"The Road to Coverup Is the Road to Ruin"
Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd

June 24, 2003

Mr. President, last fall, the White House released a national security strategy that called for an end to the doctrines of deterrence and containment that have been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than half a century.

This new national security strategy is based upon pre-emptive war against those who might threaten our security.

Such a strategy of striking first against possible dangers is heavily reliant upon  interpretation of accurate and timely intelligence.  If we are going to hit first, based on perceived dangers, the perceptions had better be accurate.  If our intelligence is faulty, we may launch pre-emptive wars against countries that do not pose a real threat against us.  Or we may overlook countries that do pose real threats to our security, allowing us no chance to pursue diplomatic solutions to stop a crisis before it escalates to war.  In either case lives could be needlessly lost.  In other words, we had better be certain that we can discern the imminent threats from the false alarms.  For the rest of this speech by the "Dean of the Congress," see Sen. Robert C. Byrd

THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR

The First Casualty
by Spencer Ackerman
& John B. Judis

The New Republic

June 30, 2003

The United States may still find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. But the damage is already done. The Bush administration grossly exaggerated Iraq's nuclear program and its ties to Al Qaeda. And, in so doing, it misled the American people about the most important decision a government can make. A special investigation into the selling of the war by The New Republic. For the rest of this compelling analysis, see The New Republic

The Guardian newspaper, which originated the following story, issued a correction/clarification the following day (June 5) saying that the Wolfowitz quote had been taken out of context. See Guardian The correction was prompted by a Blogger's detailed analysis of how the quote had been misconstrued, and gives evidence of the impact Blogs are having on mainstream journalism.

 Wolfowitz: ‘Iraq War Was About Oil’

  By George Wright
  The Guardian
  Wednesday 04 June 2003

  Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

  The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil. For the rest of the story, see Truthout

Poll: U.S. Image Abroad Worse Since Iraq War

By William Douglas
WASHINGTON BUREAU--Newsday

June 4, 2003

Washington - The United States' image abroad, bad before the war against Iraq, has plunged further in its aftermath, according to a survey released yesterday.
The poll, conducted in 20 countries and the Palestinian Authority by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, found softening international support for the war on terrorism, growing fear in several countries that they will be attacked by the United States, and an expansion of deep distrust among Muslims of President George W. Bush and his policies. For the rest of the story, see Newsday

Where is Bush leading us?

By Gary Hart, 6/2/2003

SOMETIME LAST FALL, between the successful overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the notion of ''regime change'' in Iraq, the war on terrorism as it threatened America became a war on all terrorism everywhere. And ''terrorism'' came to include all evil and governments we didn't like. It would be interesting to know how this happened. Even more, it is important to know how this happened, because when the Bush administration decided to go after terrorism everywhere it fundamentally defined a new role for America in the world.

Iraq represented no immediate or unavoidable threat to the United States. We overthrew its government because key Bush administration officials convinced the president it was the next step in the war on terrorism. But they had decided Saddam Hussein must go a full decade before 9/11. The destruction of the World Trade towers, which Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with, simply gave them the excuse to resurrect an old agenda. For the rest of a thoughtful survey of what has happened to U.S. foreign policy in a very short time, written by former Sen. Gary Hart, see Boston Globe