UPDATED - ColdType

EMBEDDED: WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION
British press was revealing that Downing Street
had doctored a dossier on Iraq’s weapons program
to make it “sexier.” This is according to a
senior British official who claims intelligence
services were unhappy with the assertion that
Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
were ready for use within 45 minutes, The
Guardian reports.
New information about the war itself is emerging.
Pacific News Service reports that the seeming
successful invasion of Baghdad may have
been staged. It reports on a story “making headlines
around the world – but not in U.S. media,”
and goes on to say: “European newspapers are
reporting that a notorious Republican Guard
commander mysteriously left off the U.S. card
deck of 55 most-wanted Iraqis was bribed by the
United States to ensure the quick fall of Baghdad.”
Pacific News Service also says: “A San Francisco
Chronicle interview with Iraqi soldiers suggests
that Saddam himself may have doublecrossed
his soldiers and made a deal. Saddam
refused to follow a military plan established
before the war to launch the street war to defend
Baghdad, despite the repeated statements of the
leadership that the Iraqi army would fight from
one house to another to defend the capital.”
The London-based, Saudi-owned newspaper
Al-Hayat says: “For the first time, Iraqi soldiers
have revealed the details of the fall of the Iraqi
capital Baghdad, explaining why the American
troops entered it without meeting any resistance.
One of the main reasons is that Qusay, the
youngest son of former Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein, issued a number of orders during the
last days of the war, which resulted in the death
of the Iraqi Republican Guards’ elite outside the
234
city. This enraged the military leaders, who
decided to return home calmly, and let the city
fall at the hands of the invading troops.”
Slowly but surely, new information like this is
trickling out, calling into question the rationale
for the war and the coverage of its most celebrated
moments. The International Press Institute
says that an estimated 3,000 journalists covered
the war, making it one of the most reported
events in history. Many of their stories seem to
confirm the institute’s finding that “propaganda,
bias and disinformation were more prevalent
than accurate and relevant information.”
This propaganda offensive was all too successful
in the way it influenced media coverage and
permitted the Bush Administration and its perception
managers to dominate the media and
drive all other voices to the margins. Stories
came so fast and furious that there often wasn’t
time for follow-up, clarifications and diverse
interpretation. Breaking News broke up our
attention spans, lurching from one new development
to another.
In its postmortem, the International Press
Institute concludes: “At least 15 journalists died in
the conflict. Two are still missing. Journalists
and media outlets were targeted and attacked;
journalists were beaten, harassed, jailed and
censored. The battle over the airwaves and public
opinion was seemingly as important to the
belligerents as the battles over territory and air
superiority.”
And yet if you were watching the news on TV,
rare were the admissions that the news was
managed, manicured, sanitized and spun. It all
seemed so authoritative even when it wasn’t. It
was produced to be believable even when it
wasn’t.