WAG THE DOG IN IRAQ?

Just such a propaganda campaign was in progress prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, President Bush told Americans that Saddam Hussein was preparing weapons of mass destruction that demanded a preemptive strike. There was little mention of other nations who also have weapons of mass destruction, such as India, Pakistan, France, Israel, Russia and China. At the time, India and Pakistan seem frighteningly determined to use theirs. Nor was there any mention of traditional terrorist groups like the Irish Republican Army, the Shining Path, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or others.

In fact, it was later announced that the Bush administration had been informed as early as October 3, 2002, that North Korea, a military power more than twice the size of Iraq, had developed nuclear capability as well as even “more powerful” chemical or biological weapons. Yet no mention of this “Axis of Evil” nation was made during the remainder of the month when Bush sought and won a congressional resolution approving an attack on Iraq. Democrats, especially in the Senate, fumed because Bush officials kept them in the dark about North Korea's plans just as they were deliberating the Iraqi resolution. Ordinary Americans snickered that, of course, North Korea has no oil to covet.

Also missing amongst the press coverage of North Korean's nuclear development plans was the fact that the funds needed to produce weapons-grade plutonium in their nuclear reactors came from US taxpayers, approved by President Bush in the spring of 2002.

In early April, Bush released about $94 million to North Korea as part of the 1994 Agreed Framework agreement to replace older nuclear reactors despite suspicions that their nuclear project was being used to produce weapons (North Korea had refused to allow UN inspections). According to BBC News, Bush argued that his decision was “vital to the national security interests of the United States.” About that same time, Bush argued that it was equally vital to attack Iraq.

Prominently missing from the crescendo of corporate mass media pieces on the need to move into Iraq were the names and arguments of many prominent persons who counseled caution. Eighteen former high-ranking US military leaders, intelligence analysts, diplomats and academics in early 2002 sent President Bush a letter urging him to “resist military actions against Iraq and focus on capturing the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.”

Among those who signed the letter were retired navy admiral Eugene Carroll, former CIA national intelligence officer William Christison, former chief of mission to Iraq Ed Peck, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Atkins, and former senator George McGovern.

The story of this letter was featured in China's official news agency Xinhau but received little attention at home.

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia claimed Bush's effort to start a war with Iraq was nothing more than a conscious effort to distract public attention from domestic problems. “This administration, all of a sudden, wants to go to war with Iraq,” Byrd said. “The polls are dropping, the domestic situation has problems. All of a sudden we have this war talk, war fervor, the bugles of war, drums of war, clouds of war. Don't tell me that things suddenly went wrong.” Byrd said his allegiance to the Constitution prevented him from voting for Bush's war resolution. “But I am finding that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this administration.”

According to former counterterrorism chief, Richard A. Clarke, Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11. “Invading Iraq for 9/11 is like China attacking us and we invade Mexico,” said Clarke. In a 2004 online Newshour interview with Margaret Warner, Clarke stated, “It would have been irresponsible for the president not to come in and say, ‘Dick, I don't want you to assume it was al Qaeda. I’d like you to look at every possibility, and I’d like you to look at every possibility to see if maybe it was al Qaeda with somebody else,’ in a very calm way, with all possibilities open. That's not what happened. What happened was the president, with his finger in my face, saying, ‘Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al Qaeda, a memo on Iraq and the attacks.’ Very vigorous, very intimidating, and in a way that left all of us with the same impression, that he wanted that answer. Well, we couldn't give him that answer because it wasn't true.”

It was soon discovered that the decision for war against Iraq also had come prior to the 9/11 attacks, with which there was no evidence indicating Iraqi involvement.

According to the August 30, 2002 edition of WorldTribune.com, Israeli military sources reported that a visiting American general, whose name was not disclosed, had told them in mid-August that Washington authorities intended to strike Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, perhaps as early as November 2002. Yuval Steinetz, chairman of the Israeli Knesset's subcommittee on military doctrine, spoke of talks with American officials in mid-June 2002 concerning a new order in a post-Saddam Middle East.

Once the 9/11 attacks occurred, such pre-planning moved rapidly. According to CBS Correspondent David Martin, notes taken by aides just five hours after the attacks show Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered up plans for a strike against Iraq. According to notes made at the time, Rumsfeld ordered, “Go massive; sweep it all up; destroy it all. Things related and not, it doesn't matter.”

By mid-2002, the push for war against Iraq continued to increase within the Bush administration despite lack of any real proof that Saddam represented a threat to the United States. In fact, much of the proof that was presented later proved dubious at best.

For example, on September 7, 2002, President Bush was trying to summon support for an attack on Iraq. In a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush announced, “I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied access, a report came out of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] that they were six months away from developing a weapon; I don't know what more evidence we need.”

However, Mark Gwozdeck y, chief spokesman for the IAEA, stated days later, “There's never been a report like that issued from this agency. We have never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon.” Bush and Blair also cited an IAEA report claiming satellite photography had revealed that the Iraqis were starting construction at several nuclear-related sites. Again, the IAEA, the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the UN, denied any such report.

When asked about the contradictions White House Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, “He's [Bush] referring to 1991 there. In ‘91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away.” 1991? Much more time than six months had passed between 1991 and late 2002.

Gwozdecky, speaking from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, said there was no such report issued in 1991 either. In fact, in an October 1998 report to the UN secretary-general, IAEA director-general Mohamed Elbaradei stated, “There are no indications that there remain in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.”

Gwozdecky told one reporter, “There is no evidence in our view that can be substantiated on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. If anybody tells you they know the nuclear situation in Iraq right now, in the absence of four years of inspections, I would say they're misleading you because there isn't solid evidence out there.”

The chief UN weapons inspector confirmed Hans Blix in April 2003 that plans to attack Iraq were longstanding and had little to do with weapons of mass destruction. “There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance,” Blix stated in an interview with the Spanish daily El Pais. Blix said that despite assurances from President Bush in late 2002 that he supported the UN’s efforts to determine if Iraq had any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, “I now believe that finding weapons of mass destruction has been relegated, I would say, to fourth place…Today, the main aim is to change the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein.”

America's own weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, a member of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) created just after the Gulf War to locate and eliminate Saddam Hussein's secret weapons caches, resigned in August of 1998 and accused the US government of using the commission to justify an attack on Iraq. Ritter said before his resignation that he had initially disbelieved Baghdad's minister of defense when he told him the UNSCOM team was being used to “provoke a crisis.” But now, though slowly, he had come to agree with the charge. Ritter's superiors scoffed at the allegation, claiming Ritter's knowledge of the situation was “limited.”

However, in early 1999 it was reported that Washington had used UNSCOM to plant electronic bugs in the Iraq's Ministry of Defense. Other US officials confirmed many of Ritter's accusations.

“The relationship between the United States and the inspection commission … has long been a subject of debate,” wrote U.S. News & World Report’s Bruce B. Auster. “The issue is sensitive because UNSCOM is an arm of the UN Security Council, not an agency of the United States, although it does rely on the United States for intelligence and personnel.”

On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell stood before the United Nations and presented a scathing indictment of Iraq's transgressions and called for a coalition to oust the regime of Saddam Hussein. “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence,” Powell told his audience.

It was later learned and widely reported in Europe that Powell's presentation was based on a British government dossier which had plagiarized the work of a California graduate student named Ibrahim al-Marashi. Large portions of al-Marashi's essay had been taken by British intelligence and, in some cases, altered in a manner damaging to Iraq. The essay had been published in September 2002 in a small journal entitled the Middle East Review of International Affairs.

If this wasn't problem enough to the hawks pushing for war in Iraq, Powell also produced for the UN a satellite photo of a northern Iraqi installation said to be producing chemical weapons for both Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda network. Some days later when news reporters actually toured the camp they found nothing but a bunch of dilapidated huts with no indoor plumbing or the electrical capability to produce such weapons.

But the most amazing evidence of official duplicity came with media reports concerning a meeting in the Waldorf Astoria between Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw just prior to his rousing speech at the UN. Powell complained that the claims coming out of the Pentagon—particularly those made by Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz—could not be substantiated. Faced with the possibility that the evidence for WMD in Iraq might “explode in their faces,” Powell reportedly tossed briefing documents into the air and cried, “I’m not reading this. This is bullshit!”

Despite all this, Powell went ahead with his speech and the corporate-controlled mass media did their job of dutifully supporting his assertions. Even his own staff was apparently taken in by the “evidence” put before them. US Army Colonel (Retired) Lawrence B. Wilkerson served as the Department of State's chief of staff from August 2002 to January 2005. He also served as special assistant to General Colin Powell when Powell was chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In a February 2006, interview with PBS host David Brancaccio, Wilkerson said that despite the fact that both the Intelligence Bureau and the State Department concluded there was no active nuclear program in Iraq, “…neither of those dissents in any fashion or form were registered with me [or others]…In fact it was presented in the firmest language possible that the mobile biological labs and the sketches we had drawn of them for the secretary's presentation were based on the iron clad evidence of multiple sources…

“My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council. How do you think that makes me feel?”

Host Brancaccio suggested that senior government officials also might not have known the truth. “I have to believe that. Otherwise I have to believe some rather nefarious things about some fairly highly placed people in the intelligence community and perhaps elsewhere,” responded Wilkerson.

Unaware of Powell's doubts and concerns, the American public only heard comments such as these from corporate media commentators and pundits: “an accumulation of painstakingly gathered and analyzed evidence,” so that “only the most gullible and wishful thinking souls can now deny that Iraq is harboring and hiding weapons of mass destruction,” “a massive array of evidence,” “a detailed and persuasive case,” “a powerful case,” “an overwhelming case,” “a compelling case,” “the strong, credible and persuasive case,” “a persuasive, detailed accumulation of information,” “a smoking fusillade…a persuasive case for anyone who is still persuadable,” “The skeptics asked for proof; they now have it,” “Powell's evidence over whelming,” “ironclad…incontrover tible,” “succinct and damning…the case is closed,” “If there was any doubt that Hussein…needs to be…stripped of his chemical and biological capabilities, Powell put it to rest.”

Such problems with the rationales given for war prompted one Democratic Congressman to state that President Bush would lie to provoke war with Iraq. Jim McDermott of Washington State in an ABC interview pointed out that in fall 2002, the Iraqis had pledged to allow unrestricted inspections within their country. “They should be given a chance,” said McDermott, who voted against war with Iraq in 1991, “otherwise we're trying to provoke them into war.” Following a visit to Iraq, McDermott said he believed Bush “would mislead the American people” to go to war with Iraq.

Another congressman on the visit to Baghdad, Michigan Democrat David Bonior, said a renewed war with Iraq would bring further suffering to the Iraqi people, especially children suffering from cancers caused by the US use of depleted uranium shells, which he described as “horrific and barbaric.”

Apparently lacking the spirit of American freedom of speech, Republican Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott referred to McDermott saying, “He needs to come home and keep his mouth shut.”

Even former president Clinton weighed in by urging the Bush administration to finish the job with Osama bin Laden before taking on Iraq. Speaking at a Democratic Party fund-raiser in early September 2002, Clinton undoubtedly spoke for millions of Americans when he said, “Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on September 11. Bin Laden did, and as far as we know he's still alive. I also believe we might do more good for American security in the short run at far less cost by beefing up our efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to flush out the entire network.”

One pivotal Democrat who spoke out against war with Iraq was Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, who also was one of the few congressmen calling for an independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Wellstone, who according to supporters worked for the benefit of all his constituents including workers, unionists and the needy, in late October 2002 was in a tough political fight against a Republican challenger backed by both GOP money and the Bush White House. Wellstone's seat could have tipped the entire Senate into the Republican camp, giving Bush a majority in Congress.

But the question of whether Wellstone might have won his battle will never be answered. He, his wife and daughter, three staffers and two pilots were killed in a private plane crash on October 25, 2002. It was reminiscent of the many plane crashes that have taken so many members of Congress, especially during the Reagan administration. In fact, well into 2010, disturbing questions were still being raised about the cause of Wellstone's fatal crash.

Texas Representative Ron Paul even noted that his challenge to the constitutionality of a war with Iraq was blocked on live TV and prompted the chairman of one congressional committee to openly declare that the US Constitution is no longer relevant. In a late 2002 newsletter to his constituents, Paul wrote that during hearings on the Iraqi war resolution before the International Relations Committee being televised live by C-SPAN, he tried to bring up the issue that declaring war was a power granted only to Congress by the Constitution, but the ranking minority member called his attempt to add an amendment declaring war “frivolous and mischievous.” “The proposed resolution on the use of force mentioned the United Nations twenty-five times. That was considered safe. Not once did it mention the Constitution. I do not look to the UN to find the authority for this sovereign nation to defend herself,” stated Paul. “It was almost noon on October 3, the second day of the hearings, when my turn came [after offering his war amendment] I reminded the committee of the words of James Madison, who in 1798 said, ‘The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.’ The Chair[man, Illinois Republican Henry J. Hyde] went on to say that the Constitution has been ‘overtaken by events, time’ and is ‘no longer relevant.’ At least it was out in the open. Now surely the display of such disdain for their oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution’ would light up Capitol Hill switchboards with angry callers!

“Little did I know that no one watching the hearings over C-SPAN not one single person of what statistically is an audience of several million Americans even heard those inflammatory comments. When my staff called C-SPAN to get a copy of the video record to document these outrageous statements, we were told ‘technical difficulties’ prevented that portion of the proceedings from being recorded and that same portion of the proceedings was also the only part missing on the internal record the House makes of such official hearings. It was as though it never happened.”

One Democrat who dared to simply raise questions about the War on Terrorism lost her seat in Congress. Representative Cynthia McKinney represented the 4th District of Georgia, which includes Decatur, just outside Atlanta. This was the district that sent Newt Gingrich to Washington. McKinney had three strikes against her in this Dixie district: she was a woman, black and a Democrat. The forty-seven-year-old former college professor was also quite outspoken.

At a peace rally in Washington on April 20, 2002, Rep. McKinney told the crowd, “despite our differences, we are here today as one community with one thing in common: a desire to see the restoration of the true ideals of America. America—where the fundamental rights to vote, speak and practice religion mean something. But America today is still a far cr y from the noble republic founded upon these words: All men are created equal.” She then declared, “Sadly, nor is ours a democratic society. In November 2000, the Republicans stole from America our most precious right of all: the right to free and fair elections.

“Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his secretary of state, Katherine Harris, created a phony list of convicted felons, 57,700 to be exact, to ‘scrub’ thousands of innocent people from the state's voter rolls. Of the thousands who ultimately lost their vote through this scrub of voters, 80 percent were African-Americans, mostly Democratic Party voters. Had they voted, the course of history would have changed. Instead, however, Harris declared Bush the victor by only 537 votes. It might be noteworthy that within two months of the 2000 election, according to U.S. News & World Report, Harris was inducted into the Council on Foreign Relations.

“Now President Bush occupies the White House, but with questionable legitimacy. But, however he got there, his administration is now free to spend one to four billion dollars a month on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; free to cut the high deployment overtime pay of our young service men and women fighting in that war; free to propose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve National Park; free to stonewall on the Enron and Energy Task Force investigations; free to revoke the rules that keep our drinking water free of arsenic; free to get caught in Venezuela and free to propose laws that deny our citizens sacred freedoms cherished under the Constitution.

McKinney concluded her remarks with this admonition, “We must dare to remember all of this. We must dare to debate and challenge all of this.” Some time later, McKinney drew the ire of Washington insiders when she dared to suggest that Bush administration officials may have ignored warnings of the terrorist attack to further their political agenda and that they and their cronies were profiting from the War on Terrorism. The war-for-profit argument has much objective data to support it, as will be seen later. McKinney certainly spoke for many when she said that the Bush administration has created a climate in which elected officials must censor themselves or be branded as less than patriotic.

McKinney also suggested that the War on Terrorism has benefited the Washington based Carlyle Group investment firm, which employs a number of former high-ranking government officials, including former President George H. W. Bush.

A Carlyle Group spokesman, while not addressing McKinney's facts, nevertheless asked, “Did she say these things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico?” It was truly ironic that such dismissive tactics should come at a time when a growing number of persons believe there is compelling evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, and have a willingness to consider that there may be substance to the claims of a UFO crash near Roswell in 1947.

Typical of the attacks against McKinney to be found in the mainstream corporate media were the remarks of Orlando Sentinel columnist Kathleen Parker, who described the congresswoman as “a delusional paranoiac” and called for an investigation of the woman “as passionately as she demands we investigate Bush's ‘involvement’ in the 9/11 terror attacks.” Parker added, “We no longer can afford to tolerate people like McKinney, who should never be taken seriously.”

In the face of such mass media diatribes, not to mention that Georgia allows cross-over voting, McKinney was defeated in the 2002 Democratic Primary but rallied by regaining her congressional seat in the 2004 election.

In May 2002, McKinney retorted, “Several weeks ago, I called for a congressional investigation into what warnings the Bush administration received before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I was derided by the White House, right-wing talk radio, and spokespersons for the military-industrial complex, as a conspiracy theorist.

Even my patriotism was questioned because I dared to suggest that Congress should conduct a full and complete investigation into the most disastrous intelligence failure in American history…Today's revelations that the administration, and President Bush, were given months of notice that a terrorist attack was a distinct possibility, points out the critical need for a full and complete congressional investigation. It now becomes clear why the Bush administration has been vigorously opposing congressional hearings. The Bush administration has been engaged in a conspiracy of silence.”

She went on to conduct crucial congressional hearings concerning the possibility of administration complicity in 9/11 in the summer of 2005 and early 2006.

Columnist Parker's attack was echoed throughout the mass media, which called attention to the fact that McKinney had accepted, long before 9/11, campaign contributions from Abdurrahman Alamoudi, founder of the American Muslim Council, and a man who has voiced support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Naturally, no one in the mainstream media called attention to the fact that the Bush administration blocked a number of investigations into their connections with terrorist groups or that the Bush family has been longtime friends with the Saudi royalty.

For example, about a week after McKinney's primary defeat, President Bush telephoned Saudi crown prince Abdullah and praised “eternal friendship” between the United States and Saudi Arabia. The president then retired to his Crawford, Texas, ranch for some private time with Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan and his family. The visit was styled as a family trip and a casual get-together. No cameras were allowed and neither Bush nor his royal guest would agree to be interviewed.

Also the media failed to mention that, according to British publications, the Republican Party had been receiving sizeable contributions from the Arabic Safa trust, which at the same time was funneling money to terrorist groups.

All of this came about shortly after a Rand Corporation analyst briefed a Pentagon advisory panel, stating, “The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader. Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies.”

It must be noted that no one disputes the fact that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers named by the FBI were Saudis and that six hundred families of 9/11 victims of the attacks filed a trillion-dollar lawsuit against Saudi officials, including members of the royal family, contending complicity in the terror attacks.

It is also interesting to note that some media lose enthusiasm for polling when the outcome deviated from the desired results. For example, in 2002 the Atlanta Journal- Constitution placed a poll on its Web site asking, “Are you satisfied the Bush administration had no warning of the September 11 attacks?”

Visitors could vote “Yes,” “No, I think officials knew it was coming” or “Not sure.” The vote seesawed back and forth for one day. When the final count of 23,145 voters showed 52 percent for “Yes,” 46 percent “No” and only 1 percent “Not sure,” the poll was suddenly pulled with no real explanation.

Even more odd was the lack of mass media attention given to a Zogby International poll conducted between August 24 and 26, 2004, on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

The poll showed that one half of New York City residents (49.3 percent) and 41 percent of New York state residents believed that some national leaders “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.”

Despite the political implications of such an accusation, nearly 30 percent of registered Republicans and more than 38% of those who described themselves as “very conser vative” supported this proposition.

The Bush administration continued its push for war with Iraq despite such polls and massive, though under-reported, anti-war demonstrations in American cities.

What were considered controversial concerns over the pretext for war against Iraq in 2002 became solidified in May 2005, with the public release of a “secret” memo in the United Kingdom.

What came to be known as the “Downing Street Memo” was a report written by British National Security Aide Matthew Rycroft of a July 2002, meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and advisers, including Richard Dearlove, head of the MI6 intelligence service, who had just returned to England from Washington after a briefing on Iraq by Bush administration officials.

The contents of the memo caused a considerable stir in Europe but were largely unreported by the US mass media.

The memo fully supported accusations that Bush—contrar y to his public statements—had not taken seriously any course of action but military. Further, it revealed that the intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was known to be flimsy and that Bush and Blair had no clear exit strategy. It stated, “…There was a perceptible shift in [the administration's] attitude [toward Iraq]. Military action is now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

Farther down in the document, it added, “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

The crucial passage in this memo, of course, was that Bush had “fixed” the intelligence around his policy. Yet, this admission by America's strongest ally did not seem to faze either the US corporate mass media or the ill-informed American public.

Hearst newspaper columnist Helen Thomas lamented the lack of public response, writing, “I am not surprised at the duplicity. But I am astonished at the acceptance of this deception by voters in the United States and the United Kingdom. I’ve seen two US presidents go down the drain—Lyndon B. Johnson on Vietnam and Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal—because they were no longer believed. But times change—and I guess our values do, too.”

Other commentators politicized the implication of the memo by blaming Bush's enemies and by tossing its contents off as unworthy of serious debate. Christian Science Monitor columnist Bud Beck wrote, “This is not the Watergate burglary and it is not a fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident. It is nothing new, just a new version of something that is old—so old it has become all but too boring.”

But by 2006, the deceitful ramp-up to the Iraqi invasion gained further confirmation, again from a once-secret British document.

Philippe Sands, a professor of international law at University College in London, made public a memo regarding a January 31, 2003 meeting between Bush and Blair in which Blair gave assurance he was “solidly” behind plans to attack Iraq. This was despite any second UN resolution and before Blair sought advice on the invasion's legality.

In this memo, there was even the mention of the bizarre possibility that Bush was contemplating a provocation to tempt Saddam into firing on United Nations’ aircraft. According to the memo, Bush was so concerned about the failure to find any hard evidence against Saddam, he considered “flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colors” hoping that “[i]f Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions].”

It should be noted that the two British memos have been acknowledged as genuine by the British government, but White House spokesman Scott McClellan, true to form, denied the interpretation of the Downing Street Memo brandished by Bush critics.

Despite such ongoing controversy over the deceptive plan to go to war with Iraq—including peace demonstrations rivaling those during the Vietnam era—a cowed and compliant Congress had long before opted out. In the wake of the wave of fear generated by 9/11, it had voted overwhelmingly in October 2002 to authorize Bush to launch his war whenever he desired. Once again the ugliest side of politics revealed itself: The politicians in Congress knew that if Bush's action in Iraq proved successful, they could share the credit and glory come the next elections; but if it proved to be an unwise decision, they could shift the blame to the president. So, an affirmative vote was much safer than to stand among the courageous few for the sake of honesty and integrity.

The irony of Bush urging war with Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's actions was not lost on commentators in other parts of the world. “There is something almost comical about the prospect of George Bush waging war on another nation because that nation has defied international law,” wrote George Monbiot of London's Guardian. “Since Bush came to office, the United States government has torn up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world has in twenty years.”

The deceit, dissembling and outright lies in regards to Iraq continued well into the Obama administration. On April 19, 2010, Vice President Joseph Biden announced the deaths at the hands of American and Iraqi security forces of two reported top al Qaeda leaders, Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. “Their deaths are potentially devastating blows to Al Qaeda Iraq,” Biden told the media, adding, “But equally important in my view is this action demonstrates the improved security strength and capacity of Iraqi security forces.” According to General Ray Odierno, top commander of US troops in Iraq, “The deaths of these terrorists is potentially the most significant blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq since the beginning of the insurgency.” Annoucnement of the deaths came from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who according to the Washington Post gained “additional political leverage at a crucial time.”

The only problem with this seemingly good news from the frontlines of the War on Terrorism was that both Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi had been reported killed several times in the past. Furthermore, in 2007, US Brigadier General Kevin Bergner told the media that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, proclaimed as the leader of the al Qaeda arm called the Islamic State of Iraq, did not exit. Bergner said Baghdadi was a fictitious person according to Khalid al-Mashadani, who claimed to be an intermediary to Osama bin Laden. Mashadani was captured in July 2007. US military officials in Iraq continued to have problems in trying to explain the link between al Qaeda in Iraq and bin Laden's reported global network. Interestingly enough, the man who reportedly created the character of Baghdadi was none other than Abu Ayub al Masri, one of those reported killed in 2010. However, Iraqi police officials had previously reported that Masri was killed in 2007 when his explosives belt detonated during fighting with security forces.

A year earlier, in April 2009, Baghdad's security spokesman, Major Genernal Qasim Atta had announced that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi had been arrested and jailed. In 2007 the capture of Baghdadi, followed by a retraction, was provided to the media three times. According to James Hider of the UK Times, “Iraqi security forces have reported al-Baghdadi's death and capture on several different occasions in the past, as well as claiming to have captured the man believed to be al-Qaeda's overall leader in the country, Abu Ayyub al-Masri. Some intelligence sources have denied that either man even exists, claiming that they are fronts either to throw the security forces off the scent or, in the case of al-Baghdadi, to give the terrorist network an Iraqi face.”

This ever-changing scenario hopefully came to an end with Baghdadi's most recent announced death, as US authorities said DNA tests confirmed the kill. But skeptics weren't so sure. Steve Watson, writing on PrisonPlanet.com, wrote, “Presumably the ridiculous loose ends of this soap opera will now be tied off and memory holed—although we cannot put it past al Masri and his imaginary friend to rise from the grave one more time a year down the line, particularly given that the Baghdadi character keeps being resurrected and acknowledged by the Iraqi government, the US military and the mainstream media. This saga is another example of how a manufactured smoke and mirrors propaganda veils reality. The ‘War on Terror’ mantra continues to be propagated as justification to wage permanent occupation and control over the Middle East by the global elite.”

As such confusion amid the continuing occupation of Iraq added to mounting losses proved a drain on public morale. A worldwide poll showed most respondents did not believe themselves any safer from terrorism. The BBC World Service in early 2006 reported that the majority of those polled believed the war in Iraq has increased rather than diminished the chances of terrorist attacks.

This survey of 41,856 people in 35 countries found about 60 percent of those polled shared this view. Only 12 percent thought the war had reduced the chances of an attack, with 15 percent saying it had no effect either way. In Britain, 77 percent of those questioned thought the terrorist threat had risen since the 2003 invasion.

“Though the Bush administration has framed the intervention in Iraq as a means of fighting terrorism, all around the world most people view it as having increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks.” said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which helped conduct the survey between October 2005 and January 2006.

Even more disconcerting were the results of a poll of US troops in Iraq in early 2006. This poll, conducted by Zogby International and Le Moyne College, showed 72 percent of respondents said they should withdraw from Iraq within 12 months. A surprising 29 percent said there should be an immediate pull-out. Only 23 percent said US troops should remain in Iraq “as long as they are needed.”

The president of Zogby International, John Zogby, said US commanders in Iraq unofficially approved the poll of 944 respondents, which was conducted before the escalation in violence in February 2006.

Showing that military personnel are not immune to misconceptions, the poll of service personnel indicated 85 percent of the troops agreed that the US mission in Iraq was “to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks,” even though President Bush has publicly acknowledged that Iraq played no role in the attacks. John Zogby described this notion as “bewildering.”

The disillusionment of American service personnel was reflected in a CBS News poll conducted in late February 2006, which show less than 30 percent of respondents approved of Bush's handling of the war.

Despite such negative public opinions and the questionable intelligence leading to the US invasion, there were still large profits to be made in Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney, already under attack for his involvement in profiting from doing business in Iraq despite US sanctions in place since the Gulf War, was pinpointed as one whose business interests profited from the 9/11 attacks. For example, approximately $20 billion for supplying the US military with food, fuel and housing has been paid to KBR, a division of Haliburton where Cheney served as CEO from 1995 to 2000.

But the cost of doing such business is high. As of February 2010—despite the fact that most other nations had already withdrawn their troops from Iraq—more than 65,000 US soldiers remained. These troops were outnumbered by US private contractors, which numbered more than 180,000. Total US military casualties had reached 4,416 dead and 31,897 wounded. This number did not include the psychologically damaged.

Then there is the estimated $9 billion of US taxpayer money that has gone missing in Iraq not to mention some $550 million in spare parts and equipment shipped to US contractors there.

By 2010, the cost of occupying Iraq was estimated at more than $12 billion a month or, about $5,000 every second. Nobel Prize-winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz estimated that the total costs, including the long-term costs, will amount to about $25 billion a month. New York Times editorialist Nicholas D. Kristof explained, “Granted, the cost estimates are squishy and controversial, partly because the $12.5 billion a month that we're now paying for Iraq is only a down payment. We'll still be making disability payments to Iraq war veterans 50 years from now.”

“A congressional study by the Joint Economic Committee found that the sums spent on the Iraq War each day could enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start or give Pell Grants to 153,000 students to attend college. Or if we're certain we want to invest in national security, then a day's Iraq spending would finance another 11,000 border patrol agents or 9,000 police officers. Imagine the possibilities,” opined Kristof. “We could hire more police and border patrol agents, expand Head Start and rehabilitate America's image in the world by underwriting a global drive to slash maternal mortality, eradicate malaria and deworm every child in Africa. All that would consume less than one month's spending on the Iraq War.”