In this article in inthesetimes.com of just over 12 months ago, the authors show a rarely seen thoroughness in exposing the lies and bogus pretences the Bush administration used to justify going to war in Iraq. The article also provides a clear time-line and a multitude of cross-references.
From the article's conclusion:
In the context of what we now know the White House knew at the time, Bush was deliberately dishonest. The intelligence community repeatedly told the White House there were many deep cracks in its case for war. The president’s willingness to ignore such warnings and make these unequivocal statements proves the administration was intentionally painting a black-and-white picture when it knew the facts merited only gray at best.
- They [the Bush administration] knew Iraq posed no nuclear threat
- They knew the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear weapons
- They knew the Iraq-uranium claims were not supported
- They knew there was no hard evidence of chemical or biological weapons
- They knew Saddam and bin Laden were not collaborating
- They knew there was no Prague meeting
- They knew they were misleading America
$ 195,000,000,000 later...
An estimated $195 billion of taxpayers money has so far been spent on the war in Iraq, without any signs that these cost will start to abate anytime soon. The cost of security, you might say? Only if you believe spending that kind of money on negative security a good investment: there is every reason to believe that the war in Iraq has made the US much, more of a desirable item on Al-Qaeda's target wish list, not actually a more secure place to live. Talking of Al-Qaeda, two expensive and botched invasions later and OBL is still roaming free, apparently gathering strength by the day...
And the financial cost can be estimated but the cost in human lives remains as always intangible and incalculable.
A lose-lose situation
With the invasion of Iraq the coalition has manoeuvred itself into that rarest of human situations: not being able to move neither forward nor backward.
Immediate withdrawal of the coalition forces would almost certainly plunge the country into a state of more intensified civil war, leaving the West open to a barrage of criticism and the Iraqi people more destitute than ever before.
But staying might mean an indefinite presence, a constant being caught up in the crossfire of the insurgents as well as being the perpetual target of Iraqi Jihadis that want to see the occupiers leave ASAP.
The lap dog from Bulldog Nation
To most Britons it must be inconceivable that Mr Blair, often dubbed Mr Bush's lap dog, could have been so reckless as to decide to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with an administration that so clearly produced only the feeblest house of cards to justify what has been shown to be one of the most irresponsible military actions of the past 50 years.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that Downing Street has lied and lied and lied again about its motives for joining the Iraq coalition, Mr Blair, rather than apologise, continues unashamedly to claim that the terror attacks in London are in no way related to Britain's involvement in this latest military and political debacle.
Instead, a number "instant" pieces of new legislation, are designed to give the good but right now rather comatose people of Britain the impression that something is being done about the terrorist threat facing their country. A terrorist threat created in large part through the careless, misguided actions of its own government and opposition.
Future wars galore...
And the Retarded Monkey Boy's administration has a thirst for war that makes previous American governments look like "Hare Krishna" chanting peaceniks.
Plans for dealing with North Korea have been on the cards for quite some time now.
As regards, Iran, it's been made quite clear that in the case of nuclear non-compliance, American air strikes against that country's nuclear installations are considered a viable option. Mind the fall-out, boys...
Keywords: Bush, Blair, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, WMD, Terrorism