Rating: 
Summary: a joke
Review: overstating the case is an understatement---this is fiction
Rating:
Summary: We shoulda left Saddam alone b/c these 5 things werent true?
Review: some people still dont get it.
If the U.S. had invaded afghanistan on or before september 10th, 2001, someone would have written this same book about the "5 biggest lies bush told us about al-qaeda and the taliban"This book gets 1 star, because it's entire point is that bush lied to us about how much of a threat saddam was to us, and that argument gets blown out of the water with one simple statement: Given saddam's past, we didnt need any new "reasons" to know he was a threat. If this were an intellectually honest book which was simply raising an objective eyebrow at the validity/accuracy of some of the claims that Bush made, it would be respectable. But like most other criticisms of this war, it is simply a spiteful, nit-picking attack on the Bush administration by someone who doesnt want to fully acknowledge that we didnt need any new "reasons" to know Saddam was a threat, and we couldnt just wait around and see what he would do next. Ill end this review with the statement i opened it with: If the U.S. had invaded afghanistan on or before september 10th, 2001, someone would have written this same book about the "5 biggest lies bush told us about al-qaeda and the taliban"
Rating: 
Summary: RE: Saddam alone b/c these 5 things werent true?
Review: some people still dont get it.
->That's right! You're one of them. Iraq didn't bomb us on 9/11. There are NO IRaqi ties to al Qaeda, NO wmds, we were NOT greeted as liberators. We have no reason to be there. If the U.S. had invaded afghanistan on or before september 10th, 2001, someone would have written this same book about the "5 biggest lies bush told us about al-qaeda and the taliban"
-> Huh? Your comments are a good insight into the twisted logic of right wing radio nitwits. we didnt need any new "reasons" to know Saddam was a threat, and we couldnt just wait around and see what he would do next.
-> What the hell are you talking about? He had NO WEAPONS, therefore WAS NOT A THREAT. He's been CONTAINED BY SANCTIONS for over a decade. Do next? To the US? Huh? Whoa, amazing and scary.
Rating:
Summary: Pardon me for doing this...
Review: Sorry, this isn't a review but serves as a negation of an earlier, idiotic 1-star review by someone else who didn't read the book but who, unlike me, pretends otherwise.
Rating:
Summary: This book should be required reading for voters in 2004
Review: This book is a comprehensive, thorough, and truthful examination of the frighteningly complex web of lies and misrepresentations created by the Bush administration about Iraq. The authors cite countless instances of the president or one of his top cabinet members using pieces of intelligence to support their assertions of Iraqi WMD weeks or even months after such pieces of intelligence had been discredited by the very agencies which submitted them to the White House. There is testimony from former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter that Iraqi chemical weapons, if they existed prior to 1998 (they could not have been created after that date, as weapons inspectors had been present in the country until the US invasion in 2003), would have decomposed into harmless waste on the shelves of Iraqi weapons depots. The level of deciet used by the Bush administration in getting the American public to support the war is, to my knowledge, unprecedented in American politics.
Rating:
Summary: WASTE OF TIME
Review: This book provides a strong argument against the Bush Administrations arguments against going to war in Iraq. You can argue that the book is biased but the bottom line is that the facts speak for themselves. To date, the only probable FACTs we've been told about Saddam and Iraq are the ones related to his human rights abuses. This is not really touched on because, what's understood on this case does not need to be discuss. With that said, that book breaks down the following: Saddam's ties to Al Queda:
There never were any. These allegations were made on dubious intelligence claims that at most, proved that Saddam's officials may have had a meeting with Al Queda operative 10 years ago. Saying that Saddam has Al Queda ties is the equivalent of saying that someone you or I went on a date with 10 years ago is our boyfriend/girlfriend of 10 years. In short, it's a complete distortion of the truth/ Chem.. & Bio Weapons:
We know Saddam had and used these prior to Gulf war I. Why? WE gave him the means to make them. The claims that he still possessed them came from defectors who proved to be less than credible witnesses. The weapons inspectors and CIA reports have all stated the same thing.There's no evidence Saddam still possessed these weapons. Even if he had them prior to 1991 is irrelevant because chem.. & bio weapons only have a shelf life of 2-3 years. Saddam's Nuclear program:
What existed was dismantled after Gulf War I. Are we seeing a pattern here? The War would be a cakewalk:
I think it's safe to say most people believed this to be the case. Obviously it hasn't been, largely due to poor planning and other agenda's. Iraq as a model for Democracy:
The shabbiest and most overused since the WMD and Al Queda claims were proven to be bogus. The issue here is that there are many, many brutal dictatorship's in the word and to think that we would send 100,000 troops to a foreign land to "liberate" a nation is just plain gullible. If you want a good summary argument about the false pretenses used to launch the Iraq war, this book provides a readable 175 pg argument.
Rating: 
Summary: AN EXCELLENT SUMMARY OF BUSH'S LIES ABOUT IRAQ
Review: This book provides a strong argument against the Bush Administrations arguments against going to war in Iraq. You can argue that the book is biased but the bottom line is that the facts speak for themselves. To date, the only probable FACTs we've been told about Saddam and Iraq are the ones related to his human rights abuses. This is not really touched on because, what's understood on this case does not need to be discuss. With that said, that book breaks down the following: Saddam's ties to Al Queda:
There never were any. These allegations were made on dubious intelligence claims that at most, proved that Saddam's officials may have had a meeting with Al Queda operative 10 years ago. Saying that Saddam has Al Queda ties is the equivalent of saying that someone you or I went on a date with 10 years ago is our boyfriend/girlfriend of 10 years. In short, it's a complete distortion of the truth/ Chem.. & Bio Weapons:
We know Saddam had and used these prior to Gulf war I. Why? WE gave him the means to make them. The claims that he still possessed them came from defectors who proved to be less than credible witnesses. The weapons inspectors and CIA reports have all stated the same thing.There's no evidence Saddam still possessed these weapons. Even if he had them prior to 1991 is irrelevant because chem.. & bio weapons only have a shelf life of 2-3 years. Saddam's Nuclear program:
What existed was dismantled after Gulf War I. Are we seeing a pattern here? The War would be a cakewalk:
I think it's safe to say most people believed this to be the case. Obviously it hasn't been, largely due to poor planning and other agenda's. Iraq as a model for Democracy:
The shabbiest and most overused since the WMD and Al Queda claims were proven to be bogus. The issue here is that there are many, many brutal dictatorship's in the word and to think that we would send 100,000 troops to a foreign land to "liberate" a nation is just plain gullible. If you want a good summary argument about the false pretenses used to launch the Iraq war, this book provides a readable 175 pg argument.
| 
