are diabolical genii who have managed to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes, or that they’re just a bunch of idiots.

But Wolfowitz’s argument does not require blind adherence to “economic dogma.” Iraq has abundant resources if only it could hold together. This reasoning explains the importance placed on securing and protecting Iraq’s oil fields during the initial stage of the war, especially given what Saddam did in Kuwait. It was in fact in the interests of ordinary Iraqis to do so. Again, the mistake, and indeed the tragedy, was to underestimate how difficult Iraq would be to govern after the invasion.

BrainDrain,

Again, we’re falling into the pattern of using famous lines to reinforce existing beliefs. I could use the same quotes to show how the coalition of the willing, with the “clearest vision,” and “aware of the danger,” were prepared to put in the hard yards while the rest of the world vacillated. Interestingly, Saddam Hussein’s regime represented the “strong few” oppressing the “weak” majority. The US, stronger than Saddam, was able to overthrow the oppressor.

Back to WMD,

Despite Saddam’s insistence that Iraq had disarmed, his continual obfuscation and apparent playing for time gave the opposite impression.

“The Iran-Iraq war and the ongoing suppression of internal unrest taught Saddam the importance of WMD to the dominance and survival of the Regime. Following the destruction of much of the Iraqi WMD infrastructure during Desert Storm, however, the threats to the Regime remained; especially his perception of the overarching danger from Iran. In order to counter these threats, Saddam continued with his public posture of retaining the WMD capability. This led to a difficult balancing act between the need to disarm to achieve sanctions relief while at the same time retaining a strategic deterrent. The Regime never resolved the contradiction inherent in this approach. Ultimately, foreign (mis)perceptions of these tensions contributed to the destruction of the Regime.”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-05.htm (p34)

Carl,

Tenet offered his resignation but Bush refused it. Bush’s leadership style is typified by strong loyalty, (to those who remain on song.)

I’ll keep trawling through the 911 anomalies.

'dozer,

I hope you realise that the 'we're fallling into a pattern' was initiated by your Thucydides quote to support your argument?

I also hope you realise your research is obviously affecting your bias (or the other way 'round, unsure which?) which comes across as believing the US is somehow right (might means right?) to seek to interfere in other nation's politics for it's own agenda (or do you merely accept this as self-evidentiary fact, while holding no personal belief/agenda?)

You quote Wolfowitz, almost exclusively, as some kind of arbiter of truth that we should all admire and respect, frankly i feel he's a self-serving ... well, let's just say i don't trust the man who was one of the architects behind the illegal invasion!

Your efforts to clarify the position over Iraq post-9/11 are profoundly influenced by the American side of the story, an understandable, not desirable, bias, given they speak english and must attempt to account for their actions to the 'democratic' populace, moreso than would Saddam.

You seem to dismiss the main issue. There are/were no WMD's at, or for any detectable time before, the time of Invasion as UN arms inspectors including Richard Butler and Hans Blicks insisted upon telling anyone who would listen!

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence or common-sense could see/know/be able to guess that Saddam needed to be seen as having some power over his 'own' country he ruled without civil war for over 25 years and that was the reason for his attempts at obfuscation/games-playing with the UN, who are widely seen as US puppets in Islamic countries and more than a few non-islamic ones. His valid concerns over the intent of US military in the region can in no way be used to justify the creation of a false belief both within the US and within the wider community that Iraq had any WMD's.

We, and possibly the moderate US decision-makers, were conned by those who stood to gain the most from what was an ill-considered and unjustifiable attack on Iraq, World Peace and credulity.

Deny it if you can?

Dozer,

firstly, bush is not a leader. Its impossible for us to know exactly how much influence he has on decision making in the White House. Clearly, he is not a curious man, and is certainly not the intellectual mastermind behind US foreign policy. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if he was completly in the dark about the 9/11 conspiracy.

In your trawling, can I suggest you have look at this site

http://911myths.com/

This is one of the more popular sites that defends the official story and ridicules the conspiracy theorists. This website certainly helped affirm my suspicions about 9/11. They do rebuke some of the mroe outlandish claims, but grasp at straws with other things

Just a couple of quick comments. Another essay may come tomorrow.

BrainDrain,

It was not I who initiated the quotes. My reference to Thucydides was itself a response to one of Shaw's signature libelous use of quotes by an anonymous neo-con. Go back and take a look. I brought up Thucydides to contextualize the comment- I saw a clear reflection of Realist theory (one of the dominant theories in the study of International Relations,) in this comment. I have been attempting, to no avail apparently, to try to help the moonbat from understanding these comments in a different light.

Again, my references to Wolfowitz aren't meant as evidence, (unlike Shaw.) I am using his full quotes to show just how badly Shaw had mangled the meaning of his words.

You're also getting your facts wrong;

Richard Butler, by no means a good friend of the US administration, makes it all too clear, in his book, "Saddam Defiant: The threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Crisis of Global Security," that he thought Saddam did have weapons. He also made it clear that he felt that the international community lacked the political will to do anything about it. Of course, this all changed after 911.

It is interesting that Islamic countries consider the UN to be a puppet of the US. A huge proportion of the resolutions made by the deeply politicized UN Human Rights Commission are directed against Israel. This reflects the fact that most of its members are themselves undemocratic states, many of them Arab or Muslim.

Furthermore, the reason the UNSC would not grant explicit sanction of the US's actions in March 2003 were because two of its veto wielding members, France and Russia, had strong national interests supporting the regime of Saddam Hussein.

What a shame Saddam lost his "own country," huh?

Carl,

Bush has shown intense interest in the fate of AIDS sufferers in Africa. It has been suggested that he is an undiagnosed dyslexic. He has trouble reading, and looks ungainly giving a speech. But he’s not an idiot.

dozer,
As you know how and what everyone including people in the white house think, how about enlightening the rest of us as to what our next foriegn policy decision will be, could you if you don't already know, please get on to your old mate George, or probably Connie may know.

Give us a break, Mr. I know everything!

'dozer,

On the fact concerning Richard Butler I can stand corrected (very partially). Butler has said some VERY interesting things on his beliefs and the US's hypocrisy over WMD's and Iraq on this website interview:

http://www.counterpunch.org/davis05172003.html

He also said that when he and his team were thrown out by Saddam he thought there were weapons 'unaccounted for' in 1998.

This DOESN'T equate to 'existing then' (5 years before the invasion) which Hans Blicks DID subsequently deny existed before the war was pushed on us illegally by the US's deceivers, merely that Saddam had not proven to their satisfaction that weapons had been destroyed. Saddam/Iraq would not've been very keen to prove anything to the UN inspectors that declared their weakness to surrounding countries, just like any other country, including the US.

You display an interesting bias...

Human rights violations as recorded by Israel are seemingly solely due to Muslim countries being able to override other nations' UN vetos and not because Israel is one of, if not the, most major, consistent, blantent, and unrepentent violators of human rights in the world for the last 60 years?

The UNSC wouldn't grant Bush the right to invade another country because of France/Russia's self-interests in weapons and other 'trade' to Iraq/Saddam, not because the US had used incorrect and false intelligence to try to fool everyone?

It IS a shame (though you obviously think it's just dandy that the US used force to impose a power vacuum in Iraq when they were only supposed to be 'disarming' Saddam not removing him (ask Johhny!)) that Saddam was deposed, not by the Iraqi's, the only ones who had the right, but by an invading superpower dictating its own will and self-interest at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and those of a few thousand decent soldiers of the coalition. (Not to mention the billion$ the arms manufacturers make out of it or that Iraq's water, sewerage and power are still not up to pre-invasion standards for 20 million Iraqi's not yet butchered).

But as long as you're ok that's all that matters,Right?