.

The Niger story was never considered major evidence by the intelligence community of proof that Iraq was working on its nuclear program. It got included in Bush's state of the union speech because the White House heard the British talking about it, and wanted to include it itself. Remember that Tenet had it removed from two previous speeches. To the CIA, DIA, etc. there were the aluminum tubes, construction at nuclear facilities, press reports of Saddam meeting with nuclear scientists, etc. that were held up by them as major evidence.

Tom, 8/23/03 statement by Cheney is after the invasion and nothing was being found and he's trying to stick up for the White House's claims like others in the administration did. If I'm not correct, the CIA didn't even give up their claims about Iraq having WMD until much later.

"-The USAF dissented on the UAV's"

One dissent. Was not an important claim against Iraq to begin with.

"-CIA dissented on the Iraq-AQ connection, and on Chalabi's reliability"

I already said that in an earlier post

"-Oak Ridge dissented on the 4" rocket tubes, as unsuitable for centrifuges"

Didn't matter, the consensus opinion was that they were for centrifuges. The Dept. of Energy was the only dissenting voice on that matter, everyone else believed the tubes were for centrifuges. The Oct. 02 NIE said that the tubes were the main evidence that they had for Iraq rebuilding its nuclear program.

"-Everyone who actually looked dissented on Niger uranium, except possibly the Brits, who've never given their source."

The Niger story was ambiguous to U.S. intelligence. As I said before it was included because the White House saw it in the British dossier. Tenet had it removed twice, but it got into the State of Union finally. Was not a major story to U.S. intelligence.

"-The Germans dissented on their source Curveball and his biowar trailers as fabrications. (The trailer drawings Powell used were mocked up by CIA 'artists'; CIA never interviewed Curveball.)"

Didn't matter. The CIA point man on CURVEBALL believed everything he said and kept on arguing for his case after the U.S. invasion even.

Look U.S. intelligence had their head so far up their own asses on Iraq and its WMD programs its hard to believe. But they believed all those claims and wrote report after report about them. There was plenty for the administration to pull on for their case for war, and they were not interested in any of the caveats or dissenting opinions.

Some examples:

- Feb 99 Iraq: WMD and Delivery Capabilities After Operation Desert Fox said that Iraq probably had personnel and equipment to continue work on WMD, that it still had biological weapons (BW) that could be used

- Aug. 99 NIE Worldwide BW program: Trends and Prospects said that Iraq’s BW program had continued after Golf War and that it had restarted since inspectors left

- NIE was updated in Dec. 2000 saying that Iraq’s BW threat was greater than before

- Key judgment of Dec. 2000 NIE said that new information suggests that Iraq has continued working on its BW and expanded it by setting up secret production capability (mobile labs)

- Dec. 2000 National Security Council also asked intelligence community to come up with a report on Iraq’s WMD. Said that Iraq had rebuilt its facilities after Operation Desert Fox and expanded its infrastructure. Said couldn’t confirm whether Iraq had produced any BW but there was a single source
that said that Iraq had done so on a large scale and set up clandestine production capability (mobile labs). Believed Iraq still had a stockpile of WMD and munitions. Worried that mobile labs could produce several hundred tons of BW each year. Said Iraq was working at a Castor oil plant that could be used to make ricin. New construction at dual use facilities but couldn’t determine what facility was being used for. Had multiple sources that said Iraq was expanding its R&D into BW. Had reports that Iraq was trying to buy dual use equipment

- March 01 The BW Threat to the Global and US Agricultural Sectors and Dec. 01 Smallpox? How Extensive a Threat? Both said that they thought Iraq had smallpox

Those are just some of the reports about Iraq's WMD and notice that they are from 1999 to 2001 and they're all saying the same thing about Iraq working on its WMD and expanding its program.

I realize that most Americans are misled by government propaganda rags like the Wash Post and NY Times that they can't keep facts straight. Even most "experts" haven't a clue as to why we invaded. Here is a great, short overview:

http://212.113.124.22/en/analysis/view/15753/

For example, disbanding the Iraqi army wasn't a mistake, it was necessary to eliminate a future threat to the permanent American colonial occupation army. And this part should clear minds warped by the decade's most successful lie: "We were fooled by WMDs."
----------------------------------------

"Invading Iraq had nothing to do with “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs). One of President Bush's more outrageous lies is that he did not deceive the American people to justify the invasion of Iraq. "We were fooled by bad intelligence" is the excuse accepted by most Americans. They cannot recall that in 2003, as U.S. forces prepared to invade Iraq, President Bush demanded that Saddam Hussein permit UN inspectors "free and unfettered access" to search Iraq for WMDs. Saddam Hussein surprised everyone by agreeing, and UN inspectors were allowed to roam Iraq at will and check all the locations that Colin Powell had recently told the UN Assembly were actively producing illegal weapons.

After several weeks, the dozens of UN inspector teams had found nothing, and the dirty, rusty conditions of the suspect sites showed nothing had been made there for years. The Bush administration insisted they had other proof that WMDs were in Iraq. Chief UN inspector Hans Blix publicly stated that if they would send him a clue, he would have UN teams inspect the next day. Iraq even proposed that U.S. military officers join the UN inspectors. As a result, President Bush had perfect intelligence that Iraq had no WMDs. The US military had complete freedom to fly anywhere in Iraq to observe activity. UN inspectors were on the ground to check any suspect site, and were permitted to stay in Iraq as long as they liked to pursue new leads.

This confirmed what General Hussein Kamel, Iraq's weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995, told UN inspectors and the CIA, that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles.[10] Kamel's defection presented a major problem for those seeking to overthrow the Iraqi government. UN sanctions imposed as part of the 1990 conflict with Kuwait remained in force. By 1998, most UN members wanted sanctions removed since UN inspectors had found no WMDs since 1995. Kamel's revelations justified their removal, but were kept secret while proposals to lift sanctions were blocked by the United States.

Kamel was a threat, yet the solution was simple since he was in Jordan under the control of the CIA. It was announced that Kamel somehow slipped away and returned to Iraq under the bizarre delusion that he wouldn't be harmed. It was no surprise that Kamel was quickly executed, and no surprise that the Western media accepted this absurd tale as fact. It seems obvious that Kamel was forcibly sent back to Iraq, while the detailed information he provided was shelved. This secret was leaked to Newsweek in 2003 just prior to the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in a small story that was ignored by the rest of the corporate media.

========

Once again, there is a link to the whole story http://212.113.124.22/en/analysis/view/15753/
which people here should read before repeating more myths.

You guys are all doing a damn good job of establishing that the previous administration lied about the need to invade Iraq. That was the past and no one, or no group has been able to put together a package to indict the "evil doers" who caused so much blood and treasure loss to this country. Question I ask is: what do we do to prevent this from happening again? The only answer that I can plausibly consider is nothing. The Mexican and the Spanish American Wars are but 2 examples that Americans learn nothing from their own history. Are there any constitutional changes to be made? Or, are we beyond that now with so many sustained military adventures committed at the direction of the Executive without a Declaration of War, since December 8, 1941.

It's amazing to see all the Monday morning quarterbacking from the fair weather fans. Fact is, at the time when all this was being discussed, a majority of the American people were in favor of invading Iraq, with a sizable chunk of those people being spoon fed their opinion. In other words, they failed to think for themselves so someone else (Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc) did the thinking for them. Now, of course, all these people are highly irritated with the people that did their thinking for them and want to string em up. Ironically, the most strident protesters are those who fancy themselves the intellectual elite. I guess it would be a significant blow to someone's intellectual ego to realize they could have their opinions so easily swayed.

Meanwhile, none of you have yet come to the realization that it didn't matter if Saddam had WMD. He possessed, and had used, various WMD in the past. The case for invading ALWAYS rested on the supposed relationship with AQ, and the idea that Saddam would give AQ the WMD and AQ would use them on us. So, naturally, we must prevent this from happening by invading Iraq. Problem is, the case for a relationship was always very weak. It's hardly likely that Saddam would give away the family jewels to Muslim extremists who might turn around and use them against him. If you think there was a case for anything beyond a casual relationship, well, then you might be one of those people who let George Bush do the thinking instead of thinking for themselves.

I would pity you if your ignorance wasn't so dangerous.