The Continuing War Against the Occupation of Iraq

As the US moves forward with its post-war plans for Iraq, it appears increasingly like civil war, accompanied by the war to kick out US occupiers, is about to start. Hence this section will document that developing struggle. Notice, I don't use the term "liberation" as its not clear that increased freedom will result. After all, one possible outcome is an Islamic state. However, few in Iraq seem willing to accept US control for long... [NOTE: Material will continue to be added to other sections, especially the following section on the " Life in Occupied Iraq. I'm also adding to War News in Perspective and the special section Breaking News on the Missing WMDs and Other Lies as the lies promulgated during the war unravel and new facts become available. Not to mention Humor, Music, amd Opinions and Op-Ed Commentary of course! So check there as well.]

The BBC reports of an American convoy running over an 11 year old boy, and not even stopping. This in the Shia south. Next, the soldiers will ask, "Why are they shooting at us?" Death on the road to Basra (PUBLISHED June 27 and POSTED: June 29, 2003)

Patrick Cockburn sums up the occupation so far: We promised them peace but the killings and chaos spread (PUBLISHED June 29 and POSTED: June 28, 2003)

This account, from the Guardian (UK) describes how easily occupation can turn sour. It details the events that led to the deaths of six British soldiers this week. [Note how little attention is given to the five dead Iraqis.] Why were six Britons left to die in an Iraqi marketplace? (POSTED: 28, 2003)

Robert Fisk: How British troops became a soft target (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 27, 2003)

A US soldier leads arrested 17-year-old student Khaled Salim with his hands tied behind his back towards a waiting army truck in the southern Baghdad suburb of Dura. Salim was arrested on his way to school, as a warning to others after he insulted US troops. US soldiers carried out house-to-house searches in Dura, detaining two people and confiscating weapons.( AFP/Ramzi Haidar)

Pictures of US GIs searching and handcuffing Iraqi women in a few of their thousands of searches. Notice the young girl in pink, with her hands bound behind her back. Funny way to "liberate". I understand that the GIs later "apologized". How nice! So If This Was Your Daughter How Would You Feel ? (POSTED: June 25, 2003)

Lest there be any doubt, an article in Evening Standard (UK) details, in a way the US press won't, the mindset of US troops now fighting the guerrilla war in Iraq. Obviously, the number of civilian casualties will be increasing radically. 'I just pulled the trigger' (PUBLISHED: June 19 &POSTED: June 24, 2003)

He held out his hand as if firing a gun and clucked his tongue twice. He said: "Once you'd reached the objective, and once you'd shot them and you're moving through, anything there, you shoot again. You didn't want any prisoners of war. You hate them so bad while you're fighting, and you're so terrified, you can't really convey the feeling, but you don't want them to live...."

Specialist Castillo said: "We're more angry at the generals who are making these decisions and who never hit the ground, and who don't get shot at or have to look at the bloody bodies and the burnt-out bodies, and the dead babies and all that kinda stuff."

Not all troops have become so heartless. Sgt. David J. Borell was approached by a family whose three young children had been severely burned by a bag of explosives. He tried to get US doctors to treat them, but was refused. [Here is an AP photo of Sgt. Borell being comforted afterwards.] Soldier: U.S. Army Turns Away Burned Children In Need Of Help (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 24, 2003)

“Right before they left [the American doctors], I looked at the one doctor, asked him if he could at least give them comfort care,” said Borell. “He told me they were not here to be the treatment center for Iraq. He didn't show any compassion,” the sergeant added.

Borell said he felt betrayed by the Army, which he joined after high school. Besides the letter to his wife, he also wrote to his congresswoman and several media outlets describing the incident.... His superiors have not said a word, said Borell, “although I get the impression that they're probably not very happy” .... Borell's wife gave him a silver bracelet that says: “Duty, Honor, Country.” He wears it to remind him why he's in Iraq.... “After today,” Borell said, “I wonder if I'll still be able to carry the title ‘soldier' with any pride at all.”

The campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis continues, using the best American "can do": U.S. Hunt for Baath Members Humiliates, Angers Villagers: Deaths of Teenager and Two Others Spark Talk of Revenge (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 15, 2003)

With grief over the death of Hashim and two others, the Sunni Muslim population here speaks of revenge.... "I think the future's going to be very dark," said Rahim Hamid Hammoud, 56, a soft-spoken judge, as he joined a long line in paying his respects to Hashim this week. "We're seeing each day become worse than the last."

When soldiers entered his house after midnight, they put him on the ground, a boot on his back, and tied his hands with plastic handcuffs, he recalled. Tape was placed over his mouth and he was blindfolded. When he could see again, 12 hours later, he was at Abu Hleij, the airport.

Many residents said they felt humiliated. Mohammed slept outside on a graded spot near a bombed aircraft hangar, smashing two scorpions near his head. U.S. soldiers tossed military meals and bottles of water to the crowd. "They treated us like monkeys -- who's the first one who can jump up and catch the food," said Mohammed, who was captured by Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and kept as a prisoner for 11 years.

Resentment is still coursing through the village over the use of the informer. The fabric of Thuluya is stitched by tribal lineages. The Jabbour is the largest tribe but others are represented: the Khazraji, Ubaidi, Bujweri and Bufarraj. The informer, dressed in desert camouflage with a bag over his head, fingered prisoners on the first day of the operation.... Nearly all seemed to know the man's identity. ... They feared vendettas would ensue, that chaos would follow as tribes sought their own justice.

Vietnam Redux: Tom Engelhardt makes many of the obvious parallels between the Iraq situation and the Vietnam debacle. Pretty soon, lets hope, we'll have the post-post-post-Vietnam syndrome to deter future aggressions by the US. The war that comes to mind (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 15, 2003)

In order to get insight into the war raging in Iraq, it is necessary to read multiple acccounts and look for commonalities. For example, most accounts contain Iraqi civilian accounts of US atrocities and a denial that Baathists are at the center of the resistance. At a minimum, these accounts make it clear that a large number of Iraqis in areas under attack view the Americans as brutal occupiers, not "liberators". As this ttitude becomes widespread, it puts the lie to any shred of plausibility that the US are actually anything but colonial occupiers. One cannot be liberators of a people who detest you and wish only that you leave, or worse. The Islam Online account of American attrocities in Norhern Iraq: U.S. Forces "Slaughter" Iraqis At Dawn: Eyewitness (PUBLISHED June 14) Also Islam Online has the first account of meeting Iraqi resistance fighters: IOL Unveils Threads Of Iraqi Resistance (PUBLISHED June 12) And a New York Times account of the fighting, with many of the same points: As U.S. Fans Out in Iraq, Violence and Death on Rise (PUBLISHED June 14). And a June 12 interview of Robert Fisk on Democracy Now, discussing Fisk's understanding of the fledgling Iraqi resistance Robert Fisk Reports from Occupied Territory (POSTED:June 14, 2003)

I think what we're actually seeing, you can get clues in Iraq, is a cross fertilization. Shiites who are disillusioned, who don't believe they have been liberated, who spent so long in Iran, they don't like the Americans anyway. Sunni Muslims who feel like they're threatened by the Shiites, former Sadaam acolytes who've lost their jobs and found that their money has stopped. Kurds who are disaffected and are beginning to have contacts, and that of course is the beginning of a real resistance movement and that's the great danger for the Americans now.

The New York Times reports on the latest counterinsurgency efforts, whereby the American troops treat the entire population as the enemy and thereby guarantee that that's what they'll become. Of course, all those fighting the US are Baathists, or Sadam loyalists (some may be, of course). No one else would resent their country being invaded, occupied, and stolen by a foreign power, would they? 4,000 G.I.'s Circle a Hussein Bastion to Foil Attacks (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 12, 2003)

Conversations with soldiers in the area, where the Tigris creates an island of green in a bleak brown desert, suggested that the level of attacks north of Baghdad had been intense. Soldiers said convoys were routinely fired on in the area at night, with bullets striking the first and last vehicles and rocket propelled grenades whizzing over gunners' heads and between jeeps....

(R)esidents complained today that American soldiers broke windows during searches, handcuffed women and children and roughed-up detained men. Relatives of Jassem Rumyad, 52, accused American soldiers of preventing them from giving medication to him before he collapsed and died of a heart attack. Hella Khalif, Mr. Rumyad's 80-year-old mother, said American soldiers handcuffed and gagged her when she and Mr. Rumyad's wife and daughter shouted that he needed his heart medication. "They put tape over my mouth," she said. American officials said the account was false and that they allowed the women to give Mr. Rumyad his medication before he suddenly died.

Robert Fisk gives a detailed and sobering account of what happens when you send young American troops to invade a country they don't understand. As guerilla war heats up, its important to realize the inevitability of turning the populace against the Americans, as some of the scared kids, in fear of who or what is around the corner, treat them roughly. Bloodshed, Fear And a Deadly Ambush: Killings At Fallujah (PUBLISHED June 06 and POSTED:June 11, 2003)

Even the Pentagon admits that the post-war effortsen't going so well. They also admit that they fighting isn't over. trouble is due to ''organized and disorganized resistance, much of which is quite professional.'' Of course, the resistance is all due to "''die-hard'' Baathists, terrorists, common criminals, disgruntled former Republic Guard commandos and foreign fighters who entered Iraq during the war and are now acting like ''guest worker jihadists,'' or holy warriors." No problems from Iraqis who don't like their country invaded and dominated by foreigners, of course! Pentagon official says Iraq stabilization proves `tougher and more complex' than expected (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 10, 2003)

The US sends in troops to crush the "Sadam loyalists", but the people of Falluja resist: Police station torn down in defiant Falluja: After the war US presence comes under fierce attack (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 7, 2003)

Another in a week of protests against the "Coalition of the Occupiers": Iraqis Protest U.S. Presence, Women Body Searches (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 3, 2003)

"We advise you to leave our country or you will make enemies out of us," said Shi'ite cleric Muaaed al-Khazraji in a speech through a loudhailer. "Please go home and we will be very grateful because you got rid of Saddam."

Anti-American action picked up steam this week: (from the LA Times) Riot Chases Troops Out of Iraqi Town: 'They were terrifying the women and children,' one protester says after U.S. soldiers search homes for weapons. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 29, 2003)

Four separate attacks in one day. It looks like the war to eject the Americans may be beginning. And the next morning, two more attacks: Iraq Firefight Leaves 4 Dead, 9 Injured (PUBLISHED May 27 and POSTED: May 26 and 27, 2003)

It appears that a Shia cleric in Baghdad has taken major steps toward the Islamization of the city. Does the US fight him and his ilk, or acceded? 'Iron hand' cleric issues fatwa amid Baghdad chaos (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 21, 2003)

Hassan Fattah in the New Republic reports that the various Iraqi factions are arming for civil war: Beirut Redux. "Iraq's nascent political groups are forming armed militias and storing weapons as they prepare for a potential civil war for control of the country.... The rise of organized armed factions could turn Iraq's capital into a twenty-first-century version of 1980s Beirut." (PUBLISHED May 15 and POSTED: May 17, 2003)

What better way to begin this section than Robert Fisk's So he thinks it’s all over... (PUBLISHED May 5 and POSTED: May 6, 2003)

Life in Occupied Iraq

Iraq will be under US occupation for years, if not decades to come. There will be some positive developments. And there will be the constant humiliations of an occupied people, treated as inferior to the occupiers. Its essential that the world have some insights into the realities of life there, so that when Iraq bursts back onto the front pages when its people resist the ocupation [See: The War Against the Occupation of Iraq], the world will understand "Why? Why do they hate us? How can they be so ungrateful?"

The colonial rulers of Iraq have decided to privatize its economy, no doubt to be sold to Us corporations. The opinions of the "liberated" Iraqis in this, as in most other matters, are irrelevant. And now for the really big guns: War is one thing, but can Iraq survive full-on assault by Wall Street? (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 29, 2003)

Yet other invasions are planned for Iraq over the coming months - in the shape of oil concessions, health privatisation plans and even mobile phone licences.

'We have a responsibility, a stewardship,' Perle told a forum of the American Enterprise Institute, 'not to turn [Iraq] over to institutions incapable of seeing this through to a successful conclusion ... the last thing the Iraqis need is French statism or German labour practices.'

The US seems to be dropping any pretense of supporting Iraqi "democracy": Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq [From: the Washington Post] (PUBLISHED June 28 and POSTED: June 29, 2003)

Ten weeks into the occupation, the cities and towns outside of Baghdad are largely administered by former Iraqi military and police officers and people who had close ties to the Baath Party. Iraqi generals and police colonels, for example, are now mayors of a dozen cities, including Samarra, Najaf, Tikrit, Balad and Baqubah....

"There will be no elections for the foreseeable future," said Sgt. Jeff Butler of the U.S. Army's 418th Civil Affairs Battalion from Kansas City, Mo., which is charged with running Samarra.

Patrick Cockburn describes the mood in Baghdad: Powerless Iraqis rail against ignorant, air-conditioned US occupation force (PUBLISHED June 22 and POSTED: June 21, 2003)

John W. Dower, historian of the American occupation of Japan after World War II, says that the correct analogy is with the Japanese occupation of Manchuria: The Other Japanese Occupation (POSTED: June 20, 2003)

An analysis, by Brian Dominick of the hypocrisy, and lack of humanity, of US (in this case New York Times) reporting of Iraq, concentrating on the experience of the GIs and ignoring that of their victims. Perhaps a bit unfair, but thought-provoking. Children Terrified (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June , 2003)

Where have we heard this before? Iraqis Voice Fear of Signing Away Their Identity: Civil employees must declare in writing to obey the orders of the U.S. administration. (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 19, 2003)

(T)he latest affront to many Iraqis is one sentence in one document. All citizens who work for the government are required to sign a document that states, "I will obey the laws of Iraq and all proclamations, orders and instructions of the Coalition Provisional Authority"....

"They are quite capable intellectually," said Lt. Col. P.J. Dermer, who is working with the civil administration to develop grass-roots democratic practices in Baghdad. "The assets are there. The mentality doesn't exist. They need us. They know it's up to us to walk them through this."

Many Iraqis don't see it that way.

Ah, Freedom! How wonderful! How fleeting! In volatile Iraq, US curbs press (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 18, 2003)

Eleanor Robson,a council member of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, writes that the recent claims that Baghdad Museum staff had deliberately overstated losses to cover their theft are false. Not surprising, given the source is the US occupation army. Iraq's museums: what really happened: The truth behind the sacking of a cultural heritage is far less colourful than the allegations of corruption and cover-up (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 18, 2003)

Naomi Klein in The Nation puts the destruction being wrought upon the Iraqi economy in the context of the economic "shock therapy" delivered with devastating results to countries around the world, in order to create free markets controlled by US multinationals: Downsizing in Disguise (PUBLISHED June 23 and POSTED: June 6, 2003)

As the Bush Administration becomes increasingly open about its plans to privatize Iraq's state industries and parts of the government, Bremer's de-Baathification takes on new meaning. Is he working only to get rid of Baath Party members, or is he also working to shrink the public sector as a whole so that hospitals, schools and even the army are primed for privatization by US firms?...

Paul Bremer is, according to Bush, a "can-do" type of person. Indeed he is. In less than a month he has readied large swaths of state activity for corporate takeover, primed the Iraqi market for foreign importers to make a killing by eliminating much of the local competition and made sure there won't be any unpleasant Iraqi government interference--in fact, he's made sure there will be no Iraqi government at all while key economic decisions are made. Bremer is Iraq's one-man IMF.

A detailed account, by Human Rights Watch of life under British occupation: BASRA: CRIME AND INSECURITY UNDER BRITISH OCCUPATION (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 4, 2003)

Robert Fisk imagines George Bush on a true fact-finding mission to "liberated" devastated Iraq: ... And The Truth The Victors Refuse To See (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 3, 2003)

Whatever remains of Iraq's economy is being systematically destroyed by the colonial masters pretending to be free-marketers who've taken over, as the New York Times reports Meanwhile, After Years of Stagnation, Iraqi Industries Are Falling to a Wave of Imports Having presided over the destruction of Iraq, the US now wants to pawn its future, to American Companies of course, to pay for the rebuilding. So much for all the promises to help rebuild Iraq made before the war. The Bush administration seems determined to prove wrong all those sceptics who claimed that the Iraq war wasn't classical colonialism: Future oil sales may be pawned to banks (POSTED: June 1, 2003)

As time drags on, the situation of the Iraqi populace become more dire: Behind the victory, a power struggle that drains life from a weary people: The untold stories of how no electricity means no water, which means disease (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 29, 2003)

It seems that US troops in Iraq are acting as if they are the LAPD: US gunfire kills three teens at wedding (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 30 2003)

Following the shooting, the doctor said, several US soldiers with rifles walked into the hospital, seeking the names of those who had been wounded. The sight of armed soldiers, so soon after the shooting, so frightened people in the hospital that some of them fled.

Dr Rahman said: "I was very surprised. I was very afraid." What added to the tension, he said, was that the soldiers seemed "very irritable".

Another day, another scandal. The Pentagon has given a contract to build a (useless) cellphone network in Iraq to one of the largest corpoate criminals in histor: MCI/WorldCom: Another Scandalous No-Bid Contract Makes Us Look Like Fools No doubt, Enron's next. See. also WorldCom's Iraq deal assailed: Critics wonder why MCI got contract after fraud scandal (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 26, 2003)

This item isn't even Humor, which is good because it isn't funny: Bush, Blair Nominated for Nobel Prize for Iraq War (PUBLISHED May 8 and POSTED: May 27, 2003)

So far, things in Iraq are not getting better for the populace. The guardian (UK) makes it clear that the brilliant Pentagon strtegists bear a good share of the blaim: Gun gangs rule streets as US loses control: Ed Vulliamy in Baghdad reports on aid agencies' struggle to save Iraq from looters, disease and poverty (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 25, 2003)

Since the war, say workers for several aid organisations, the Pentagon's administration has systematically hindered the reconstruction and the distribution of medicines and other supplies....

The US is 'in breach of its obligations under the Geneva Convention,' says Alex Renton, spokesman in Iraq for Oxfam, in failing to prevent the looting, particularly of medical supplies. 'The question of security is fundamental,' says Renton, 'as is the problem of looting. We did actually manage to repair the water system in Nasiriyah, only to see it looted a couple of days later.' 'The Americans say now they could not have foreseen the problem of looting medical supplies,' says MSF's medical co-ordinator, An Willems. 'But we had been telling them about this risk since just after the war....'

Meanwhile, US tanks grind through the streets of Hilla, and the children still wave cheerily. The tank commanders duly wave back, but do not understand what is being shouted at them from behind those mischievous, smiling young faces: 'My father is with your sister!' Or: 'While you are in Iraq, your wife is becoming a rich woman in bed!'

The Observer (UK) reports "The United States is illegally holding thousands of Iraqi prisoners of war and other captives without access to human rights officials" and that the mistreatment, akin to torture, perfected in Afganastan and Guantanomo, is being practiced on them: Red Cross denied access to PoWs: Up to 3,000 Iraqis - some of them civilians - believed to be gagged, bound, hooded and beaten at US camps close to Baghdad airport (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 25, 2003)

Not surprisingly, the thousands of Arabs being forced out of Northern Iraq by the Kurds are not keen on "liberation": Victims of the peace decide Americans are worse than Saddam (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 23, 2003 )

Patrick Cockburn sums up the situation so far: The Real Quagmire is the Aftermath:Everywhere There are Signs of Breakdown "The US seems to have fought the war essentially because it wanted a war." (PUBLISHED May 21 and POSTED: May 22, 2003)

Laurie King-Irani a social anthropologist, founder of Electronic Iraq, and former editor of Middle East Report discusses the meaning of democracy within Iraqi culture: How do you spell democracy in Arabic? D-i-g-n-i-t-y (PUBLISHED May 19 and POSTED: May 20, 2003)

US uses Heavy Metal to torture Iraqi prisoners: Sesame Street breaks Iraqi POWs (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 20, 2003)

A harrowing account of the new Iraq: For Iraq's children, a new war has begun (PUBLISHED May 18 and POSTED: May 19, 2003)

Not to be outdone by Iraqi looters, US Troops 'vandalise' ancient city of Ur (PUBLISHED May 18 and POSTED: May 19, 2003)

The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research has published an extensive and meticulously documented account of the US foreign policy leaders and current occupation government of Iraq. An indispensible resource: Do you want to know who the Americans running Iraq really are? Also available (in one long web page, rather than several separate ones) from Information Clearing House(PUBLISHED May 14 and POSTED: May 18, 2003)

Now its official policy. "Liberation" means "liberating' unfortunate Iraqis from their life. Not surprising when you appoint a counterterrorism expert and partner of Henry Kissinger to run a country. New Policy in Iraq to Authorize G.I.'s to Shoot Looters " 'They are going to start shooting a few looters so that the word gets around' that assaults on property, the hijacking of automobiles and violent crimes will be dealt with using deadly force." (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 14, 2003) [NOTE: May 18, 2003: The US seems to have backed down on this, for the time being.]

More "liberation. The US wants censorship over Iraqi television news. New Iraqi TV Complains of US Censorship (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 14, 2003)

An analysis of US plans for "liberating" Iraq by occupying it: Kick Their Ass and Take Their Gas: Democracy Comes to Iraq (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 13, 2003)

Breaking News on the Missing WMDs and Other Lies

At last, the lies and deceit behind this imperial war are coming unraveled. Here's a small sample of recent insights and comments. Meanwhile, get prepared for the new US team to magically "find" some weapons (after they place them there). Of course, one good lie deserves another.. [Information unraveling lies about what occurred during the war will continue to be posted in Iraq War News in Perspective]

Bush lied to public about meeting in 2001 to prepare Iraq war, Bob Woodward reports in his new book: Bush told public that important Iraq meeting with war commander was about Afghanistan. (PUBLISHED April 17 and POSTED: April 18, 2004)

New Bob Woodward book confirms that Bush ordered an Iraq war plan soon after Sept. 11, on Nov. 21, 2001 to be precise, but adds the detail that he was so concerned about word getting out that he hid it from other members of his national security team. It also indicates the degree to which Bush relied on Cheney: Book Alleges Secret Iraq War Plan: AP Exclusive: Woodward Book Says Bush Secretly Ordered Iraq War Plan After U.S. Afghan Invasion. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: April 16, 2004)

[Bush, as quoted in book:] "I knew what would happen if people thought we were developing a potential war plan for Iraq," Bush is quoted as telling Woodward. "It was such a high-stakes moment and ... it would look like that I was anxious to go to war. And I'm not anxious to go to war."

The lies in Australia: Australian defence adviser 'sacked for refusing to sex up WMD reports'. And in Denmark: Whistleblower claims Danish premier lied. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: April 13 & amp; 14, 2004)

Over a year after Colin Powell presented his tissue of lies that independent sources, such as Hans Blix and len Rangwala [see: Claims in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s UN Presentation concerning Iraq, 5th Feb 2003] saw through immediately, Powell finally admits that one of his nuttier claims was false: Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake. See the generous analysis by Paul Reynolds of the BBC: Iraq: Mindset behind intelligence failures. Of course, the BBC doesn't entertain the possibility that Powell and gang were simply lying through their teeth. The Guardian reports that the US was well-warned that the claims were from an unreliable source: Germans accuse US over Iraq weapons claim. For humor's sake, take a look at: Full Text of Powell's original Speech to the UN. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: April 3, 2004)

Here is the text of former anti-terrorism official Richard Clarke's 60 Minutes Interview. For a detailed account of his claims about the Bush administration, go to: 9/11 hijackers could have been stopped, says ex-aide: In an interview with the Guardian a former White House insider insists, over administration denials, that Bush took his eye off al-Qaida . See also (from CNN): Clarke: 'White House is papering over facts'. And the Center for American Progress details the lies being told in rebuttal of Clarke's claims: White House Tailspin. See also many related documents on their web site. Also, check out the hatchet job by "never let truth be spoiled by administration lies" Judith Miller in that newspaper of disrepute, the New York Times: Former Terrorism Official Criticizes White House on 9/11. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: March 23, 2004)

Must Read! An incredible resource! Prepared in response to a request from Rep. Henry Waxman, the congressional Special Investigations Division of the Minority (Democratic) staff of the House Government Reform Committee prepared a detailed report: Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq (pdf) "a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice." Also available from them is a searchable database identifying "237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by these five officials in 125 public appearances in the time leading up to and after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq." See also the detailed Methodology. Very important in using the database is that "The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous." Further: "To be conservative, the Special Investigations Division excluded hundreds of statements by the five officials that many observers would consider misleading." To check their assessments, "The Special Investigations Division asked two leading independent experts to peer review this report for fairness and accuracy. These two independent experts are: Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Greg Thielmann, former acting director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. These experts judged that this report is a fair and accurate depiction of the Administration’s statements." (PUBLISHED and POSTED: March 17, 2004)

Last Sunday, March 14, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld directly lied on national tv (Face the Nation), and was caught doing so. He said no one in the administration had used phrases like "imminent threat" when describing Iraq and its alleged WMD. For the first time, he was confronted with explicit quotes from his prewar talks using those, or synonymous words. See Rumsfeld sputter sputter here. (POSTED: March 17, 2004)

Further lies and distortions revealed. Knight-Ridder reports that claims of a Saddam--al Qaida link were based on even worse intelligence than were the WMD claims. Further, as usual, major information that contradicted administration hype were withheld: Doubts Cast on Efforts to Link Saddam, al-Qaida. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: March 3, 2004)

Much of the evidence that's now available indicates that Iraq and al-Qaida had no close ties, despite repeated contacts between the two; that the terrorists who administration officials claimed were links between the two had no direct connection to either Saddam or bin Laden; and that a key meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the leaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks probably never happened.

A Knight Ridder review of the Bush administration statements on Iraq's ties to terrorism and what's now known about the classified intelligence has found that administration advocates of a pre-emptive invasion frequently hyped sketchy and sometimes false information to help make their case. On two occasions, they neglected to report information that painted a less sinister picture.

British government backs down rather than admit war deemed illegal: Spy case casts fresh doubt on war legality. See also and Short: 'There had clearly been some shenanigans going on'. Whistleblower: Cleared; Government: Accused of cover-up; Case for war: An official secret. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: February 26, 2004)

Hans Blix says US deliberately made up nonexistent "facts" and undermined the UN weapons inspectors: US 'created' weapons facts. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: February 24, 2004)

"Our inspectors had a fixed phraseology. If something was missing, then the official formulation was 'yet to be established'," Blix was quoted as saying by the German weekly Stern. "But the Americans and British persistently read 'exists'. So they created facts where there were no facts...."

"During a meeting at the White House at the end of October 2002, six months before the beginning of the war, Cheney told us he would not hesitate to discredit the inspections," Blix was quoted as saying.

Lies! A new book cites documents signed by Bush from 2002 laying out the Iraq war: Bush 'wanted war in 2002'. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: February 24, 2004)

"On February 16 2002, Bush signed a secret national security council directive establishing the goals and objectives for going to war with Iraq, according to classified documents I obtained," Mr Scarborough wrote.... The next month, he writes, the head of central command, General Tommy Franks, conducted a "major Iraq war exercise code-named "Prominent Hammer", and in April he briefed the joint chiefs of staff on the invasion plan.

Chalabi as much as admits lying in pre-war intelligence given to the US (and accepted uncritically by the US): Chalabi stands by faulty intelligence that toppled Saddam's regime. See also the analysis by Jim Lobe: Chalabi, Garner Provide New Clues to War. (PUBLISHED February 19 & 21 and POSTED: February 21, 2004)

[Chalabi stands...: Mr Chalabi ... shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled US intelligence. "We are heroes in error," he told the Telegraph in Baghdad. "As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants."

[Chalabi, Garner ...:] It appears that Chalabi, whose family, it was reported this week, has extensive interests in a company that has already been awarded more than 400 million dollars in reconstruction contracts, is signaling his willingness to take all of the blame, or credit, for the faulty intelligence.

Meanwhile, Retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner starts telling (part of) the truth about US motives: Former Iraq administrator sees decades-long U.S. military presence. See also the Jim Loeb analysis referred to above [Chalabi, Garner Provide New Clues to War]. (PUBLISHED February 6 and POSTED: February 21, 2004)

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the former interim administrator of post-conflict reconstruction efforts in Iraq, said Thursday that a U.S. military presence in Iraq should last "the next few decades," but questioned the mix of forces already there and current plans to reconfigure the armed forces as a whole.... Asked how long U.S. forces should remain in Iraq, Garner said, "I hope they're there a long time."

"I think one of the most important things we can do right now is start getting basing rights" in both northern and southern Iraq, Garner said, adding that such bases could provide large areas for military training. "I think we'd want to keep at least a brigade in the north, a self-sustaining brigade, which is larger than a regular brigade," he added.

Noting how establishing U.S. naval bases in the Philippines in the early 1900s allowed the United States to maintain a "great presence in the Pacific," Garner said, "To me that's what Iraq is for the next few decades. We ought to have something there ... that gives us great presence in the Middle East. I think that's going to be necessary."

Yet another pre-war US lie, to the UN weapons inspectors and to congress, revealed: C.I.A. Admits It Didn't Give Weapon Data to the U.N.. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: February 21, 2004)

The Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged that it did not provide the United Nations with information about 21 of the 105 sites in Iraq singled out by U.S. intelligence before the war as the most highly suspected of housing illicit weapons....

The contradiction is significant because Congressional opponents of the war were arguing a year ago that the United Nations inspectors should be given more time to complete their search before the United States and its allies began the invasion. The White House, bolstered by Mr. Tenet, insisted that it was fully cooperating with the inspectors, and at daily briefings the White House issued assurances that the administration was providing the inspectors with the best information possible....

The acknowledgment by the agency came after more than a year of questions from Senator Levin. He said he believed that the Bush administration had withheld the information because it wanted to persuade the American people that the United Nations-led hunt for weapons in Iraq had run its full course before the war.

Many American newspaper Editorials Question Bush's Role in 'Cooking' Up a War. (PUBLISHED January 28 and POSTED: January 29, 2004)

The long-term relations of David Kay's, the former US chief weapons hunter, to the CIA and other intelligence agencies, as well as to private companies profiting off the war have been ignored: David Kay and the CIA. Kay's credibility is further questioned by his earlier comments as an NBC expert analyst upon seeing the so-called mobile bio-weapons labs that turned out, according to Kay himself, to be nothing of the sort, cited in: No Mystery to Untangling WMD Puzzler. (POSTED: January 29, 2004)

Last May, before his appointment to head the U.S. weapons search, he was working as an expert analyst for NBC News and was given the chance to inspect one of the trailers firsthand. He immediately proclaimed them proof that Saddam Hussein had been producing biological weapons. "Literally, there's nothing else you would do this way on a mobile facility," Kay told the world. He also rejected the suggestion that the traile

The Hutton Report, exonerating Tony Blair stirs controversy: Demands grow for inquiry into the case for war as Hutton is accused of a 'whitewash' while Half Britons say Hutton was "whitewash". The british press isn't buying it: 'Blair without flaw - official!'. And Seumas Milne argues: The shadow of Iraq: The Hutton saga is a sideshow. The real issue is who will pay the price for war and occupation (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 29, 2004)

The NOP survey for the London Evening Standard said 49 percent agreed with the question "do you agree or disagree that the report was a whitewash". Four out of 10 of those questioned said they disagreed and 11 percent said they didn't know in a poll of 521 people conducted on Wednesday.

Greg Palast sees the Hutton Report as a sign of danger to independent reporting in general, and to the BBC in particular: BBC At War: M'Lord Hutton Blesses Blair's Attack on BBC's Investigation of Iraq War Claims. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 29, 2004)

New White House lies, this time about what they claimed before the war: US denies 'imminent' threat warning. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 28, 2004)

The Lord Hutton report into British WMD expert David Kelly exonerates Tony Blair and criticizes BBC: Hutton clears Blair Read the report (pdf). (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 28, 2004)

Fred Kaplan, in Salon, argues that David Kay told much the same story in his report last September. Only then he used such deliberate obfuscation that most could not see the message: The Art of Camouflage: David Kay comes clean, almost. (PUBLISHED January 26 and POSTED: January 27, 2004)

My favorite example of Kay's attempt to trump substance with style: Saddam's scientists "began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives … that could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term." This description is so vague, it would accurately describe the act of reading a textbook on nuclear physics.

Kay did his job well. His report did not tell lies. But it puffed up enough smoke to let President Bush proclaim it as a justification for the war.

The source of the infamous 45-minute WMD claim says it was a "crock of shit": Iraqi who gave MI6 45-minute claim says it was untrue. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 27, 2004)

Powell finally admits doubt re: WMD: Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 24, 2004)

The smoking gun! Chief WMD inspector says they haven't existed since the early 1990's: Saddam's WMD never existed, says chief American arms inspecto. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 24, 2004)

Mr Kay, a former UN inspector, said that most of what was going to be found in the hunt for Saddam Hussein's WMD had already been uncovered. The returning of sovereignty to the Iraqis would make the search more difficult, he added. "I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said, referring to Saddam's alleged stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the [1991] Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the Nineties."

Another deception! Condoleezza Rice compared the Iraqi resistance to the German underground after World War II. It appears that the existence of this underground is based on a fake Reuters dispatch, supposedly dated Aug. 12, 1945, that started appearing on the Internet in April, 204. I wonder where it came from? More deceptions to justify war actions. (PUBLISHED January 12 and POSTED: January 15, 2004)

Nine months? That would be April, four months before Rice made her speech. She never identified her source. Could she have used the bogus Reuters story from the Internet? I called the NSC, and was referred to speech-writer Michael Anton. I left messages asking for Rice's source on werewolves. That's not too tough a request for a public servant. I'm still waiting for an answer.

As if recent revelations weren't enough, a report by the Army War College criticizes the Iraq war as "unnecessary" and diversion from the real "war on terrorism": War College Study Calls Iraq a 'Detour'. The actual report is available at: Bounding the Global War on Terrorism. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 12, 2004)

For those who missed it, the Paul O'Neill interview with 60 minutes can be watched online here. Here is a more detailed account from Time, of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's view of decision-making in the Bush administration: Confessions of a White House Insider: A book about Treasury's Paul O'Neill paints a presidency where ideology and politics rule the day . However, the BBC has an interesting commentary reminding us of Mr. O'Neill's history: Paul O'Neill: Careless talk?. (PUBLISHED January 11 and POSTED: January 12, 2004)

Putting the lie to their own propaganda! An important reminder. Here is the video of Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice in 2001 telling the world that Iraq did not possess and significant WMD capacity of pose a danger to the US or its neighbors. February 24th, 2001: Powell Admits Saddam, "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction". Contrast that, as The New York Times did, with what Powell said at the United Nations in February 2002: "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible." (POSTED: January 11, 2004)

I his 60 Minutes interview, former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said he saw no evidence of WMD: Ex US-Treasury chief: saw no evidence of Iraq WMDs. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 11, 2004)

The Smoking Gun! Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has told 60 Minutes that planning for the Iraq invasion and occupation began right after the inauguration, not after 9/11: Saddam's Ouster Planned In 2001? (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 10, 2004)

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap...."

Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall....

A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says.

[raqi National Congress] Spokesman Entifadh Qanbar tells CBS News that the Bush administration opened official channels to the Iraqi opposition soon after coming to power, and discussed how to remove saddam....

O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill in the book....

O'Neill also is quoted saying in the book that President Bush was so disengaged in cabinet meetings that he "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people."

Here is one of the Iraq war planning documents referred to in the article about former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (see above): Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts. Also remember the CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS. (POSTED: January ,11 2004)

The Washington Post has a detailed article showing that Iraq had no serious WMD program and no hope of one in the foreseeable feature. Iraq's arsenal of ambitions: '91 war crippled Baghdad's ability to build nonconventional weapons. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: January 7, 2004)

Now they tell us! Administration figures told the Big Lie to 75 Senators in order to get the war vote: Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S.: Nelson said claim made during classified briefing. (PUBLISHED December 15 and POSTED: December 16, 2003)

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

New joke: Bush makes up new excuse why no WMD were found: Iraq's illegal WMD sites were looted, Bush now explains. (PUBLISHED June 22 and POSTED: December 7, 2003)

John Pilger has found direct evidence that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice directly lied about the threat posed by Iraq. Here are their detailed denials that Iraq posed any danger. Bush's Occupation Of Iraq. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 20, 2003)

Key neocon Richard Perle brags that the US broke international law: War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 20, 2003)

Another former intelligence official, Peter Molan, protests current war policy and the intelligence distortion behind it: 'Nothing but Poison Plants Can Grow from Poison Seeds': Another Former Intelligence Official Blows the Whistle on Iraq/9-11 Connection (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 11, 2003)

Molan said that had the White House worked with the United Nations in dealing with Iraq, he may have supported the administration. "But nothing but poison plants can grow from poison seeds," he said. "This administration's goals and intentions and policies, which are quite clearly articulated in the Security Strategy Document and in the work of the Project for the New American Century, are completely at odds, radically at odds, with America's now more than a century-old tradition of trying to build international institutions."

Senate Republicans announce they will do their best to avoid the truth ever being known: Citing abuse, US Senate Republicans halt Iraq weapons probe and White House decides Democrats are to be cut out of "democracy": White House Puts Limits on Queries From Democrats. (PUBLISHED November 7 & 8 and POSTED: November 9, 2003)

Jessica Lynch joins those denouncing the lies: Private Jessica says President is misusing her 'heroism' (PUBLISHED and POSTED: November 9, 2003)

The New York Times article showing that the Iraq war could have been avoided, if the US hadn't been determined to wage war no matter what: Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War. (PUBLISHED November 6 and POSTED: November 8, 2003)

Further evidence that Secretary Powell lied. His former analyst

Must Read! An incredible resource! Prepared in response to a request from Rep. Henry Waxman, the congressional Special Investigations Division of the Minority (Democratic) staff of the House Government Reform Committee prepared a detailed report: Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq (pdf) "a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice." Also available from them is a searchable database identifying "237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by these five officials in 125 public appearances in the time leading up to and after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq." See also the detailed Methodology. Very important in using the database is that "The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous." Further: "To be conservative, the Special Investigations Division excluded hundreds of statements by the five officials that many observers would consider misleading." To check their assessments, "The Special Investigations Division asked two leading independent experts to peer review this report for fairness and accuracy. These two independent experts are: Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Greg Thielmann, former acting director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. These experts judged that this report is a fair and accurate depiction of the Administration’s statements." (PUBLISHED and POSTED: March 17, 2004) ielmann tells all to CBS: Ex-Aide: Powell Misled Americans (PUBLISHED and POSTED: October 15, 2003)

This piece by Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution makes the point that proof that the administration deliberately lied and distorted in their pre-war claims (rather than being mistaken) is seen in the fact that they are still lying and distorting: Bush officials bend Iraq facts till they break (PUBLISHED and POSTED: October 11, 2003)

David Kaye's testimony to congress. $600 million more wanted for the search! (POSTED: October 2, 2003)

Nothing! That's what the Iraq Survey Group hunting for WMD has found: The hunt for weapons of mass destruction yields - nothing: Intelligence claims of huge Iraqi stockpiles were wrong, says report (PUBLISHED and POSTED: September 25, 2003)

More evidence from John Pilger that the US knew early in 2001 that Iraq was not a threat and had no significant WMD capability. Most interestingly, it makes clear that Colin Powell & Condoleezza Rice knew this Breaking The Silence (PUBLISHED and POSTED: September 23, 2003)

On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box". Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt"....

At 2.40pm on September 11, according to confidential notes taken by his aides, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, said he wanted to "hit" Iraq - even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

In July 2002, Condoleezza Rice told another Bush official who had voiced doubts about invading Iraq: "A decision has been made. Don't waste your breath."

The Iraq Survey Group looking for WMD doesn't appear to be doing very much, except their laundry: They are called 'The Searchers'. But what are they looking for? (PUBLISHED and POSTED: September 21, 2003)

Former Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix may have the last comment: Iraq dumped WMDs years ago, says Blix: No evidence to link Saddam with September 11 attacks, Bush admits (PUBLISHED September 18 and POSTED: September 17, 2003)

"I mean, you can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the dog,' without having a dog," he said.

The administration continues it brazen big lie strategy. At least a few in the press are now challenging them, as this Boston Globe piece illustrates: Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged (PUBLISHED and POSTED: September 16, 2003)

Now that no WMD have been found, and even faking a case that they exist has become tricky, the administration is quietly shelving the definitive report that the Iraq Survey Group, were allegedly preparing: Report on Iraq WMD shelved as no evidence found by US-UK team (PUBLISHED and POSTED: September 14, 2003)

Here's a good account of the hack, David Kay, appointed to find the missing Iraqi WMD and how he intends to do it: September Surprise (POSTED: September 6, 2003)

The loyal Mr. Kay, in turn, appears poised to hand in a report marked by speculation, innuendo and circumstantial evidence. Kay's September surprise: He morphs into a weapon of mass deception.

Now that the war is long over and the WMD clearly missing, a top US official says: that whether Saddam's regime actually possessed weapons of mass destruction "isn't really the issue." U.S. arms control chief says capability of scientists under Saddam helped justify invasion (PUBLISHED and POSTED: September 4, 2003)

Evidently it was Saddam Hussein himself who convinced the world that nonexistent weapons were an imminent threat. Anyone want to buy a bridge? U.S. Suspects It Received False Iraq Arms Tips: Intelligence officials are reexamining data used in justifying the war. They say Hussein's regime may have sent bogus defectors. (PUBLISHED August 30 and POSTED: August 31, 2003)

The latest wrinkle in the WMD caper. The Department of Energy official who rubber stamped the Iraq nuclear claims, despite having no technical competence whatsoever, and despite the objections of those who did know something, was paid off with large bonuses: $20,000 bonus to official who agreed on nuke claim: Energy Dept. honcho ordered dissenters at Iraq pre-briefing to 'shut up, sit down' (PUBLISHED and POSTED: August 12, 2003)

"That's a hell of a lot of money for an intelligence director who had no experience or background in intelligence, and who'd only been running t he office for nine months," said one source who requested anonymity. "Something's fishy."

The lies continue: Is Iraqi Intel Still Being Manipulated? The sad and secretive tale of an Iraqi scientist (PUBLISHED August 8 and POSTED: August 12, 2003)

The treatment of Obeidi has in turn raised questions about whether even fresh intelligence from Iraq is being manipulated in advance of the report being prepared by David Kay, which is intended as the definitive account of Iraq’s WMD program.

This piece from the Independent is the most detailed account I've seen of the events surrounding the death of British weapons scientist Dr. David Kelly: A call to arms, a troubled scientist and the unravelling of a mysterious death (PUBLISHED and POSTED: August 11, 2003)

The Washington Post reports new evidence that: Depiction of threat outgrew evidence: Ahead of war, U.S. stressed Iraqi nuclear threat even as evidence was undermined. This article makes clear that the 16-words on Niger were part of a systematic campaign of lies and distortions. It also shows clearly that Secretary Powell was part of the campaign, ignoring and distorting clear evidence that contradicted the claims. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: August 10, 2003)

The new information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates — in public and behind the scenes — made allegations depicting Iraq’s nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied:

In Britain, the battle over the "sexed up" intelligence dossier used to justify the war heats up as the Prime Minister is directly implicated: Blair 'intervened in hardening up dossier on Iraq' (PUBLISHED August 10 and POSTED: August 9, 2003)

The Niger Timebomb: "This is the Iraqi diplomat Britain accuses of trying to buy uranium for Saddam. If what he has told us is true, his evidence will blow apart one of Mr Blair's main justifications for war" (PUBLISHED August 10 and POSTED: August 9, 2003)

Here is the Official Website for the (Lord) Hutton Inquiry into the death of British weapons scientist David Kelly. (POSTED: August 5, 2003)

Another brutal lie revealed. During the war the US denied usingnapalm. Now they admit that they dropped dozens of Mark 77 firebombs, "incendiary devices with a function "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons." And here's the best: "If reporters had asked about firebombs, officials said yesterday they would have confirmed their use." Remember that the next time "reporters" mention a government denial. Officials Confirm Dropping Firebombs on Iraqi Troops: Results are 'remarkably similar' to using napalm (PUBLISHED and POSTED: August 5, 2003)

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.com, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va....

"I used it routinely in Vietnam," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor, now a prominent defense analyst. "I have no moral compunction against using it. It's just another weapon."

And, the distinctive fireball and smell have a psychological impact on troops, experts said. "The generals love napalm," said Alles, who has transferred to Washington. "It has a big psychological effect."

It seems the Prime Minister of Niger says 'Saddam never shopped for uranium in my country'. The US response: send a top diplomat to tell him to shut up!. America silences Niger leaders in Iraq nuclear row (PUBLISHED July 27 & August 3 and POSTED: August 3, 2003)

The Independent reports that there is a new plan afoot to wind WMD, a WMD Program, or something. All that matters is that it can be spun... Blair and Bush join forces to spin away weapons issue (PUBLISHED and POSTED: August 3, 2003)

The evidence mounts. There were no WMDs. Even after months of "interrogation" former Iraqi scientists are unanimous: Iraqi Scientists Still Deny Iraqi Arms Programs: U.S. Interrogations Net No Evidence (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 31, 2003)

Sen. Bob Graham, presidential candidate, writes in Newsday about: The Dishonesty Of the President (PUBLISHED July 17 and POSTED: July 21, 2003)

Here is a July 9, 2003 Interview with former Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ritter. (POSTED: July 20, 2003)

In the latest Wrinkle, Bush Admin folks are leaking classified names of an (alleged) CIA agent, Ambassador Wilson's wife, in order to warn others about the consequences of telling the truth. A White House Smear (PUBLISHED July 16 and POSTED: July 20, 2003)

According to experts, virtually all evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program was so weak, only a State-of-the-Union speech could stand on it: Iraq Nuke Evidence Was Thin, Experts Say (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 19, 2003)

Ignorance is no excuse! Both Bush and rice claim they didn't actually read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Yet, they have no interest in finding out, and firing, whoever neglected to tell them that their claims were "highly dubious"! Warning in Iraq Report Unread: Bush, Rice Did Not See State's Objection (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 19, 2003)

The lies continue. As the white house released the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq they claimed that the State department reservation about the claims that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium was a "footnote". Not so, aparently: Dissent over uranium more than a 'footnote': Doubts about African deal got bigger play in report than White House hints (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 18, 2003)

According to Canadian Weapons experts: Experts believed no Iraqi WMDs in 2001: analysts (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 18, 2003)

The finger-pointing continues. A CIA official told congress that it was White House National Security Council Bob Joseph who wanted those 16 words about Niger to be included in the State-of-the-Union address. Joseph is an aid to Condeleezza Rice. New Details Emerge on Uranium Claim and Bush's Speech (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 18, 2003)

All lies, all the time! A key Iraqi scientist the US likes to quote told them before, and after the war, that the aluminum tubes Bush made so much of were NOT for nuclear bombs. Iraqi: Tubes Weren't for Nuclear Bombs (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 17, 2003)

Here is a claim that it was a Paul Wolfowitz-led committee that recommended including the Niger claim in the State-of-the-Union speech: Wolfowitz Committee Instructed White House To Use Iraq/Uranium Ref In Pres Speech (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 16, 2003)

Greg Palast has a biting account of Tony Blair on the eve of his US visit: Tony Blair - Prisoner of War (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 16, 2003)

The civil war in the US government intensifies as the CIA this time refused to go along with Bush Administration lies: CIA: Assessment of Syria's WMD exaggerated. [From the Miami Herald] (PUBLISHED July 15 and POSTED: July 16, 2003)

A careful textual anaysis of George tenet's is rather interesting. It makes clear that "The trail leads back to the Pentagon and the White House itself." Beating around the Bush: Under pressure over the CIA's handling of intelligence on Iraq, the agency chief's response passes the buck back to the White House, writes Julian Borger (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 16, 2003)

A cogent analysis of the real British motivations to go to war: America wanted war: Dossiers and proof of WMD are a sideshow - Blair backed Bush for one simple reason (PUBLISHED July 16 and POSTED: July 15, 2003)

Britain did not go to war to overthrow an evil regime, or even to control WMD. It went to war to keep on the right side of Washington.... September 2002 Blair acknowledged that the US would go to war in Iraq "whatever anyone else said or did".

A detailed analysis from the Washington Postof the recent distortions and contradictions emanating from the Administration: President Defends Allegation On Iraq: Bush Says CIA's Doubts Followed Jan. 28 Address. As Alternet suggest: "Give it up!" (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 15, 2003)

James Carroll here gives one of the most cogent brief analyses of the intelligence distortion that led to war. It doesn't let anyone off so easy: America's unintelligence community (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July , 2003)

according to the BBC, all nine of the claims made to support the war are now questionable at best: Core of weapons case crumbling (PUBLISHED July 13 and POSTED: July 15, 2003)

Condoleezza Rice admits that Bush was told that the State Department had doubts about the Iraq uranium claim, but used it in the State-of-the-Union speech anyway. Is he a liar, an imbecile, or just careless when it war? Blame Game Over False WMD Info

Rice acknowledged that the State Department's intelligence division considered the uranium-purchasing allegations dubious, and this was noted in a footnote in an intelligence assessment given to Mr. Bush.

The WMD controversy appears to have hit the mainstream press big time. The Washington Post reports that the CIA Asked Britain To Drop Iraq Claim: Advice on Alleged Uranium Buy Was Refused (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 11, 2003)

The headline says it all! Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 10, 2003)

There are claims that Bush was definitely told that the claims of Iraq attempting to buy uranium from Niger were false, or so claims Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA analyst: Bush Was Told Before His State Of The Union Address (PUBLISHED July 8 and POSTED: July 9, 2003)

An intelligence consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisors urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union address. "The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings." Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said. "He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."

Another former intelligence official, Gregory Thielmann [former director in the state department's bureau of intelligence] says on the record that the US lied about intelligence before the war: White House 'lied about Saddam threat' [Guardian (UK)] (PUBLISHED July 10 and POSTED: July 9, 2003)

And more evidence that the US, and Bush, lied, this time directly from the CIA: More Evidence Bush Misled Nation, by David Corn in The Nation. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 9, 2003)

The day before Independence Day, Richard Kerr, a former CIA deputy director who is leading a review of the CIA's prewar intelligence on Iraq's unconventional weapons, held a series of interviews with journalists and revealed that his unfinished inquiry had so far found that the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had been somewhat ambiguous, that analysts at the CIA and other intelligence services had received pressure from the Bush administration, and that the CIA had not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Rumsfeld now admits that the US had no new intelligence about WMD prior to the war: Rumsfeld brushes aside WMD fears (PUBLISHED and POSTED: July 9, 2003)

One of the most popular sites on the Internet: These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed. Until the press reported it, this site was the first returned by google when "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was searched for. (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 4, 2003)

In polite diplomatic language, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson 4th writes in the New York Times about his trip to Niger to check out the claims that Iraq was seeking to obtain weapons-grade uranium: What I Didn't Find in Africa (PUBLISHED July 6 and POSTED:July 7, 2003)

A senior US diplomat who investigated the fake Niger uranium claim says its virtually impossible that US and British officials didn't know the claim was fake: Ministers knew war papers were forged, says diplomat (PUBLISHED June 29 and POSTED: June 28, 2003) Now this official,

Here is the British Government's allegedly "sexed up" report on Iraqi WMDs: IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: THE ASSESSMENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT (POSTED: June 28, 2003)

Michael Moore's latest Open Letter to GWB: 'I Never Promised You A Ruse Garden' A Letter From Michael Moore To George W. Bush (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 27, 2003)

For the first time, an active duty intelligence official tells about the Bush Administration pressure to shave the truth. A senior State Department Expert Said to Tell Legislators He Was Pressed to Distort Some Evidence (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 25, 2003)

Ben Tripp analyzes American's indifference to the missing WMD in terms of the cognitive dissonance caused by the distance between the American fantasy (ideal) and the current reality. They Just Don't Want to Know: Of Dissidents and Dissonance (PUBLISHED June 14 and POSTED: June 21, 2003)

America invaded another nation, unscrewed its head and took a giant dump down its neck--unprovoked. Confronted with the singularly un-American nature of this exploit, our leaders responded by claiming we had to do it-- because this enemy nation was aiming a vast artillery of deadly weapons designed especially to kill blonde people at us. I don't think all that many people really believed it, not really really. But they went along with it, because to confront the real reasons for such aimless aggression would be too horrible for their fragile worldviews and patriotic self-images to bear. When the 'WMD' bit turned out not to be true, the rationale switched to exporting American Democracy by force. Which is an oxymoron, a common symptom of cognitive dissonance.

The beauty part of cognitive dissonance is the worse it gets, the more people throw up [their hands] and say "who cares?" In this way such public works projects as genocide and empire-building can be accomplished, because people refuse to care. It's too damn demanding, too scary, and too damaging to that ever-threatened bird called Self Esteem.

Spencer Ackerman and John B. Judis, in the New Republic have a one of the most detailed accounts so far of: The First Casualty: The selling of the Iraq war (PUBLISHED June 30 and POSTED:June 20, 2003)

Even Stansfield Turner, former CIA Director says the administration is lying on WMD. Who knows, even Democratic politicians may figure it out, someday! Ex-CIA director says administration stretched facts on Iraq (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 18, 2003)

The British paper the Independent doesn't mince words in reporting the latest twists in the great WMD escapade as two former cabinet ministers tell parliament that British Intelligence said there was no threat from Iraq many times before the war: Exposed: Blair, Iraq and the great deception (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 17, 2003)

An official British report has now concluded: Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds (PUBLISHED June 15 and POSTED: June 14, 2003)

'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

The NOW woith Bill Moyers web site has extensive resources for following the tangled threads of the controversy about the missing WMD Reviewing the Evidence: Weapons of Mass Destruction (PUBLISHED June 13 and POSTED:June 14, 2003)

Other parts of the justification for the war are unraveling. The New York Times reports that Captives Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 9, 2003)

Here is a detailed account of the WMD story so far, with an emphasis on the political aspects, especially in Britain: The arms hunt: were they weapons of self-delusion? (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 8, 2003)

The Guardian (UK) takes an even stronger position than the New York Times (see next item), asserting that British experts say it is unlikely that the trailer had anything to do with germ warefare: Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs': Saddam's trucks were for balloons, not germs And the Guardian (UK) says there is a good chance the mobile labs were sold to Iraq by the British in 1987, to manufacture hydrogen, just as the Iraqis claimed.. (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 8, 2003)

Finally, Judith Miller of the New York Times reports that intelligence officials are not at all certain that those trailers that President Bush spouts off about really are for making WMD. Some Analysts of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use. (As Judith Miller has been the Pentagon and Iraqi National Congress mouthpiece [see: All the News That's Fudged to Print] for leaking propaganda, perhaps she's trying to save her position at a New York Times suddenly concerned about lies in its news stories since the Jayson Blair scandal.) (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 7, 2003)

The UN Weapons Inspectors deny claims made by Tony Blair in recent days: UN inspectors question claims over Iraqi weapons (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 7, 2003)

Former UN Weapons Inspectors are crtiticizing the US and British "intelligence" used to justify the war: Blix attacks Blair warnings over Iraqi weapons (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 6, 2003)

A former UN inspector, Bernd Birkicht, 39, said he believed the CIA had made up intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to provide a legal basis for the war. He told the Guardian how supposedly top-secret, high-quality intelligence had led the inspectors on an absurd wild goose chase.

"We received information about a site, giving the exact geographical coordinates, and when we got there we found nothing. Nothing on the ground. Nothing under the ground. Just desert."

He said the so-called decontamination trucks which figured in satellite photographs presented to the security council were fire engines.

And Hans Blix is making similar points: Blix criticises weapons intelligence (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 6, 2003)

Mr Blix said today he was disappointed with the tip-offs provided for his inspection teams. "Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of these cases was there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say," he told BBC News 24. "I thought, my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?"

The Associated Press reports that the US is so concerned to find those missing WMD, that they have not visited, and have no plans to visit, the al-Fatah company in Baghdad that designed all the Iraqi missiles. Perhaps they already know there are no secrets to be found? U.S. Won't Probe Secret Iraqi Documents (PUBLISHED June 2 and POSTED:June 6, 2003)

Al-Chalabi, who studied engineering at the University of Colorado from 1964 to 1969, is convinced none will be found. He said he showed U.N. inspectors everything he had and was ordered by Saddam not to violate U.N. resolutions. "We don't have those weapons. I think they must know this by now," al-Chalabi said. "I even signed a paper that said I would be executed if I violated the range fixed by the U.N. resolutions."

John Dean (of Watergate fame) analyzes the case of the missing WMD in FindLaw's Legal Commentary and concludes that deliberate deception may be grounds for impeachment Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense? (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 6, 2003)

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O. J.'s looking for his wife's killer.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

The Pentagon now admits that it had no hard evidence of the existence of WMD last September, when Rumsfeld claimed "His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons..." Pentagon's intelligence arm had no reliable evidence of Iraqi weapons last September. In democratic countries, this is called lying and is followed by resignation. (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 6, 2003)

Vice President Dick Cheney went to the CIA several times, apparently to pressure them to spin intelligence to support the was effort: Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 6, 2003)

British Labor Party leader Denis Healey says Blair must quit if he is wrong about these weapons (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 5, 2003)

British Labor MP Robin Cook has written a piece on the deception behind the war and the necessity for Britain not to be conned into supporting a war against Iran: Britain must not let Iran become the next Iraq (PUBLISHED and POSTED:June 4, 2003)

This time we must make clear to the White House that we are not going to subordinate Britain's interests to a U.S. policy of confrontation. Iran must not become the next Iraq.

US Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz explained that the Iraq war really was about oil, as many of us had claimed: Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil [Guardian (UK)] (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 4, 2003) [The guardian retracted this story on June 5, 2003. Evidently they misread the quote.]

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Paul Krugman puts the WMD lies in the context of the Bush Administration's Standard Operating Procedure (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June3, 2003)

Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which, to an extent never before seen in U.S. history, systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.

(T)he selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history, worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra.

More dirt on the WMD lies. U.S. News and World Report reports on planning for Powel Truth and consequences: New questions about U.S. intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass terror (POSTED: June 3, 2003)

In September 2002, U.S. News has learned, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a classified assessment of Iraq's chemical weapons. It concluded: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons . . . ." At about the same time, Rumsfeld told Congress that Saddam's "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas."

Here's a summary of recent revelations about the way the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue was distorted to justify the war: The Guardian (UK) revealed that Colin Powel and British Foreign Secretary Sectretary Jack Straw met and expressed worries about the lack of evidence to support their claims about Iraqi WMD: Straw, Powell had serious doubts over their Iraqi weapons claims Secret transcript revealed ; US intelligence insiders say the intelligence was skewed by politically- motivated officials: U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed; and the Australians are upset about the lies used to propel their country into war: A lack of intelligence: Australia's spies knew the United States was lying about Iraq's WMD programme. So why didn't the Government choose to believe them? Andrew Wilkie writes. [from the Sydney Morning Herald] To add to the mix, Fred Kaplan in Slate carefully examines the CIA Report on the two trailers claimed to be bioweapons labs, and shows the evidence is far less than air tight: Vanishing Agents: Did Iraq really have weapons of mass destruction?. In The lies that led us into war ... Glen Rangwala shows how the UK and the US manipulated UN reports - and conjured an anthrax dump from thin air. Meanwhile, there are increasing suggestions that the Pentagon is getting ready to manufacture eviendece of WMD. Stay tuned! (POSTED: May 31 and June 1, 2003)

At last, all the "statements" (i.e., lies) about WMD made by Bush and gang in one place, What a Tangled Web We Weave . . . when first we practice to deceive! up to the one by Paul Wolfowitz in a Vanity Fair Interview: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Funny how after the war they're not afraid to say the truth, perhaps because they know that few people will hear it. He went on to make it clear that helping the Iraqi people overcome the Sadam regime tyrany was not reason enough for war. (POSTED: May 29, 2003)

there have always been three fundamental concerns.... The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.

US rivals turn on each other as weapons search draws a blank (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 11, 2003)

The Sunday Herald (Scotland) is now reporting that US officials now are saying they would be amazed if Iraqi WMD were found. "According to administration sources, Saddam shut down and destroyed large parts of his WMD programmes before the invasion of Iraq." US: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction' ( POSTED: May 11, 2003)

What It All Means

Now that the war to conquer Iraq is over, and the US is preparing for future wars without end, its important to seek understanding of what it all means. This section will include pieces trying to analyze the underlying motivations and trends behind the US foreign policy.

In the war's aftermath, Poll shows U.S. isolation: In war's wake, hostility and mistrust (PUBLISHED and POSTED: June 3, 2003)

Martin Jacques argues that the Iraq invasion is the end of the post-colonial world and the beginning of a new imperialism presaged by the decline of national sovereignty, as the US feels free to intervene anywhere and everywhere it wants: The power of one: Weak nations will succumb to American ambition unless we insist on respecting sovereignty "Perversely, while the first Gulf war was fought in defence of the principle of sovereignty - Kuwait's - the second was about precisely the opposite, the rape of Iraq's. " (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 26, 2003)

A very interesting piece by Immanuel Wallerstein, noted historian of the world economic system, arguing that the Bush Administration's foreign and domestic policies are bad even for US capitalists: Empire and the Capitalists (PUBLISHED May 21 and POSTED: May 23, 2003)

The "Liberation" in Perspective

This section documents the early stages of the US Occupation, when there was at least a sense that the Iraqi people were liberated at last from the nightmare of Sadam, and before the nightmare of life under US colonial rule became clear. [See: Life in Occupied Iraq]

An alarming picture of the state of health care and the continuing tide of casualties under US occupation: Shia mullahs take charge of hospitals to halt chaos: A new force is emerging on the streets as doctors in Baghdad treat a tide of casualties. Ed Vulliamy reports (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 11, 2003) Especially alarming: reports that the US intends to "privatize" the health system to allow US corporations to profit:

Now a privatised Americanisation of the system would punish the poor, and he [a doctor being interviewed] points out - correctly, according to international medical organisations - how US insurance companies such as Blue Cross Blue Shield are waiting in the wings, alongside construction companies, to forge a new Iraq.

Iraq in danger of starvation, says UN says the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation. The US response: "America's efforts to get Iraq's Health Ministry up and running twisted into farce yesterday, when it emerged that the new Minister concerned was a Saddam crony." (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 11, 2003)

Yet more evidence that the Americans actively encouraged at least some of the looting, including at the National Museum. By Walter Sommerfeld Professor of Oriental Philology in Marburg, who has toured Iraq for the past 20 years. He was one of the first German scientists to visit Iraq after the war. Plundering of Museums in Baghdad. [ German original] "'Go in Ali Baba! It´s all yours.' - called the Americans" (PUBLISHED May 8 and POSTED: May 10, 2003)

The Americans are so concerned about both the Iraqi people and WMD, that they allow the former to loot the Iraqi nuclear reactor sites, taking home radioactive material, then give them incorrect information on how to protect themselves: In the wreckage of Saddam's nuclear research centre, villagers take their pick of lethal spoils. (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 10, 2003) The Telegraph (UK) reports that many Iraqis are already suffering radiation sickness from these sites: Villagers suffer radiation sickness after looting nuclear power plants (PUBLISHED and POSTED: May 11, 2003)

"The soldiers had promised us they would secure the site but they did not and we wonder why," he said. "Perhaps it was because they always knew there were no real weapons there, despite all their claims. But, nevertheless, these materials represent a major health hazard and before long we may start to see people developing cancer and deformed babies because they did not stop the looting."

A group of correspondents for The Independent (UK) sum up the story so far: Iraq Inc: A joint venture built on broken promises Another article in the same paper lists The allies' broken promises (PUBLISHED May 10 and POSTED: May 9, 2003)

As many of us suspected