Frank Rich in the NY Times does a great job reminding us tat the Bush Whitehouse desire to invade Iraq drove so many things:
Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House’s illegality.
This article about Iragi
military analysts selling a bill of goods is disturbing if not enraging. I
occasionally verify and usually apply skeptical thinking to news that I hear on
TV or read in the newspaper but I basically trust that news. That’s
particularly true of those military analysts. I respect these military people
for what they’ve done and expect an honest assessment of military matters that’s
better informed then the typical news reporter and also independent of the
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information
apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news
coverage of the administration s wartime performance, an examination by The New
York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this
day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a
powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military
contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
It seems they are just a bunch of venal, lying, war profiteers far more
interested in be perceived as important rather then relying on honesty and
expertise to do something important. The way our government treated this to is
utterly disgraceful. How can politicians be so ignorant of how people think and
feel? How is lying and distorting reality going to generate support for the
Here’s a Paul Krugman article from Mar, 2003 pretty accurately predicting the course of the Iraq war:
What frightens me is the aftermath — and I’m not just talking about the problems of postwar occupation. I’m worried about what will happen beyond Iraq — in the world at large, and here at home.