At the hearings of investigation 9/11 former White House counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke criticised the Bush administration that it did not undertake any measures to stop al Qaeda activities before 9/11. In addition, Mr. Clarke said that the war with Iraq was unnecessary and costly.
The issue of false accusation against Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction has been subject for heated debates in the USA for a year after the end of Iraqi war.
Earlier PRAVDA.RU newspaper dwelled on the situation with the alleged existence of WMD in Iraq. PRAVDA.RU columnist quoted the version published by the Guardian. The theory says that Saddam Hussein and top authorities were misguided by mid-level officials and scientists, who worked on WMD. The former Iraqi leader was certain he had such weapons, but in fact in was either destroyed or malfunctioning. But he wasn’t told this out of fear of punishment.
PRAVDA wrote that with the neo-cons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney within the White House seemingly convinced that Saddam Hussein was one step away from nuking the US off the face of the earth, it now seems that it actually took very little factual information of any kind to convince them of this fantasy. The tiniest of particles of intelligence such as meetings in Hungary between Iraqi intelligence officers and al-Qaida operatives and purported purchase of yellowcake from Niger were deemed to be conclusive proof that the Saddam-led apocalypse on America was due any minute now and counting. So skewed was the administration's convenient and selective interpretation of this at times that it choose to even go as far as believing things that we subsequently have learnt never even happened in the first place. How ironic then that with this sort of approach to matters, the CIA should now look like becoming the fall guy yet again for events. Just as they were made the primary scapegoat for pre-9/11 events, they are now probably going to get blamed for being at fault for post-9/11 events too.
John Hickman, Associate Professor of Political Science in Berry College wrote in PRAVDA that freedom is the other justification for the war in Iraq. The word 'freedom' appears 8 times in Bush"s speech, yet it is unclear what he meant by the word. As used in the speech, one can live in freedom, believe in freedom, spread freedom, defend freedom, pay the ultimate price for freedom, or rebuild Iraq based on freedom. Presumably anything but define freedom. More tellingly, Bush uses the word 'democracy' only once and then not in connection with the promise to, "stay until the job is done." Whatever the second Bush administration means by freedom or by staying until the job is done, it does not appear to require establishing a real democracy.