Article Image
News Link • History


In October, 2002, I wrote an analysis of the impending Iraq War for “American Conservative” entitled “The Road to Folly.”

I observed, “A war that fails to achieve clear political objectives is merely an exercise in violence and futility.”   Having covered 14 conflicts as a war correspondent and the Mideast, I’ve seen a lot of violence and futility. 

The White House launched a thunderous, utterly shameless propaganda campaign about phony threats to America and the world from President Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

On cue, US forces invaded Iraq in March, 2003. 

In America, the “bodyguard of lies” that Churchill said accompanies every war swelled into an army of liars. The Bush administration’s neocons played a leading role in engineering the Iraq conflict. Media acted as megaphones for the war party.

Thanks to the drumbeat of lies and insinuations, over 80% of Americans believed the canard that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

A few observers who dared critique George W. Bush’s rush to war, this writer included, were  denounced by the neocon media as “un-American,” “traitors,” or Saddam apologists – rather rich in my case since in 1991 the fun-loving Iraqi secret police had threatened to hang me as an Israeli spy! 

Invading Iraq would be a disaster for all concerned, I predicted, except for Israel, which would see a potential nuclear rival and the most technologically advanced Arab nation crushed by US power. Iran would also cheer the ruin of the hated Saddam, who had invaded Iran at the behest and with the support of the US and its Arab oil allies. 

“Bush is wrong if he thinks Iraq can be turned into another docile American protectorate like Kuwait or Bahrain.   He is committing an act of imperial overreach,” I wrote.  I also insisted Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.


Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Free Talk Live