LOOT AND LEARN: David Aaronovitch isn't a neocon, it's true, but he does keep behaving like one. Today's Guardian column is spent rubbishing the suggestions that the US had anything to do with the looting of Iraqi treasures during the war. Undeniably, the claims that 170,000 items had been lifted turned out to be as wide of the mark as, let's say, that forty-five minutes it would take the Iraqis to start shooting off weapons at us. But Aaronvitch is on much shakier ground when he fumes "The second is that - these days - you cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be believed."
But David, maybe the reason why people believe Americans have been involved in looting Baghdad is because the Americans say so. And it's not just the cameraman with Fox News who got caught - "The case was one of several to be detailed later Wednesday by Customs officials, who have seized other Iraqi artworks, weapons and other materials people have tried to smuggle into this country."
Yeah, the number of items pinched from the museum was over-stated - although US customs seems quite certain about its figure of 50,000 missing items from the country as a whole and is able to describe quite a lot of them. But to try and use the over-statement as the basis for pretending that the whole thing was cooked up to make the invaders look bad is to loot a false interpretation from the facts.

 
THE WAXMAN LETTER: Formerly pro-war Congressman Henry Waxman has written a fully anotated missive to Bush raising the questions about the dodgy 'evidence' offered up before the war.

 
DUBYA IN DOHA: For no reason other than we could, we thought we'd give George Bush's Doha speech to the troops a closer look:
Thanks for coming out to say hello. (Applause.) Thanks for your introduction, Tommy. I appreciate this warm welcome. I have a question for you: Can you hear me now? (Applause.)
The applause, we're guessing, was as scripted as the speech itself. We know that US troops aren't actually morons, which is why watching them behave like the audience on Jerry Springer, honking and baying to provide GWB with a TV-op, is so awful. We're told these are a smart, trained, disciplined body of men, and yet they're encouraged to behave like seals (the big fish-like mammals, not the navy guys) to help re-elect the President.
I've been on the road for a while, and I hope you didn't mind us stopping by. (Applause.)
You're the commander, you dimwit. How could they stop you?
We've seen a lot of fine sights, but there's no finer sight than to see the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. (Applause.)
Aw, shucks, you'll be making them good folk go all blushy…
I am happy to see you, an so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished. (Applause.)
The long-suffering people of Iraq didn't seem to be that happy to see the Americans, to be honest - although the departure of Saddam did lead many to crack a smile. Iraqis are upset about the US' activities in Fallujah and we'd imagine that the civilians still being shot by Americans don't really get the same warm glow at the sight of Uncle Sam as we're lead to expect. Indeed, many observers suggest that even amongst the Iraqis who welcomed the US invas… liberation, patience is running out.
The 'mission accomplished' claim is also a bit wobbly - George may have the 'Job Done' sticker up in the Pentagon window already, but large swathes of Iraq are far from secure - twenty-nine US troops have been killed in Iraq since the war was "ended" by GWB on May 1st; we were, however, surprised to discover that the whole liberating an oppressed people was part of the mission - we'd assumed that the fact that 1441 had made no final demands on Iraq to clean up its human rights act had meant the happy, grinning liberated faces was merely a lucky by-product.
Each one of you is a credit to the uniform you wear, and I bring a message from home: your families are proud of you, and so is America. (Applause.)
Presumably this includes the family members and US Congressmen who attempted to sue Bush back in March to stop the war?
I want to thank Tommy for his leadership. (Applause.) I don't know if you know this, but First Lady Laura Bush and Tommy Franks went to high school together. (Applause.) Midland Lee High School. She didn't think he'd amount to much. (Laughter.) He has done a fantastic job. (Applause.)
And they say that America is a meritocracy. Of course, it could just be a coincidence that the wife of the President and the head of his big military adventure go way back, isn't it? We don't quite understand how, though, the obviously ambitious Laura wound up with the weasly reformed soak rather than the slightly more attractive Franks. We bet she ponders this question herself, lying awake at night, listening to her husband stumble round after a couple more pretzels than he can handle.
I'm also honored to be traveling with a fantastic Secretary of State. (Applause.)
You might notice a few spelling errors in the speech. This is all as it appeared on the whitehouse website.
I want to thank the allied forces. I want to thank the Brits, the Australians -- (applause) -- I want to thank our friends from Poland -- (applause) -- for your service to your countries and to the cause of freedom, and for your courage.
No applause, you note, for the "Brits" from - ahem - the Yanks. But then, for the British, not having an American drop a bomb on you by mistake is thanks enough. We're guessing the awklward circumlocution 'friends from Poland' was to spare someone the job of explaining to George that Poles are an east European people, as well as the thing that keep tents up.
I want to thank the members of the armed forces of Qatar and I want to thank the Amir of Qatar, with whom I just met, for his hospitality and for his friendship to the United States of America. (Applause.)
The Amir of Qatar is a hospitable man. Back in March this year, he refused to let a little bit of torture make him spoil the visit of Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri to the Emirate by doing anything as rude as arresting him. Of course, the Emir doesn't rule over a country where there is any right to freedom of assembly and where public demonstrations are banned. Interestingly, Qatar is a one-party state and therefore hasn't got the democracy that it was apparently so important to deliver to the people of Iraq. Back in May 1995, an American citizen was given 90 lashes for the 'crime' of homosexuality. Great friends you got there, George.
But most of all, I'm here to thank you. (Applause.) We are in a war on global terror, and because of you, we're winning the war on global terror. (Applause.) When we sent you into combat, you performed brilliantly. In Afghanistan, forces directed from here from Qatar, and headquartered in Tampa, you delivered decisive blows against the Taliban and against al Qaeda. And now the people of Afghanistan are free. (Applause.)
If Al-Qaeda had been decisively blown against in Afghanistan, how were they posing such a threat to us in Iraq, as Powell told the UN? Would the decisively-blown Taliban be the same one distributing leaflets amongst the Afghan army in a major recruiting drive? Or blowing up peace keepers in Kabul last week?. Sweetly, Bush thinks that the multitudinous nature of terrorism is something that can be beaten by knocking out a couple of governments, which is on a par with dealing with swarming bees by closing down the local honey shop.
We have made it clear that we'll hunt the terrorists down. There's no place they can hide from the justice of the United States of America and our friends. And right now we've got -- we're on the hunt in the Horn of Africa. And of course, in the battle of Iraq, you set an example of skill and daring that will stand for all time. (Applause.) The very first strike in the liberation of Iraq started from right here, and many others followed. Missions of mercy are directed from here.
The Horn of Africa? Where the hell did that come from? It sounds like maybe it was just something that came to him. Maybe Bush meant he's got the horn for Africa.
Still, encouraging to know that there's no place terrorists can hide from the US. Except, of course, for wherever it is Saddam, Omah, Bin Laden et al have scampered off to. But it's early days in the hunt for them. Remember, gang, it took five years to 'find' Eric Rudolph, the suspected Olympic bomber. Of course, that search wasn't helped by the way patriotic Americans kept helping him, or the FBI's conclusion that he must have been dead - for how else could he have avoided their brilliant searches?-, and Rudolph's sneaky way of not giving himself up. Yeah, if I was a terrorist with just the whole of the fucking world to hide, I'd be shitting myself.
Congratulations to George on the whole new definition of 'Mission of Mercy', there, by the way - back in 2002, if someone had told me that A Mission Of Mercy could be simultaneously described as an Attack of Shock and Awe; well, I'd have laughed in your face.
Our actions sent a long, clear message that our nation is strong and our nation is compassionate. And we also sent another clear message: Dictators can no longer shield themselves behind innocent people. (Applause.) Those who threaten the security of others now need to worry about their own. (Applause.)
Except, of course, in the course of the attacks on Iraq, hundreds of civilians died, while large numbers of people were forced to fight to protect the Saddam regime. Saddam himself may not have been totally shielded, but he did make quite a good fist of using his people as a weapon. The message Bush has sent is exactly what he claims, but he neglected to mention why dictators can't hide behind their people - because the Americans are quite happy to go through the people, crushing them underfoot, to get to the seat of power. Really, George is showing the same sort of leap of logic that we saw on September 11th 2001. Then, the belief that hijackers wouldn't crash planes because they'd have a survival instinct was suddenly rendered void. In Iraq, Bush proved that the belief that liberating armies would take care to avoid killing those they wished to liberate in the process of that liberation was also outdated.
As you know, in the Battle of Iraq, we had some fine, fine soldiers at our side. Great Britain, Poland and Australia sent some of their finest to work with ours. America will always remember their service and their important role in our victory, and we're grateful.
"Grateful, but remember: it was our victory."
Neighbors in this neighborhood -- nations in this neighborhood (is he quoting Tony Hatch here?) also gave critical assistance to this coalition, for which we're grateful. Of course, Qatar, the host of CENTCOM, a great friend to the United States. And Kuwait always said yes when we asked. They also kept their oil flowing when it looked like there wasn't going to be enough. (Applause.)
Eh? When did it look like there wasn't going to be enough oil? During the privations of the month of war? Did we come close to oil rationing? Then how did oil prices start to fall during the war, if we were supposedly looking at this lack of black?
Whatever, that oil was Kuwait's big contribution to making the Middle East a better place. For Irqais, anyway. It could also have done something about the twenty three areas of concern expressed by the UN over its treatment of people at home, but it would be wrong to mention such failings in an oil-pumping friend, wouldn't it?
Our friends in Bahrain and the UAE and the rest of the Gulf contributed valuable assistance to our cause, for which we're thankful.
Bahrain: Again, apparently a democracy there isn't as pressing a need as it was in Iraq. But let's give them a big hand - 2001 was the first year in ages nobody threatened to rape a women prisoner. Hurrah! Still nobody has been brought to justice for the numerous abuses of prisonner's rights in the 1990s. UAE: No democratically elected governments in any of the seven states; limitations on freedom of speech, free trials; all books and papers have to be licensed as must any group from a children's club upwards
It was from this place that our commanders executed one of the most innovative war plans in the history of armed conflict. And the man who designed those plans was Tommy Franks. (Applause.) I want to thank Tommy and his staff. I also want to thank Command Sergeant Major Dwight Brown. (Applause.) I was going to say, "and his staff," but you're his staff. (Applause.)
Really? I thought it was Rumsfeld's idea? Or maybe not.
Under Tommy's leadership, CENTCOM forces have shown the true might of America, the strength of our country. You've also shown the humanity and decency of your country, as well. You see, this country, our country does not seek the expansion of territory. We're not interested in more territory. Our goal is to enlarge the realm of liberty. (Applause.)
This is actually nifty footwork on the part of George - nobody, I think has ever suggested that America wanted to fold Iraq in as the fifty-first state, so it's both true and fair to state that America isn't interested in the territory. It is, of course, by the by that the US is directly ruling the bits of the country it has under control with its non-elected, non-Iraqi leadership team in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention and the wishes of the UN - that's one of those wacky coincidences that could happen to anyone. And let's not run through the difficulty of enlarging the realm of liberty when you're praising dictatorships like Kuwait and Qatar. Let's just wonder instead why George didn't mention oil in this section.
We believe that liberty is God's gift to every individual on the face of the earth. (Applause.) We believe people have the right to think and speak and worship in freedom. That's what we believe in America. And that's what you showed the world. (Applause.)
Offer does apply in UAE, Kuwait, Qatar…
No, our military fights for the security, American people. And we fight for freedom. And we sacrifice for freedom and we have lost some of our finest. And this nation will never forget and will always honor their memories for the sacrifices they made. And it's not only serving our nation, but serving a cause greater than themselves. May God rest their souls. (Applause.)
We don't know what "our military fights for the security, American people" means - we wonder if he meant "of the American people"; but then how does putting American troops in danger to liberate the Iraqi people square with that? And isn't it incredibly presumptuous to decide that the American troops in the war died in the name of Bush's God?
Not only does the war on terror go on, but we've got a lot of work to do in Iraq. And we're going to stay the course until the job gets done. We will stand with them as they build a stable democracy and a peaceful future.
…or at least until we move on to Iran.
Our forces are taking aggressive steps to increase order throughout the country. We are moving those Baathist officials that are trying to hang on to power. There are still pockets of criminality. Remember, the former leader of Iraq emptied the jail cells of common criminals right before the action took place. And they haven't changed their habits and their ways. They like to rob and like to loot. We'll find them. (Applause.)
Yeah, you'll find them. They'll be the ones stood in stores filling their pockets. Or maybe that'll be Winona Ryder. Whatever. GWB doesn't state exactly where they're moving the Baathist leaders on to - maybe he missed a word or two. But at least its now clear - trouble in Afghanistan isn't because the Taliban weren't actually defeated; that's terrorism. In Iraq, it's down to 'common criminals.' We love the concept of Saddam freeing petty thieves from jail before the war. We could understand if he'd done it at the end, to thwart the Americans, but isn't releasing a bunch of desperadoes inside the country you're fighting to keep control of a rather odd thing to do?
Criminal courts are now reopening. Day by day, the United States and our coalition partners are making the streets safer for the Iraqi citizens. We also understand that a more just political system will develop when people have food in their stomachs, and their lights work, and they can turn on a faucet and they can find some clean water -- things that Saddam did not do for them.
The food thing was kind of tricky anyway, what with all those sanctions in place. Maybe if the Iraqi people hadn't been starving they might have been able to bring their own democracy in place, for themselves?
See, he spent more time building luxurious palaces than he did in building an infrastructure to take care of the Iraqi citizens. And the United States and our friends and allies will first take care of the Iraqi citizens. (Applause.) And they'll have some money to help themselves. After all, oil is now flowing. But this time the revenues are not going to be used and skimmed off by greedy gangsters. It's going to be used in a special account on behalf of the people who own the oil -- the citizens of Iraq. (Applause.)
If the Iraqi people own the oil, why is it Americans who are drawing up and signing the contracts to decide where that oil is going to be sold to? Why are large chunks of that oil money being handed over to American companies for 'reconstruction' work that the Iraqis haven't been consulted over? Yeah, big wow - the Iraqi people now notionally own the oil cash. Unfortunately, the US have done the international equivalent of those guys who come and tarmac your driveway and then demand you pay them a ridiculous sum for it.
Just a quick question, though: If those palaces were really bomb factories, like we were meant to believe, how were they luxurious?
One thing else we've done is we made sure that Iraq is not going to serve as an arsenal for terrorist -- for terrorist groups. We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is a man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth.
"This is a man who" presumably refers to Saddam, although George was talking about vans before that, so we can't be sure. And he didn't spend decades hiding weapons of mass murder, did he? Because dropping biological weapons on towns and hurling US-made arsenal at Iran and Kuwait isn't really a way of hiding them, is it?

Bush's mention of the mobile facilities is curious, since I'd have thought the rubbishing of the claims made for these vans - so free of biological weapon traces that it, erm, proved they must have been used for cooking up nerve agents - would have meant it was time to move on to the next likely looking suspect claim. But maybe he's just really pleased to have found some lorries.
But one thing is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the Iraqi regime is no more. (Applause.)
Well, that's true enough as it goes - what's more disturbing, though, is that if we believe Bush, the regime left behind significant stocks of weapon nasties. And the US don't know where it they are. So, if they do exist, we've gone from the weapons being held by a highly-centrist state to being lost in a huge country which, by Bush's account, is being in part ravaged and ransacked by criminals. Yeah, I'm going to sleep a whole lot better tonight, George.
As people who liberated Iraq, I know you're proud of what you have done. (Applause.) You see, the world is now learning what many of you have seen. They're learning about the mass graves, thousands of people just summarily executed. They're learning about the torture chambers. Because of you, a great evil has been ended. Because of you, the dignity of a great nation is being restored.
At least one of those mass graves filled with people killed as they attempted to flee the army - put in double jeopardy by the US invasion, in short. And you know what, George? The world knew about those things. The world had protested against those things. Right back when Donald Rumsfeld was flogging weapons to Saddam, the world already knew.
Because of you, America and our friends and allies, those of us who love freedom are now more secure. You have justified the confidence that your country has placed in you. You've served your country well. Your Commander-in-Chief is grateful. And as importantly, more importantly, millions of American citizens are grateful for what you have done. You believe in America and America believes in you. (Applause.)
Saddam is still at large. His weapons either didn't exist, or have disappeared. The terrorist threat had nothing to do with Iraq. But the militants have got a little more miltant. People aren't any more secure. You're lying, George. You're telling us tales to make us feel better; you're lying to your people for the best possible reasons - to make it seem to them that the death of their loved ones, the spending of all that money, wasn't in vain. But you know that the war on Iraq hasn't made the US any more secure than it was back in August 2001, don't you?
It is our tremendous honor to be here today with you. Keep doing what you're doing. You're making a huge difference in the peace and security and freedom in this world. May God bless you. May God bless your families. And may God continue to bless America. Thank you. (Applause.)
And, God? While you're doing all that blessing; if you could persuade America to take a little less interest in the world, that would be great.

 
CORRECTION FLUIDS: Naturally, the admission by the Guardian that it had misconstured a comment by Paul Wolfowitz and, as a result, run a story on its website to the effect that he'd admitted the war had been about oil is being seen by those who were keen for war as yet more evidence that the Guardian is all the things they always thought: distorting, slapdash, selective.
Erm... except of course, they found out they were wrong, corrected themselves - repeatedly, and in a way that had far more prominence than the original mistake - and deleted the item from the site.
So, the paper made a mistake. These things, unsurprisingly, do happen - we've even heard rumours that the mighty US army might make slip-ups from time to time, too. The difference being, of course, that the Guardian has done its best to correct itself, has apologised, and given the straighter picture of events, rather than blustered and sniffed well, shouldn't have been there anyway." It's a regrettable error, but compared with, let's say, confusing a headache pill factory with a weapons plant, or getting confused between the Chinese Embassy and a threat, or simply shooting people on your own side, it's not really a biggie, is it?
And it's certainly not like Paul Wolfowitz not saying 'the war is about oil' makes it true that one of the root causes of the dispuite was the reserves of crude under the Iraqi sand, is it?

Talking of the way things are reported, we were disappointed to discover the Radio News reports we'd heard about Clare Short's latest attack on Blair was slightly wrong - we'd been lead to believe she'd said that Blair and Bush had agreed to go to war with Saddam back in September. It turns out, in her piece in this week's New Statesman [payment required] that she's merely supposing this, and doesn't know it for a fact. Still, there's enough there to shame Blair anyway:
When Blair made his final push to keep me in the government, he promised a full UN mandate for reconstruction and was also adamant that the French president, Jacques Chirac, had already made clear that he would veto any second resolution. He said he could have got more time for Blix through a Chilean compromise formula - allowing some more time for Saddam to comply - if the French had not taken this position. I accepted this account, but was later sent by a member of the public an English translation of the transcript of Chirac's interview with French TV on 10 March. This made clear that France would indeed vote against any resolution that truncated the Blix process or allowed the US/UK to declare war without specific UN authority. But Chirac also said that if, after a few months, the inspectors came to the Security Council and said they were unable to guarantee Iraq's disarmament, "in that case it will be for the Security Council and it alone to decide the right thing to do. But in that case, of course, regrettably, the war would become inevitable. It isn't today."

My decision to stay in the government brought an abrupt end to the charm offensive. I was clear that we needed to prepare for the reconstruction by getting the military to prioritise their Geneva Convention obligations to keep order, provide for immediate humanitarian needs and keep civil administration running. This would enable the International Red Cross, the UN and NGOs to operate in Iraq. And then we needed urgent action in the Security Council to ask the secretary general to appoint a special representative to put in place an interim Iraqi administration and help the Iraqis to agree on drawing up a constitution and organising elections. This would be accompanied by the lifting of sanctions as soon as the war was over and the engagement of the World Bank and the IMF to support economic reform and ensure that change in the oil sector was carried out transparently and properly.