Steve, this post brings up the question that has been bugging me: with all the talk of how the administration lied before the war, how about shining some light on the current lies?
There are the obvious lies about casualties, battle successes, etc.
On another level, I don't believe the stated goals of the administration at all.
Let me just toss out a couple of speculations to start the discussion

1) I don't believe the administration wants to reduce violence in Iraq. From my vantage point, there are too many actions and strategies which predictably lead to more violecnce. I can only conclude that the war must be kept hot---probably so that the conflict can spread to Syria and Iran.

2) I don't believe the administration is seriously trying to train Iraqi troops. The numbers are too pathetic. We don't want to make a hand off; we want to stay there.

3) A reminder: Tony Blair has stated that he is willing to commit UK forces to an attack of Iran.
All cards are still on the table.

So there are my views. I frely admit that I have no expertise on ME politics or history; however, there comes a time when I have to believe my lying eyes over what the Bush administration tells me, and that time is now.

Comments?

Sir Christopher is, or I should say, was a personal friend of Tony Blair's as well.

With all of this coming out now, plus the enquiry that Tony Blair is about to undergo, I don't think that he will be around much longer. He'll either have to step down due to ill health (his heart you know and he is looking pretty sick these days) or, the Party will kick him out. They'll try to avoid that if possible and Blair will too, for the sake of the Party. After all, there are some pretty good people in the wings ready to step in,

"With all the talk about how the administration lied before the war..."
... the one lie that I haven't yet seen discussed is Bush's repeated assertions that "no decision" had been made whether to go to war - up until the very night that he made his speech announcing that the Shock and Awe campaign was starting.

Nick Lemann, in the past week's "New Yorker", states: "In the late summer of 2002, President Bush, by most accounts having already decided to invade Iraq, elected to seek U.N. support." [emphasis mine]

Yet Bush spent that summer and fall telling anyone who asked about an approaching war, "There are no plans on my desk." Later, it became "No decision has been made." It was on that basis that the vote in Congress was requested - that the war had not yet been decided upon.

These statements were out-and-out lies of the most weaselly kind. Why has no one confronted the Bush administration, and the man himself, with these consistent and untruthful statements?

Oh, I forgot to mention something.
I saw the following theory bandied about recently, as an explanation of how the war is going well, according to the neocons theory.
Recall that in the 1980's, the US supplied both side of the Iran-Iraq war, to keep it going.
It's possible that in Iraq today, the US is happy to see Moslems killing Moslems---putative Al Qaeda types angering Arabs with their attack---because that means they are not fighting us.

Now, I think this is crazy reasoning.. but the right wingers I know believe strange things.
For instance, many of you may not realize that in the "intelligent" right wing side, the understanding of the Iraq war is that the purpose was to put pressure on other Arab countries to stop supporting terrorism.
This is what George Friedman of Stratfor says.
(Friedman famously predicted a military conflict between Japan and the US in the 1990s, btw. Stratfor seems to have a good reputation, though).

Does this vision of the Iraq war even make sense?
Well, I am very skeptical that Al Qaeda funding has dried up because of the Iraq war, but I'm open to proof. Friedman's idea has a fatal flaw though, which is that since the war was planned long before 9/11, his post 9/11 explanation cannot be the correct reason.

Isn't it about time that Colin Powell found his own cajones and comes forward with the truth about the wretched administration he served? His silence is deafening....

From the Guardian's leader, Delayed Dipatches:

It is clearly in the public interest that these memoirs see the light of day - in contrast to the shabby censorship by the FO [UK's Foreign Office] of a book by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our man at the UN for much of the same turbulent period. They reflect badly on the prime minister's ability to achieve even his own goals. Surveying the bloody mess that is Iraq today, it would have been far better if this articulate and respected British diplomat could have made his voice heard more effectively while still serving. Candid dispatches should never be delayed.

No doubt this applies to Larry Wilkerson, too.

But it also highlights a significant difference between these two men and another diplomat -- Joe Wilson.

Wilkerson and Meyer reflect from the safety of their current distance from the centers of power on a series of events that cannot be undone -- and that generations of Americans will pay a colossal price for.

However, both Meyer and Wilkerson once were in a position to affect the outcomes of America's flirtations with disaster. Meyer, at least, acknowledges as much:

There was a silence. I waited for Blair to say that he needed something as supportive as possible. He said nothing. I waited for somebody on the No 10 team to say something.

Nothing was said. I cursed myself afterwards for not piping up. At the press conference Bush gave only perfunctory and lukewarm support for a second resolution. It was neither his nor Blair's finest performance.

I left Washington and retired from the diplomatic service a month later. We went to war without benefit of a further resolution and in the company of a motley, ad hoc coalition of allies.

Joe Wilson did something different. He tried to save America from the biggest, stupidest mistakes while they were being made.

Joe Wilson paid a horrendous price for this -- but it is also his story and what became of it that has had the biggest consequences -- so far at least -- for the administration.

Now there ya go Mr C. Just one more nail in the coffin that won't ever get used. What a bloody tragedy. The cynic in me however forces me to comment at the same time that if these individuals were witnessing the disgraces as they were going on and if they were as patriotic as you claim that they are NOW- something ain't quite right! See what I mean?
Anyhow- it will be a great read as soon as it comes out and I look forward to your postings on it.
billjpa@aol.com

TONY BRENTON

Steve, the Deputy Chief of Mission to Sir Christopher Meyer was Tony Brenton(and yes, he was more hawkish than his boss).

John Stuart

Blair, in addition to being seduced by American power, was probably also attracted to a leadership partnership with the intellectually inadequate Bush. It was a way for Blair to punch over his weight.

Regarding Sir Christopher Meyers' article:

Of a March 2002 meeting between Meyers and Wolfowitz, Meyers writes

"To reinforce my credentials with Wolfowitz, I emphasised the prime minister's commitment to regime change. I wanted him to know that we were starting from the same premise ........ I told him there had to be a strategy for building international support. What was needed was a clever plan that convinced people there was a legal basis for toppling Saddam. The UN had to be at the heart of such a strategy. One way was to demand the readmission of UN weapons inspectors into Iraq. If he refused, this would not only put him in the wrong but also turn the searchlight onto the security council resolutions of which he remained in breach......"

Let's be honest, Mr. Meyers, the phrases "regime change" and "toppling Saddam" are code for WAR. How else were these primary goals to be achieved? Perhaps, Meyers and Wolfowitz never uttered the word WAR, but every time "regime change" cross their lips or those of any other player in this game, they meant WAR.

Thus, Mr. Meyer, it is duplicitous to say, "the road to war looked to me at that time anything but straight or the destination preordained," and it is apparent the thrust of this article is to head off those "many [who] allege, they [Bush and Blair] decided come hell or high water to go to war at their White House meeting on September 20 2001, or at the Crawford summit in April 2002, or at their Camp David summit in September 2002" and if those allegations are true "each [Bush and Blair] can be justifiably charged with duplicity on a grand scale: with deceiving his public and using the UN both as smokescreen and facilitator for a conflict that was the first option, not the last." I agree with you that "Those who believe Bush and Blair guilty as charged see a straight linear progression from, say, the start of military planning in early 2002 to the outbreak of war on March 20 2003."

Or, am I mis-interpreting Mr. Meyer, and is he he merely trying to distance himself from too much direct involvement in the machinations that led to WAR while insinuating, without saying outright (which would be undiplomatic) that WAR was the only outcome (short of the 1% chance of Bush blinking) since "regime change" was early on decided upon.

Mr. Meyer reflect on your words with Wolfowitz in March 2002. You are talking WAR without using the word, and you are also talking about deceiving the people when you say "clever plan that convinced people," and you also tell of using the UN to push pretenses for WAR, or should I use your terms for WAR, "regime change," "toppling of Saddam."

And now for those who will try to continue the deception by chortling "Clinton first invoked the policy of regime change for Iraq!" I ask you, by "regime change" did Clinton mean WAR? Apparently not. Also recall wherefrom Clinton was politically pressured in a time of political weakness to endorse a policy of regime change. That came from the neocons, PNAC's and AIPAC's heavy pressure on Congress and Clinton to invoke those words.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/7/11819/9522

Based on reporting from Italy:

"A news program on Italian satellite TV, RAI News 24, has substantiated the claim that the US military has been exploiting the dual use of white phosporus. In its siege of Fallujah, the chemical was used on the civilian populace. The story is in today's Repubblica. The Bush Adminstration and the DoD are about to be shamed before the eyes of the world.

:::

Shocking revelation RAI News 24. Use of chemical weapons by the US military in Iraq. Veteran admits: Bodies melted away before us.

"

I first read reports of chemical weapons use in Fallujah months ago. Recall that our troops targeted doctors and hospitals in Fallujah as well.
Nazi FILTH is running our government---there is no other way to put it.

God......

I have always thought that what occurred in Fallujah was the reason that the Italian journalist was targeted. She simply knew too much about what occurred there.

If you recall, the Fallujah "campaign" was launched in the early stages of the so called "insurgency". I believe these monsters in the Pentagon, primarily Rumsfeld, wanted to send an explicit "warning" to the rest of the Iraqi population.

When one considers events such as the Fallujah travesty, or the looting of Tuwaitha, (that resulted in Iraqi citizens using contaminated yellow cake barrels to store water in, which they used for cooking, bathing, and drinking), it is no suprise that our troops will be there for a looooong time, because Bush dare not let human rights organizations in to see the extent of the depraved human rights abuses that have been performed by this Administration.

Add the above policy abominations to our indiscriminate use of DU in Iraq, and the deaths caused by this traitorous MONKEY and his neocon handlers may well be in the hundreds of thousands.

President Bush, a lying ignorant pawn, and the depraved megalomaniacs that are pulling his strings, have made me ASHAMED to be an American.

I hate Bush! I hate him! I really do! [stamping feet] Oooo, how I hate him ! I hate Bush so much! Oh! How I hate Bush! I'm pissed off, too!

Bushater,
Do you have anything constructive to say, or is Bush still the paragon of conservative perfection to you, war crimes and all?

marky, WE ARE AT WAR! don't you understand, girlyman! and in WAR you don't HATE your Commander-in-Chief! You respect and follow orders, understand! girlyman! in WAR much goes on that's not for the squeamish, so butt out and let the Real Men of your country Save it while you wring your hands and fret, woman! God Bless America!

Well marky,

I guess that answers your question of Bushiter if he/she had anything constructive to say!

yikes!

...."in WAR much goes on that's not for the squeamish, so butt out and let the Real Men of your country Save it while you wring your hands and fret, woman! God Bless America!"

Posted by Bushater

Bush, AWOL, shirked his TANG duties. Criminally, I might add.

Bush's kids. I guess they don't need to serve daddy's "noble cause", eh?

Cheney, multiple deferments. Had "other priorities" than serving his country in Viet Nam.

Cheney's kids. Serving???

Bush, saving our country??? You picked up a newspaper lately?

The Niger Documents
Do I need to point out to you that the FBI investigation into the forged Niger documents has shut down without answering the central question:
Who fabricated them? Of course the FBI answered the collateral and much more problematic question of why they were fabricated. According to it a "criminal enterprise" motivated by gain a was responsible. The documents were not created to "influence American foreign policy" Natch! What tea leaves they parsed to come up with that exonerating distinction is beyond me. There is nothing inconsistent with gain and getting a superpower to do your dirty work.

Its pretty clear after Senator Levin released a previously classified DIA report that all the "horror stories" were exaggerated or put more bluntly, false. The cabal ignored our own intelligence debunking and diseminated the false Saddam-Al Qaeda link; the aluminum tubes myth; the mobile chem labs myth; and the Niger uranium ore fraud.

The only criminal enterprise was the one going on in our own government. And its also pretty clear that Senate Republicans are going to stonewall on this travesty until 2008 unless they loose power in '06.

I have posted this morning my first draft of what I hope is a comprehensive chronology of Plamegate and the Niger forgeries. It is a first draft, 110+ pages, subject to rewrites and, of course, updates. Any assistance with corrections, additions, etc is always appreciated.

The chronology is at: http://jakking.typepad.com/daily/2005/11/intelligence_ch.html

Another thought on Christopher Meyer's memoirs -- his central charge that Blair and his cabinet went along with Bush's war because they deluded themselves about their supposed influence on Washington and fatally misjudged their true leverage -- zilch/nada/none -- is not exactly new. It has been pretty much conventional wisdom in the UK from day one and just as much, one might add, in Berlusconi's Italy and Aznar's Spain.

On Jan 15, 2003 -- at the height of pre-war frenzy and bloodlust, and with the Iraqi summer and thus an important technical deadline for military action fast approaching, John le Carré wrote the following in an op-ed for the Times of London:

The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in all this [i.e. the looming war] is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can't. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair's best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world's greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys?

Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

Read the whole thing.