I must admit I'm quite annoyed by your attempt at misinformation, or your ignorance of the issues and their history.

History of UNSCOM Reports attest without doubt to the will to create dummy facilities to decieve inspectors, the continued refusal to interview scientists without coercion, concealment of chemical and biological deposits and more famously the attempts to buy them on the Black Market, the un-accounted for weaponry Irak was known (and admitted) to posses after the Kamal Hussein defection etc.

Now from your text, it seems to me you are unaware of what the power of the "inspectors" actually was: they were only allowed to inspect the facilities listed for inspection by the Iraqi authority itself, they DID NOT comb the countrysides or investigate about possible wearabouts of the facilities themselves. Thus all we had was Saddam Hussein's word, which we already knew wasn't worth anything considering his continued tearing-up, when it suited him, of ANY treaty he signed with other countries.

Let us also not forget that Libya, that at the time was going down the same path as Iraq, quickly complied to the treaties it already signed (finally) shortly after the US invasion of Irak. Discovery: things were much worse then anyone had expected! The Libyan stockpile of WMDs was boosted to a frightening extend, we now know, by WMDs bought on the Black Market in Pakistan! (the A.Q. Khan black market, now put out of commission)

Furthermore, Iraq had already done the 4 things after which a country can be considered to have lost its sovereignty and be invaded:
invade other countries (Persia/Iran, Koweit), commit Genocide (Kurdistan), use weapons of mass destruction (which were used against its own people and Iran)and harbour international terrorists.

It also seems you have not researched beyond politicians and popular newsoutlets about what was actually found in Iraq...let me enlighten you again: I advise you to read the book by Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear physicist Mahdi Obeidi, if you're actually interrested in how wrong you are about the WMDs. (who's confirmed job it was to run the weapons concealment program for the Bath Party).

Now finally, let me clear up a misunderstanding that seems implied in your text. It is indeed true that the US opted to scare the public into agreeing with an invasion rather then persuading (which is alot harder, especially if you dont know your history...which most people dont), but the debate between people who had any knowledge of the conflict was by no means limited to WMD's in its arguments. (and neither were the inner workings of the US and UK governments)

The picture indeed was clear enough to anyone willing to look, though clearly not in the way you used the expression for...I could go on for a long time, but I did enough to vent my anger at you ^^ Ciao

Rest assured, I'm by no means the type to be controlled by my anger, even less so in writing. (where I have the time to weigh my words.

You say my words are somehow inapropriate, yet your article reeks of misinformation: hence my words are exacly as they should be. Skipping the fatuous nullify of your sense of "chic", if as you say you are aware of the sources I mentioned then technically your article falls in the propaganda definition. You, in such a case, purposefully and knowingly deformed the truth to the extent of allowing the denomination of lying. Which is the reason I do not believe you actually are aware of those sources (call me naive if you will)

furthermore, "the administration" was clear about the main reasons for the Iraq invasion. The rest of the job of informing the public lied, as always, with the media. Sadly mainstream media did not do it's job. Yet anyone slightly interrested who found it to be important enough to get off their lazy arses were able to get the information without much difficulty. Not to mention that many of the debates were on television.

And sorry to have to mention this again, as in my previous entry I already showed that all information in your article is inacurate or false: are you aware Iraq had violated all four conditions under international law that OBLIGATE countries to intervene? (as in only one of those is required for lawfull intervention on principle, and Iraq did all four and this several times). Seriously that you would write an article about this without having researched how the period between the first Bush and the second Bush went in Iraq amazes me.

Do I also have to remind you that going to war is not ever open to popular vote? Your rediculous idea that the government went behind the peoples back showsyour
ognorance in the political process. Politicians debated and decided using the laid out pathways, so you attempt at a moral point is utterly void of meaning.

As the rest of your comment is so obvious to counter and ridicule, I'll finish with this: if that is what your mother used to tell your, the moral reply would be that she should mind her own business. The role of journalism is the chalenge of authority, to strip away diplomatic White noise speech and lay bare truth! A journalist by definition is obligated by trade to have his fangs drawn, to name lies and deception by it's name, and not rely on the use of euphimism and such only to be better regarded, liked, or achieve the superficial titles such as politeness that you seem to cherish so, again, fatuously.