You did not have that information at that time and no one in the intellignece community was running around telling people everything they knew. Also relying on the UN for anything shows how faulty your info is, the UN can’t even police thier own people let alone rogue dictators, which is what Saddam was. People sem to forget that he was butchering several thousand people each year, but I guess that doesn’t matter to the world it seems.

I did feel that the movie was incredibly didactic. But then, very few movies are accountable for making a hard stand on armed conflict (most especially on-going ones). So I had to take Greengrass's attempt at making a statement for what it was: a statement.

But I don't think a review should dock points on a film based on its socio-political views (as preachy as they may be) alone. I thought the film was horrible. I thought the characters were thin and functional, unmotivated and uninteresting. The action scenes, though great set pieces didn't provide any strong tension. Being a non-American, I didn't feel any personal attachment to the conflict, and could give less of a shit if Damon made it home or not. Not because the conflict was American, but because the characters were unrelatable.

Great article, but a lacking review I think.

In fact, there is absolutely no evidence to confirm your claim, nor can there be until secret intelligence files are opened, since intelligence organizations are highly secretive and disinclined to tell the truth when they do say anything publicly.

On the contrary, there is enormous evidence to contradict the Bush administration's assertion. If it were true, how on earth was it that only 4 of the 15 members of the UN Security Council could be bullied by the Bush administration into voting for the war, even after Secretary of State Powell's lies, which those countries publicly disputed, and that this dissident community included France, Russia, and “most anyone” else, including Germany, Chile and Mexico? All did this in the face of ferocious bullying from Bush — Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien went to Mexico to express strong public support for Mexico's opposition to Washington, something he himself said he only dared do since he was already planning to leave office. The US was forced to withdraw the resolution, given that Bush could only line up the governments of Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria — in all three cases in the face of overwhelming opposition from their populations.

Furthermore, there was strong opposition inside even the US intelligence establishment from people like Scott Ritter, who was consequently targeted by the Bush administration, accused by Paula Zahn on television of “drinking Saddam Hussein's kool-aid,” accused of assorted sex crimes and anything else they could think of, as a lesson to others, and then eliminated from the permitted public debate.

Finally, the recent hearings in Britain reveal what everyone supposed (and many knew) at the time, which was that Britain did not take Bush's allegations seriously but went along to maintain their pathetic “special relationship” as they have been doing since Suez in 1956. The hearings have further revealed how much the claims were falsified (“sexed up” was the term at the time).

Face it, this whole thing was a pack of lies motivated by their desire for what they have now grabbed, Iraq's oil. Mission accomplished. Not that the American or British people benefit from control of Iraqi oil by Exxon and BP, which have long shown that they have no duty to the people of the countries where their corporations are “domiciled.”

In fact, there is absolutely no evidence to confirm your claim, nor can there be until secret intelligence files are opened, since intelligence organizations are highly secretive and disinclined to tell the truth when they do say anything publicly.

There is, on the contrary, enormous evidence to contradict the Bush administration’s assertion. If it were true, how on earth was it that only 4 of the 15 members of the UN Security Council could be bullied by the Bush administration into voting for the war, even after Secretary of State Powell’s lies, which those countries publicly disputed, and that this dissident community included France, Russia, and “most anyone” else, including Germany, Chile and Mexico? All did this in the face of ferocious bullying from Bush — Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien went to Mexico to express strong public support for Mexico’s opposition to Washington, something he himself said he only dared do since he was already planning to leave office. The US was forced to withdraw the resolution, given that Bush could only line up the governments of Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria — in all three cases in the face of overwhelming opposition from their populations.

Furthermore, there was strong opposition inside even the US intelligence establishment from people like Scott Ritter, who was consequently targeted by the Bush administration, accused by Paula Zahn on television of “drinking Saddam Hussein’s kool-aid,” accused of assorted sex crimes and anything else they could think of, as a lesson to others, and then eliminated from the permitted public debate.

Finally, the recent hearings in Britain reveal what everyone supposed (and many knew) at the time, which was that Britain did not take Bush’s allegations seriously but went along to maintain their pathetic “special relationship” as they have been doing since Suez in 1956. The hearings have further revealed how much the claims were falsified (“sexed up” was the term at the time).

Face it, this whole thing was a pack of lies motivated by their desire for what they have now grabbed, Iraq’s oil. Mission accomplished. Not that the American or British people benefit from control of Iraqi oil by Exxon and BP, which have long shown that they have no duty to the people of the countries where their corporations are “domiciled.”

But WMDs seemed more than likely, by our calculations and by the countries who asked us to not enter a war in haste.

And, I’m being honest, I think that both sides of the fence on the issue can groan at poorly shoehorned lines. What I’m more interested in is the emerging new genre here and the pitfalls that exist. I think we can both agree that in fictionalizing current events, the filmmakers have to deal with baggage that wouldn’t ordinarily be there.

All of that said, this is your review, you can only write it as you see it, and it is very well written as Taylor F said.