The Arrogance of Rumsfeld
'It is not even the fact that he said it that is so shocking, but the dismissive way in which he said it. [that Iraq may have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction before the coalition forces went to war on Saddam Hussein.] This was an off-the-cuff remark made during a speech focused on warning Iran against meddling in the rebuilding of Iraq. This was no embarrassed gaffe or embattled admission. It was as if it did not matter... The people who backed the conflict - including this newspaper - did so because both the British and American Governments produced intelligence which they said proved Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and that there was evidence that Saddam was seeking to build nuclear weapons.'

I'm not sure whether to take these sorts of statements seriously. If so, there seems to be a high level of naivete and gullibility in the British media and political system. Well before the war started it was clear to anyone with an internet connection that WMDs were a pretext, that neocons who dominate the Bush administration were determined to attack Iraq because it was 'unfinished business.' Clumsy frauds and lies (such as the Niger uranimum shipment) were exposed before the war even started. Perhaps these statements and the run they are getting are an indication among elites that they now believe the Bush doctrine must be contained.

The Arrogance of Rumsfeld
'It is not even the fact that he said it that is so shocking, but the dismissive way in which he said it. [that Iraq may have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction before the coalition forces went to war on Saddam Hussein.] This was an off-the-cuff remark made during a speech focused on warning Iran against meddling in the rebuilding of Iraq. This was no embarrassed gaffe or embattled admission. It was as if it did not matter... The people who backed the conflict - including this newspaper - did so because both the British and American Governments produced intelligence which they said proved Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and that there was evidence that Saddam was seeking to build nuclear weapons.'

I'm not sure whether to take these sorts of statements seriously. If so, there seems to be a high level of naivete and gullibility in the British media and political system. Well before the war started it was clear to anyone with an internet connection that WMDs were a pretext, that neocons who dominate the Bush administration were determined to attack Iraq because it was 'unfinished business.' Clumsy frauds and lies (such as the Niger uranimum shipment) were exposed before the war even started. Perhaps these statements and the run they are getting are an indication among elites that they now believe the Bush doctrine must be contained.