Did they really think they could get away with this? Joby Warrick writes in today’s Washington Post,

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq — not made public until now — had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president’s statement.

The report was stamped “secret” and shelved, and for the next several months Administration officials continued to claim the trailers were weapons factories.

This seems to me the most chilling part of Warrick’s news story:

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts — scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons — who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. … None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized.

As I recall, Saddam Hussein had the same deal going with his weapons scientists. They’d tell him what he wanted to hear so they could keep their jobs. This sort of thing is not supposed to happen with the government of a free nation.

Today rightie bloggers are indignant about this story, calling it deceptive. They point to this paragraph that, they say, vindicates the President:

Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. “It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides,” said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

No cigar, righties. The Administration didn’t say, we think these trailers might be mobile labs. It said they were, unequivocally. And the evidence that they weren’t was then suppressed. That was dishonest. And it’s part of the now-familiar pattern — the Bushies cherry-picked intelligence, believing what they wanted to believe, discarding anything that didn’t support their conclusions.

Throughout the summer and fall of 2003, the trailers became simply “mobile biological laboratories” in speeches and press statements by administration officials. In late June, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell declared that the “confidence level is increasing” that the trailers were intended for biowarfare. In September, Vice President Cheney pronounced the trailers to be “mobile biological facilities,” and said they could have been used to produce anthrax or smallpox.

Warrick goes on to say that the Bushies had been looking for mobile labs because of stories told by the now-infamous Curveball. Good ol’ Curveball was shown photographs of the trailers, and he identified them as mobile labs. Others had doubts. So the Defense Intelligence Agency put together a team of specialists to resolve the issue. The specialists flew to Kuwait, where the “labs” were stored, to examine the labs. Within four hours it was clear to the entire team that the trailers were not mobile weapons labs.

But back in Washington, a CIA analyst had already written an official assessment that called the trailers “the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program.”

The technical team’s preliminary report was transmitted in the early hours of May 27, just before its members began boarding planes to return home. Within 24 hours, the CIA published its white paper, “Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants,” on its Web site.

One can imagine the pressure being applied from the White House to cover Bush’s butt on the WMDs. But I ask again — did they really believe they could get away with this?

I’m thinking about something Taylor Marsh said yesterday — “…it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what’s been going on for years. The president’s people have been covering for the president.” Exactly so. At first Bush family connections covered for him, and once he got into politics in Texas a team of cronies and sycophants — and Karl Rove — surrounded him to create the artful illusion that Bush was substantive, a leader, a man to be taken seriously. And they sold that illusion to a gullible public.

One of the paradoxes created by the mass media age is that the more local the government, the less most voters are paying attention to it, because mass media news is focused on national stories. Thus, We, the People get more news about what’s going on in Washington than we get about our state and local governments. It’s likely that, say, a governor of Texas gets less media scrutiny than a president of the United States. Such a governor could funnel money and favors to his supporters and cronies without worrying much about the public catching on. It also may be easier to persuade state judges to let aspiring presidential candidates wriggle out of giving testimony that might have been embarrassing, for example. Then again, had Bush served a seventh year as governor the artful illusion might have collapsed like a failed soufflé. Ya never know.

My point is, however, that for years the Bush team had been creating whatever “reality” they wished the public to believe. And they’d always gotten away with it. So when they got to Washington they continued to operate the way they’d always operated. And they got away with it for a remarkably long time.

But it’s obvious now the lot of them are in way over their heads, including the mighty Karl. Because now, the whole world is watching. And most of the world has no vested interest in covering Bush’s butt.

Via Steve Soto — Robert Scheer writes,

On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department’s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.

Thanks loads, Colin.

The harsh truth is that this president cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the countervailing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the president and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of a “mushroom cloud” over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the U.S. nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd.

A few hours ago the Pentagon announced the deaths of five U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The death total for April is now 31, which is the total for all of March. The grand total, for want of a better term, is now 2,363.

John Simpson, BBC, Via Avedon:

Just over three years ago, when I interviewed the Saudi foreign minister, I asked him why he thought the US was determined to invade Iraq.

He said he had put the same question to Vice-President Dick Cheney. Mr Cheney had replied: “Because it’s do-able.”

Read it all.

Nancy A. Youssef writes for Knight Ridder about the gratitude of liberated Iraqis:

In the middle of methodically recalling the day his brother’s family was killed, Yaseen’s monotone voice and stream of tears suddenly stopped. He looked up, paused and pleaded: “Please don’t let me say anything that will get me killed by the Americans. My family can’t handle any more.”

Oh, wait …

The story of what happened to Yaseen and his brother Younes’ family has redefined Haditha’s relationship with the Marines who patrol it. On Nov. 19, a roadside bomb struck a Humvee on Haditha’s main road, killing one Marine and injuring two others.

The Marines say they took heavy gunfire afterwards and thought it was coming from the area around Younes’ house. They went to investigate, and 23 people were killed.

The Marines initially reported that 15 people died in the explosion and that 8 insurgents were killed in subsequent combat. The Navy began an investigation only because a Time magazine reporter spoke up. On Friday three officers of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment were relieved of duty, but the Navy won’t admit this was because of the incident at Haditha.

The events of last November have clearly taken their toll on Yaseen and his niece, Safa, who trembles visibly as she listens to Yaseen recount what she told him of the attack. She cannot bring herself to tell the tale herself.

She fainted after the Marines burst through the door and began firing. When she regained consciousness, only her 3-year-old brother was still alive, but bleeding heavily. She comforted him in a room filled with dead family members until he died, too. And then she went to her Uncle Yaseen’s house next door.

Neither Yaseen nor Safa have returned home since.

Haditha is an insurgent stronghold, and the Marines there frequently come under attack. It’s not hard to imagine the Marines were stressed beyond comprehension and acted in the conviction they were shooting at insurgents. The real criminals are the politicians in Washington whose incompetence and hubris put those Marines in Haditha, IMO.

Indeed, many in this town, whose residents are stuck in the battle between extremists and the Americans, said now it is the U.S. military they fear most.

“The mujahadeen (holy warriors) will kill you if you stand against them or say anything against them. And the Americans will kill you if the mujahadeen attack them several kilometers away,” said Mohammed al-Hadithi, 32, a barber who lives in neighboring Haqlania. With a cigarette between his fingers, he pointed at a Marine patrol as it passed in front of his shop. “I look at each of them, and I see killers.”

Generations of Iraqis will hate us, I suspect.

Over at Thomas Paine’s Corner, Jason Miller writes about “America’s ‘Noble’ Cause“:

“Why are we over there in Iraq?”

“To protect our freedoms.”

“How are the Iraqis threatening our freedoms?”

“They attacked us on 9/11.”

“If that is true, why are so many Americans against the war?”

“I don’t know, but I think Cindy Sheehan and all the other war protesters should be rounded up and shot.”

Sounds familiar, huh? And, of course, the only reason anyone would be opposed to the Iraq War is hatred of President Bush.

Miller’s article — a diatribe against the American Empire — seems a tad harsh even to me, but there’s little in it I can argue with. One of his points is that “Americans” (I wish he would distinguish Bush supporters from the rest of us) believe that the U.S. has an inalienable right “to murder an unlimited number of innocent civilians so long as our military machine does the killing and we label the victims as ‘collateral damage.'”

I ‘spect if any rightie bloggers comment on Nancy A. Youssef’s article today, it will be to claim that Yaseen’s family must have deserved to be shot. And if not they should still thank us. We’re bringing them freedom, after all.

Sorta related: “Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate“; “Democracy in the Arab World, a U.S. Goal, Falters“

Josh Marshall thinks the Administration may have found a way to fund Iraqi reconstruction “off the books.”

Dennis Byrne writes in the Chicago Tribune that accusations that news media has a “liberal bias” are valid:

Those of us who haven’t been in a war zone criticize the work of war correspondents at our own peril. Yet, for all the assertions that little or no good news is to be found in Iraq, it is simple to find some on the Internet from, for example, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is helping rebuild Iraq. (Why is it called “rebuilding” Iraq, when it was a sorry state before the war? Shouldn’t we be talking about “building” Iraq?)

Billions of dollars of highway and other public works projects; new safety nets for the poor and vulnerable, entrepreneurial opportunities, a free press, leadership training–all requisites for successful self-government. For all the stories about power shortages, for example, how many explain that they are partly the result of exploding demand, a good sign of economic progress?

Oddly, some journalists give little credence to such official, attributable reports.

Yeah, if the government says it, it must be true, right?

Well, Dennis, today’s Washington Post carries the good news of Iraq reconstruction! Ellen Knickmeyer writes,

A reconstruction contract for the building of 142 primary health centers across Iraq is running out of money, after two years and roughly $200 million, with no more than 20 clinics now expected to be completed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says.

Oh, wait …

The contract, awarded to U.S. construction giant Parsons Inc. in the flush, early days of reconstruction in Iraq, was expected to lay the foundation of a modern health care system for the country, putting quality medical care within reach of all Iraqis.

Parsons, according to the Corps, will walk away from more than 120 clinics that on average are two-thirds finished. Auditors say the project serves as a warning for other U.S. reconstruction efforts due to be completed this year.

Dennis is right that billions of dollars were allocated for “highway and other public works projects.” We know this is true because senior officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority had so much cash lying around they played football with stacks of $100 bills. Unfortunately the games got a bit rough; contractors managed to piss away about $20 billion in American taxpayer dollars while leaving project unfinished, and $23 billion in Iraqi money set aside for reconstruction seems to have mostly, um, disappeared.

According to Lisa Zagaroli of Scripps Howard News Service (March 13),

… shortfalls in infrastructure were detailed in a recent report by Stuart Bowen Jr., special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

Of 136 water sector projects, only 49 will be completed, and most of those involving sewerage, irrigation, drainage and dams have been canceled. Of 425 electricity projects, only 300 will be completed and only 2,200 megawatts of additional power will be delivered instead of the 3,400 megawatts that had been planned, Bowen told senators last month.

But this is looking at the glass half empty. Let’s focus on what actually has been accomplished. And here we can turn to no better authority than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has a genius for optimism. Sue Pleming reported for Reuters (February 17):

Congress has given more than $20 billion for projects aimed at improving Iraq’s dilapidated infrastructure and winning over Iraqis with better utility services, and Rice told lawmakers that conditions were better.

But in three key areas — access to drinking water, electricity and sewer service — Iraqis are worse off than before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, according to statistics released last week by the U.S. special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. …

… Rice, who had told the committee more Iraqis had access to sewerage and water services than before, argued that what the United States had improved was “capacity” and the United States had made a difference.

“I think this may be an issue of whether we are talking about delivery or capacity. We have increased the capacity for clean water for several million Iraqis,” she said.

Yeah, I know I’ve used that one before, but it’s too good not to repeat.

Still, Dennis might say, we have liberated Iraq. They should be grateful to us for setting them free and making their lives better!

On March 18 Iraqi blogger Riverbend wrote,

I don’t think anyone imagined three years ago that things could be quite this bad today. The last few weeks have been ridden with tension. I’m so tired of it all- we’re all tired.

Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it’s on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots.

School, college and work have been on again, off again affairs. It seems for every two days of work/school, there are five days of sitting at home waiting for the situation to improve. Right now college and school are on hold because the “arba3eeniya” or the “40th Day” is coming up- more black and green flags, mobs of men in black and latmiyas. We were told the children should try going back to school next Wednesday. I say “try” because prior to the much-awaited parliamentary meeting a couple of days ago, schools were out. After the Samarra mosque bombing, schools were out. The children have been at home this year more than they’ve been in school.

Oh, wait …

Actually, the Riverbend post I wanted to link to is this one, which freaked out even me. Riverbend was watching television —

I was reading the little scrolling news headlines on the bottom of the page. The usual — mortar fire on an area in Baghdad, an American soldier killed here, another one wounded there… 12 Iraqi corpses found in an area in Baghdad, etc. Suddenly, one of them caught my attention and I sat up straight on the sofa, wondering if I had read it correctly.

E. was sitting at the other end of the living room, taking apart a radio he later wouldn’t be able to put back together. I called him over with the words, “Come here and read this- I’m sure I misunderstood…” He stood in front of the television and watched the words about corpses and Americans and puppets scroll by and when the news item I was watching for appeared, I jumped up and pointed. E. and I read it in silence and E. looked as confused as I was feeling.

The line said:

وزارة الدفاع تدعو المواطنين الى عدم الانصياع لاوامر دوريات الجيش والشرطة الليلية اذا لم تكن برفقة قوات التحالف العاملة في تلك المنطقة

The translation:

“The Ministry of Defense requests that civilians do not comply with the orders of the army or police on nightly patrols unless they are accompanied by coalition forces working in that area.”

That’s how messed up the country is at this point.

This doesn’t sound good —

They’ve been finding corpses all over Baghdad for weeks now- and it’s always the same: holes drilled in the head, multiple shots or strangulation, like the victims were hung. Execution, militia style. Many of the people were taken from their homes by security forces- police or special army brigades… Some of them were rounded up from mosques.

Be sure to read the whole post; it’s gut-wrenching. How can Iraqis not hate us for bringing this about? And the perps are not always “militia” or “terrorists” or even “insurgents.” This is from A Star from Mosul, March 9:

Uncle S was dad’s only uncle from his mother’s side. … Yesterday, he was shot by Americans on his way back home, and he died. Like many others, he died, left us clueless about the reason, and saddened with this sudden loss. He was shot many times, only three reached him: One in his arm, one in his neck and one in his chest. But they said they’re sorry. They always are.

War supporters seem to think Iraqis should overlook these little episodes and love us anyway, because we’re carrying out whatever it is we’re carrying out for their own good. Yet there are righties who have never been personally wronged by a Middle Easterner, but who feel justified in hating Middle Easterners because, you know, they wear strange clothes and eat falafel. No good comes from that.

Today U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw are on a secret but well-publicized visit to Iraq (let’s hope they brought several cases of bottled water). This dauntless duo is demanding that Iraqis must disband the militias and dump the prime minister and get their government together right now because the “coalition” is losing patience with them.

John Ward Anderson reports for the Washington Post that

At least 50 people were killed Sunday in Iraq in a catalogue of violence that included a mortar attack, military firefights, roadside bombings and other explosions.

In addition, the U.S. military reported the deaths of six soldiers and airmen, including two who were killed when their helicopter apparently was shot down during a combat air patrol southwest of Baghdad on Saturday.

But it’s not fair to report on bad things happening in Iraq without discussing the good things, says Mr. Byrne:

News often is defined as something that didn’t happen before, or rarely happens. So, if indeed little good is happening in Iraq, every piece of (rare) good news ought to be reported with the same fervor as every act of violence–which we’re to believe is an increasingly common occurrence. And, logically, less deserving of reporting. Or does the absence of reporting “good news” in a country the size of Iraq actually mean that reporters can find absolutely nothing good?

If all this is confusing, it’s nothing compared to the confusion shared by the American public about what actually is happening in Iraq. The media’s credibility has become so strained that partisans on both sides have to admit in good conscience that they’re unsure of what’s real. Obviously, this isn’t good for a democracy.

I’d say that Jill Carroll’s release was good news, and it got a lot of attention, but apparently that’s not enough. And the truth is, some journalists in Iraq admit that the images projected on television do not accurately reflect the situation on the ground.

The situation on the ground, they say, is worse.

An editorial in today’s New York Times:

Iraq is becoming a country that America should be ashamed to support, let alone occupy. The nation as a whole is sliding closer to open civil war. In its capital, thugs kidnap and torture innocent civilians with impunity, then murder them for their religious beliefs. The rights of women are evaporating. The head of the government is the ally of a radical anti-American cleric who leads a powerful private militia that is behind much of the sectarian terror.

It would be nice if television and radio news explained this clearly, but an editorial is a start.

The Bush administration will not acknowledge the desperate situation. But it is, at least, pushing in the right direction, trying to mobilize all possible leverage in a frantic effort to persuade the leading Shiite parties to embrace more inclusive policies and support a broad-based national government.

Translation: Having screwed around for three years, the Bush Administration may be about to realize they created a monster they can’t control.

One vital goal is to persuade the Shiites to abort their disastrous nomination of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Mr. Jaafari is unable to form a broadly inclusive government and has made no serious effort to rein in police death squads. Even some Shiite leaders are now calling on him to step aside. If his nomination stands and is confirmed by Parliament, civil war will become much harder to head off. And from the American perspective, the Iraqi government will have become something that no parent should be asked to risk a soldier son or daughter to protect.

Unfortunately, after three years of policy blunders in Iraq, Washington may no longer have the political or military capital to prevail. That may be hard for Americans to understand, since it was the United States invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and helped the Shiite majority to power. Some 140,000 American troops remain in Iraq, more than 2,000 American servicemen and servicewomen have died there so far and hundreds of billions of American dollars have been spent.

I’ve said before that Iraq will be to Gawd Almighty Superpower America what Russia was to Napoleon. Thanks to flaming delusional idiots like Rummy and Cheney, the world now knows what our limits are. Even if some of us haven’t figured it out yet.

Yet Shiite leaders have responded to Washington’s pleas for inclusiveness with bristling hostility, personally vilifying Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and criticizing American military operations in the kind of harsh language previously heard only from Sunni leaders. Meanwhile, Moktada al-Sadr, the radically anti-American cleric and militia leader, has maneuvered himself into the position of kingmaker by providing decisive support for Mr. Jaafari’s candidacy to remain prime minister.

It was chilling to read Edward Wong’s interview with the Iraqi prime minister in The Times last week, during which Mr. Jaafari sat in the palace where he now makes his home, complained about the Americans and predicted that the sectarian militias that are currently terrorizing Iraqi civilians could be incorporated into the army and police. The stories about innocent homeowners and storekeepers who are dragged from their screaming families and killed by those same militias are heartbreaking, as is the thought that the United States, in its hubris, helped bring all this to pass.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. — Proverbs 16:18

I hate to say this, but maybe the Bushies should have read their Bibles more closely before the bleeping invasion.

You can read the Edward Wong interview here and here.

It is conceivable that the situation can still be turned around. Mr. Khalilzad should not back off. The kind of broadly inclusive government he is trying to bring about offers the only hope that Iraq can make a successful transition from the terrible mess it is in now to the democracy that we all hoped would emerge after Saddam Hussein’s downfall. It is also the only way to redeem the blood that has been shed by Americans and Iraqis alike.

Every now and then someone who is smart enough to understand what’s happening will issue a statement like we can still win or we can still have a positive outcome in Iraq. Assuming they aren’t just plain lying, it seems to me these people are looking at Iraq as a kind of arithmetic problem. It’s still mathematically possible that we can make this work. Put another way, if we don’t make any more mistakes from this point forward, maybe we can salvage something from this mess. But then there’s the idiot factor — the Bushies are still in charge. So we know more mistakes will be made. The editorial writers need to come to grips with that.

See also Taylor Marsh.