Original subtitles

It was 7am and I was on a run and I got a call from my

mom and she said, you got to turn on the TV.

There are planes flying into buildings.

It's complete chaos.

All I can remember was just looking at the TV set in complete shock.

We couldn't figure out in the beginning what

was happening, whether or not it was an

actual terrorist attack, whether it was an accident.

But as more planes were flying into buildings,

crashing into the Pentagon, it became clear that the US was under attack.

So we're going to see what we can do.

We're going to do our best.

This is only a few weeks after both of us retired after 20 years of service.

But still in our hearts, we're firefighters.

Now nothing like this had ever happened on

American soil and the scale was absolutely unprecedented.

And so you've got this sense of fear and confusion and vulnerability.

You know, not only in New York, but all over the country.

Every American was scared for their own safety

at that point, because it wasn't clear whether

or not there were going to be more

planes flying into buildings, whether or not there

was going to be some use of biological weapons.

The terrorists did exactly what they wanted to

do and that was to create terror.

And you've got to remember those attacks happened

right in the heart of the financial district

of New York, which some people regard as basically the capital of the world.

And that world changed in an instant when those planes hit.

Another plane come in and all you hear

was this rumbling, people was crying, people was jumping out the window.

They was waving, like trying to like say, help me, like you see their arms.

And then you saw the man jump down and he just, everybody was jumping.

It was crazy.

I remember one of my family members said that she could see a man and a

woman holding hands, jumping out of the building.

She could even see his tie.

It's terrible.

Unbelievable.

I didn't think something like this could happen,

especially in New York.

I'm sorry for all the people that lost their lives there today.

It's very sad.

Makes you wonder what our intelligence community is

doing, you know, to have something like this happen.

How can this happen?

What do you think it'll do for the psyche of

New Yorkers and the psyche of America too?

I think it's more important the psyche of

America than the psyche of New York, because this is world-reaching.

It's not just the city, it's around the world.

It's going to, I don't think anything will ever be the same again.

Americans have many questions tonight.

Americans are asking, who attacked our country?

An atrocity which America insists tonight will soon be avenged.

The evidence we have gathered all points to

a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al-Qaeda.

Bush agreed that the US needed to invade

Afghanistan, that there was no doubt about this.

But what was also put on the table was to invade Iraq.

So this is what the neocons do.

They look at 9-11 and they go, great, we can use this as an opportunity

to get what we want done.

The United States of America will not permit

the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us

with the world's most destructive weapons.

It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgment.

And that is most disturbing.

You know, why were you manipulating intelligence?

Why were you exaggerating the threat?

Is this part of a broader strategy to reshape the Middle East?

Did you lie about WMDs to get your way?

And I think they adopted a lot of information that was at the time viewed as

very weak and they viewed it as fat.

The terrorists know that the outcome in the

war on terror will depend on the outcome in Iraq.

And so to protect our citizens, the free world must succeed in Iraq.

The public are going to trust what their

governments tell them, and their governments have also

got to create this atmosphere of suspicion around Saddam.

You would have to be, let's face facts,

pretty confident to have said in the build

-up to the Iraq war, Saddam definitely does not have WMDs.

The jury was still out.

But the problem is that the US and

the British were saying, he's definitely got them.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, that

these were all lies, that these were all

mistruths that were peddled by the neocons in the Bush administration.

Get ready to read these words the fast way.

Get ready.

- May. - Yes, May.

- Get ready. - Cape.

Yes, Cape.

- Get ready. - Cane.

Yes, Cane.

- Get ready. - Pain.

Yes, Pain.

Boys and girls, you're going to read these words again.

So at the very moment of the attacks, the American President George W.

Bush was in Florida, in Sarasota, and he

was at this little elementary school listening to

the kids, you know, do some sort of reading or performance.

Okay, get ready to read the words on this page without making a mistake.

Everybody tell me what this part of the word says.

Rob.

Yes, Rob.

When Bush was reading to these young children

this book, he was actually being filmed, and

it was able to catch his reaction to

finding out that America was under attack, and

he looked completely in shock and devastated.

Bush's kind of response is kind of, it's almost a bit surreal.

It's a bit strange.

He just sits there very calmly, just listening

to the kids, and then he's told about the second hit on the second tower.

Please ensure all cell phones and pages are off at this time.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a difficult moment for America.

Today, we've had a national tragedy.

Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center

in an apparent terrorist attack on our country.

One of its most famous landmarks destroyed, thousands

dead, and America is under siege.

At the time of the attack, Dick Cheney

is the American Vice President, and he's in the White House.

Now, he moves very, very quickly to the

secure underground bunker beneath the White House, and

he is watching as the situation escalates.

The issue was that for an hour, from 9.30am to 10.30am, Cheney was not

able to really communicate with anybody.

He went into one of these deep bunkers that had been built during the Cold War

that had been equipped with all kinds of

technology, and he was essentially on his own to make decisions.

Many people felt that he actually massively overstepped

the mark, giving an order for fighter jets

to shoot down any hijacked airliners.

I have spoken to the Vice President, and

to conduct a full-scale investigation, to hunt

down and to find those folks who committed this act.

Cheney had said that he had spoken to Bush and that he had gotten his approval

but there is no official record of this.

So a lot of people feel that Cheney

is massively exceeding his brief as Vice President.

The President is not incapacitated, so there's no

reason why Cheney has to assume the role of President.

They're trying to save your life, that's what they thought.

I don't need no shade, I don't need no shade.

You can't help nobody right now.

Terrorism against our nation will not stand.

May God bless the victims, their families and America.

Thank you very much.

So the neocons, that is short for neoconservatives,

and they regard themselves as a new form of right-wing politician, if you like.

And their key policies is that they're very

hawkish, they're very pro-fighting wars overseas, and

they like intervening in other countries' business.

The neocons believed in a much more aggressive foreign policy.

They believed that the U.S. needed to

not just contain communism but actually spread democracy around the world.

In particular, they were focused on the Middle East.

Neocons tended to see the world in very

black and white thinking, in evil versus good,

in sort of binary style of thinking.

And so you've got figures like Dick Cheney, who's the American Vice President.

You've got the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

Actually, the most fervent neocon was Deputy Secretary

of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

He had written a paper in 1992 outlining

a new American foreign policy that would be

much more aggressive in the Middle East in particular.

He did not like the fact that the elder Bush had left Saddam Hussein in power

after the Gulf War.

Now, you know, these individuals have massive amounts of influence over Bush.

They make him look like a kind of puppet president.

Bush may have a fairly good steer on

domestic policy, i.e. stuff within the United States.

But when it comes to foreign policy, it's

these guys who look like they're in charge.

Make no mistake, the United States will hunt

down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.

In many ways, the 9-11 attack was

a kind of gift to the neoconservatives because

this sort of provides an excuse for them

to push their agenda for Middle East reform.

I mean, they've long wanted to topple Saddam

Hussein, who is the dictator in Iraq.

Up until this point, Iraq was not an

ally of the US, certainly, but there wasn't any reason to invade.

On the very day of the attack, on 9-11 itself, Donald Rumsfeld says to one

of his aides, you know, let's go and hit Iraq as well.

Let's not just, you know, concentrate on Bin Laden.

Let's concentrate on Saddam Hussein.

Donald Rumsfeld tells an aide, we need to

look for connections of how Iraq was involved in 9-11.

You know, we can kill as many birds as we like.

You know, the world's sympathy is going to be with us.

And Rumsfeld very quickly capitalizes on the situation.

This was an unprovoked attack on absolutely innocent

people and thousands and thousands of them.

There is no justification for it.

It's a product of insanity.

It's the insanity of terrorism.

And we have to do something about it.

We have to do something about it as a nation and we have to do something

about it as a city in the way we react to it.

Do you feel you're sending a message to the terrorists?

We are sending a message to the terrorists.

The message is a simple one.

You're not going to stop us.

We promoted 186 people from the fire department yesterday.

Today the stock exchange opens.

Before you know it, while we're still in

sorrow, you're going to see the buildings start rising again.

I'm going to fix you, I'll confiscate the camera.

There was documentation of accounts

with millions of dollars and highly confidential documents.

It looks as if you wouldn't think anything

like this could have happened unless there was an agreement.

Oh, fantastic.

I want you all to know that America today, America

today is on bended knee in prayer for

the people whose lives were lost here for

the workers who work here, for the families who mourn.

This nation stands with the good people of

New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut

as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens.

So four days after 9-11 on September 15th, Bush and his team were meeting to

discuss their response.

Bush agreed that the U.S. needed to

invade Afghanistan, that there was no doubt about this.

But what was also put on the table was to invade Iraq.

At this point, Bush didn't shut it down,

essentially said that he was open to discussing it more in the future.

Good afternoon.

On my orders, the United States military has

begun strikes against Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps

and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

On October the 7th, 2001, you have President

Bush formally announcing the start of what is

known as Operation Enduring Freedom.

Typically, the Americans give these operations really literal names.

And that marks the U.S.'s military intervention in Afghanistan.

That is a direct response to 9-11.

Today, we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader.

Every nation has a choice to make.

In this conflict, there is no neutral ground.

If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers

of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves.

Bush is saying, listen, you know, we're not just targeting the terrorists.

We're also going to target the regime that is supporting them.

And we're going to go in and we're going to turn things upside down.

We are going to get rid of that regime.

And we're going to put in a new government, basically, of our own making.

In other American wars, enemy commanders have come

to doubt the wisdom of taking on the strength and power of this nation and the

resolve of her people.

The Americans know that the Taliban are providing

safe haven for Bin Laden, who had organized the 9-11 attacks, and lots of his

followers.

I expect that somewhere in a cave in

Afghanistan, there's a terrorist leader who is at

this moment considering precisely the same thing.

Osama bin Laden was the founder and leader of al-Qaeda.

And that's this very sort of loosely arranged

militant Islamist group, which were responsible for planning

and executing the 9-11 attacks, and also many, many other attacks.

They were able to help the Taliban to control 90% of Afghanistan as they were

taking over the vast majority of the country.

Because he wants to basically establish a kind

of global Islamic regime, or a caliphate, as it's known.

And he sees the United States as the primary enemy, the primary obstacle.

I don't blame anybody other than Osama bin Laden.

He has brought nothing but death and terror wherever he goes.

Now he's bringing it to the people of Afghanistan.

Beautiful as they look from up here, the

snow-capped peaks of Afghanistan present a problem for US forces.

Because this environment is almost certainly hiding the

world's most wanted man.

Down there somewhere is Osama bin Laden.

America's decided on its enemy.

The wanted posters are out for Afghan-based

Osama bin Laden, and the people here back military action to get him.

But I can assure the American people, I am determined.

I'm not going to be distracted.

I will keep my focus to make sure that not only are these brought to justice,

but anybody who's been associated will be brought to justice.

Those who harbour terrorists will be brought to justice.

This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going

to take a while.

And the American people must be patient.

The US-led coalition that goes into Afghanistan is tremendously successful.

Within three months of the US invasion of

Afghanistan, the Taliban had collapsed.

They have kicked the Taliban out.

They've installed Karzai as the Afghan leader.

And they've done this through airstrikes, a massive ground assault.

It is basically a tremendously successful operation.

The Taliban was forced to leave the country.

And they found a home in Pakistan.

The problem is, how do you stay in power?

How can you keep this country stable?

And as the Americans are going to find out, that is very difficult.

We've never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one.

We've actively and aggressively pursued him.

We've captured and killed thousands of al-Qaeda,

various places around the world, and especially in Afghanistan.

We'll continue to very aggressively pursue him.

And I'm confident, eventually, we'll get him.

The advantage seems to be his.

But before this year is out, the Americans have vowed to find him.

The US defense secretary said special forces were

hunting Osama bin Laden, despite obvious difficulties.

It's not a bottle that you can cork.

It's a large country with a lot of borders.

One has to be realistic.

I think we'll find him, either there or in some other country.

But you don't know where he is, and you can't find him.

We have not found him, but we can find him, and we will.

And he and those who he leads will

be held accountable for what happened last Tuesday.

He's on the run, if he's running at all.

So we don't know whether he's in a cave with the door shut, or a cave

with the door open.

We just don't know.

There's all kinds of reports and all kinds of speculation.

But one thing we know is that he's not in charge of Afghanistan anymore.

On the 28th of December 2001, you've got

President Bush giving a speech at his Texas ranch.

And he's standing next to General Tommy Franks,

who is the commander of US Central Command for the whole Afghan invasion.

It's basically a speech all about the frustration

the Americans are feeling that Osama bin Laden has not yet been captured.

And he alluded to the fact that while he hoped that the year would be peaceful,

he was realistic and he didn't think that it would be.

And so while I hope that 2002 is a year of peace, I'm realistic.

But then he goes into the ranch with Franks, and it's there that Bush then says

to Franks, OK, we're going to turn our attention somewhere else now.

We're going to look at going in to Iraq.

In November of 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld was informing General Tommy Franks that he

needed to start the planning for the war in Iraq.

This took place during the Afghan war and without the public knowledge.

I think those who would anticipate that it's

sort of in quickly and out quickly in Afghanistan would not be pleased.

Although the US have been focusing on the

war in Afghanistan, you have got the neoconservatives,

men like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz.

They've been pushing for military action in Iraq for years.

The neocons wanted to invade Iraq because they

wanted to completely transform the Middle East into

a sea of liberal democracies that were more pliant to the US administration.

Their desire to invade Iraq is very controversial.

But if you were going to defend them, they would say, look, we want to have

a democratic, stable Middle East.

We don't want these dictators like Saddam Hussein

helping to run the show over there.

We want to get rid of these guys.

You know, we want to have a world which is democratic.

It has equal rights for women and so on and so forth.

So this is what they would say.

But in order to achieve that, they've got

to come up with some pretty remarkable excuses as to why they really want to go

and invade Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

Now, the issue, of course, was that the

regimes in the Middle East were fairly authoritarian

and there wasn't really any movement domestically.

There wasn't any bottom-up movement to change that.

So they did the best that they could to try to pinpoint Iraq being involved in

the planning of 9-11, even though there wasn't really any evidence of that.

Now, Afghanistan is sheltering terrorists.

It's a completely legitimate place for the Americans

and their allies to go and wage some war.

Iraq is not sheltering terrorists.

So what do the neocons do?

What's the excuse they come up with?

What they say is Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction or WMDs.

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful.

And so were we.

They never stop thinking about new ways to

harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

So in January of 2002, Bush gave a State of the Union address that is often

known as his access of evil speech.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that

sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends

and allies with weapons of mass destruction.

And it's during that speech where he introduces

this whole concept of the access of evil.

Now, those are three countries.

Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

And the whole purpose of the speech is

to highlight the perceived global threat by those nations.

The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax

and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade.

It was in this speech that he starts

using the words weapons of mass destruction and

starts to warn the American public that Iraq

is pursuing WMDs, and that Iraq poses an enormous threat to U.S. security.

That they're destabilizing the world, and they've got to be dealt with.

And so that speech is setting the stage for an invasion of Iraq.

The United States of America will not permit

the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us

with the world's most destructive weapons.

We have now no choice.

So we will act.

And our determination in acting is total.

We will not let up or rest until our objectives are met in full.

At the time, the British government is led

by Prime Minister Tony Blair, and he is a real key ally of George Bush's.

And he is fully supportive of Bush's stance

on Iraq, even though there was very widespread public opposition in the UK.

So Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK

was really in lockstep with the Bush administration about invading Iraq.

He never really wavered in his support, while

other European allies were far more critical and

wanted more information, wanted more proof, and were

really hesitant to support any kind of invasion of Iraq.

What this latest terrorist outrage shows us is that this is a war.

Its main battleground is Iraq.

We have got to make sure we defeat

these terrorists, the former Saddam people in Iraq,

and we must do that because that is

an essential part of defeating this fanaticism and

extremism that is killing innocent people all over our world today.

So what the government in the UK is trying to do is to say, Saddam is

a direct threat to British lives.

And this is a way of trying to justify an invasion and trying to justify why

the British support Bush.

Here's why Iraq is important in this.

Because in the end, their case, which is

based on dividing people, the Arab world and

the Western world, the Muslim world and the

Christian world and other religions, their case is

that we are in Iraq to suppress Muslims, steal their oil, to spoil the country.

Now, we know, you know, that all those things are lies.

So there was a memo that was leaked by the British that showed that the US

was actually planning to invade Iraq well before,

and that they were using and cherry-picking

facts in ways that could justify an invasion.

The joint press conference showed their shared mission to eradicate evil.

But if President Bush has the power in

this relationship, Mr Blair showed himself to be its most powerful advocate.

It will not be a war against Iraq.

It will be a war to liberate Iraq.

What we see now is this kind of process of fear-mongering the public to make

them support the idea of a war against Iraq.

The choice is not ours, it is Saddam Hussein's.

If he will not disarm voluntarily, we will do it for him by force, and his

regime will join the Taliban in the dustbin of history.

So the Bush administration engaged in a great

deal of fear-mongering to shape the view

of the American public that Iraq was acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

This started with Vice President Dick Cheney going

on television in August of 2002 and basically

lying to the American public that Saddam Hussein

had acquired weapons of mass destruction.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam

Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

There is no doubt that he is amassing

them to use them against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

Even Condoleezza Rice and others in the Bush

administration, you know, using imagery of mushroom clouds

to say that, you know, there could be

a nuclear attack, and everyone knows what a mushroom cloud signifies.

And then in February of 2003, Secretary of

State Colin Powell famously spoke in front of the United Nations.

I remember him actually bringing these cylinders that

supposedly were evidence that Iraq had a nuclear

program, that this was ample evidence that they posed a huge threat.

Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that

Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their

efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.

The world's got to kind of believe the Secretary of State.

Why wouldn't you believe him?

He's a kind of decorated general, a very authoritative figure.

And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.

Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is

addicted to weapons of mass destruction.

You would hear the words weapons of mass

destruction, WMDs, repeatedly used in the media.

The words weapons of mass destruction was a

key phrase to trigger Americans to be more

worried about Iraq than they might normally be.

The government was going on and on and

on about them, saying this is the primary justification for invading Iraq.

You know, Saddam has got these WMDs.

They could threaten the US.

They could threaten its allies.

We cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form

of a mushroom cloud.

The world is going to be a lot, lot safer if we get rid of Saddam,

because in doing so, we'll also get rid

of the threat posed by his supposed WMDs.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,

Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity

to wage biological and chemical warfare and will

keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

You've got this constant harping on that post

9-11, the world's completely changed.

It's much more dangerous.

And in order to protect US lives, what we've got to do is go into the

Middle East, go in hard, take down these

regimes and install new democratic cosy allies.

As dawn broke over the Arabian Sea, the

carrier Abraham Lincoln was being replenished.

Helicopters winching aboard supplies of bombs and ammunition,

food and fuel for a conflict many on board believe is coming.

Which is why below deck, President Bush's speech

was being followed intently by sailors too young to have yet experienced war.

The terrorists know that the outcome in the

war on terror will depend on the outcome in Iraq.

And so to protect our citizens, the free world must succeed in Iraq.

Saddam, you know, he's an evil, nasty dictator.

You know, he has people executed.

He has people tortured.

Those that worked with Saddam said that he's

either going to make you a millionaire or he's going to kill you.

There was just really no middle ground with him.

He uses chemical weapons.

He wages war on his neighbour, Iran.

He either provided you with all kinds of goods and luxury and co-opted you or

the next day he could chop your body up, put it in a body bag and

deliver it to your wife.

He intimidates his population, surveillance, secret police, you name it.

He famously held a series of trials where

he announced all of the traitors in the

room and then forced those that were remaining to execute these traitors.

He is a classic dictator.

And he tended to want to surround himself

with those without expertise, without bravery, without experience,

rather than surround himself with people who he

viewed could threaten his own political survival.

But he's also thinking, I don't just want to be kind of head of Iraq, I

want to be head leader of the whole Arab world.

I mean, he is nothing if not completely ambitious.

And so this is why he starts the Iran-Iraq war.

It goes on for eight years and ultimately

results in stalemate with hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides.

And this is why he invades Kuwait in 1990, which is why he becomes the kind

of public enemy number one for so many

in the United States, because Kuwait is a friendly country.

And Saddam is wanting to take Kuwait because he wants its oil.

He's literally just trying to steal another country.

Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours.

In March 2003, Bush issues this public ultimatum

to Saddam Hussein, right, you leave Iraq within

48 hours, two days, or we are gonna go in with our forces.

You are gonna face military action.

Their refusal to do so will result in

military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

The Americans are firm, uncompromising, and they're not

gonna wait for more UN sanctions.

They're gonna go it alone.

They don't care about the UN anymore.

Seven days after the phone call, parliament supported military action.

And the following day on March the 19th,

the Iraq war started.

You've got the US, you've got the UK,

you've got a whole coalition of allies, and

their goal is simply to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

And you've got this intense

aerial bombardment of key targets.

And that is known as shock and awe.

And actually, you know, it really is shock and awe.

They are absolutely decimating all these military targets,

all these governmental targets in Baghdad and elsewhere.

So the Iraq war was a disaster for Saddam Hussein.

He had completely neglected his army because he

had coup-proofed the regime and created these parallel militaries.

These parallel militaries, in turn, were smuggling their

weapons and sending them off to Saudi Arabia.

I mean, you know, the Iraqis don't put up any defense.

And frankly, why would they really bother when

you've got the mightiest nations in the world

turning up on your doorstep and just kicking your door down?

There's nothing you can really do about it.

Hussein would surround himself by really those who

were just completely incompetent, who were sycophantic, who

were often using in their communication about how

the military was performing sort of this flowery

language that they were performing so well with the spirit of a warrior.

And for Saddam, that was what mattered more

than actual genuine military strategy.

Then the ground invasion starts and basically Baghdad falls within three weeks.

Together, coalition forces are advancing day by day

in steady progress against the enemy.

Slowly but surely, the grip of terror around

the throats of the Iraqi people is being

loosened and Saddam Hussein will be removed no matter how long it takes.

The U.S. military was able to quickly overwhelm the demoralized Iraqi forces.

At the same time, Saddam Hussein's spokesman, Tariq

Aziz, was claiming that the battle was going

well, that Iraqis were doing better than ever.

But by April of 2003, Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled.

Into the very heart of Baghdad, U.S.

tanks and troops finally arrive, spelling the end for the Iraqi regime.

The stars and stripes have come to town.

Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is over.

So nearly three weeks after this war began, U.S. forces are now coming into the

center of Baghdad.

This is what regime change looks like.

What's it like being in the middle of Baghdad?

It's kind of crazy.

Pretty good warm welcome from everybody.

Good luck.

- Stay safe. - Thank you.

The president's rule is no more.

Years of repression and brutality have been brought to a close.

Will you bring his statue down?

At first, they tried to knock it down using a sledgehammer.

The Americans brought in a tank recovery vehicle to finish the job.

Then, the moment of history, the moment Saddam's

regime could finally be said to be at an end.

Baghdad falls quickly.

Saddam Hussein's statue has toppled.

This is the beginning of years and years of chaos.

And what's more, where is Saddam?

It's on May the 1st, 2003, that you

have President Bush delivering his now notorious mission accomplished speech.

And he's on board this massive aircraft carrier,

the Abraham Lincoln, and Baghdad has fallen.

And behind him is this huge banner that goes, mission accomplished.

Now, he actually didn't use the words mission

accomplished, but that was what a banner behind him was showing.

And during this speech, he claimed that all

combat operations in Iraq were complete.

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

The war's been won.

We've done it in three weeks.

Job done.

We're in charge.

The world is safe.

We've won.

Because of you, the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free.

But of course, you know, this is massively arrogant or hubristic.

You know, that banner becomes this kind of

symbol of irony and miscommunication.

Because he wanted a big photo op, he

was wearing a military bomber jacket and he was on an aircraft carrier.

And he wanted to use this as a

sign that his administration had been incredibly successful

in its conflict with Iraq.

While these are powerful images for his re

-election campaign next year, Mr. Bush knows that

declaring victory would be somewhat premature.

After all, Saddam Hussein still has not been

captured and the weapons of mass destruction still have not been found.

Mission accomplished speech was one of his regrets.

Because the mission has not been accomplished.

In fact, it's barely even been started.

It was ironic.

The war in Iraq was nowhere near over.

In fact, there would be years and years

and billions and billions of money spent and

many troops would die in the aftermath.

We have got years of bloodshed ahead of us.

One of the first things the Americans are

doing after they're now in control of Iraq

or they think they're in control of Iraq is to go out looking for weapons of

mass destruction because obviously that's the reason why

everybody's gone in and invaded it.

But by the time that Bush came to power, Iraq was really a shell of its

former self and they really didn't have the

financial strength to build or the technological ability

to really build an effective nuclear program.

And they start turning up every petal, every

stone going to every factory and what do they find?

Nothing.

There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This is a huge, major embarrassment for the US and our allies.

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to come before the commission

and is certain to be questioned about the Bush administration's alleged

fixation with attacking a country with no Al-Qaeda connection, Iraq.

The Americans and the British kept saying that Saddam has definitely got WMDs.

Okay, we haven't found them yet but what

are the chances of him not having them?

It was kind of relying on an enormous amount of trust.

The public are going to trust what their

governments tell them and their governments have also

got to create this atmosphere of suspicion around Saddam.

US really didn't have any concrete evidence that

Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, that

it was pursuing nuclear weapons or that it

had the technological ability to make much progress in this.

You would have to be, let's face facts,

pretty confident to have said in the build

-up to the Iraq war, Saddam definitely does not have WMDs.

You know, the jury was still out but the problem is that the US and the

British were saying he's definitely got them.

David Kaye, the man America sent to Iraq to find weapons

of mass destruction, returns to Capitol Hill today

to deliver the news the government didn't want to hear.

So in 2004, David Kaye, who was a part of the Iraq survey group, famously noted

in front of the Senate that the US had very poor intelligence, that they got it

all wrong.

It's clear we've got a problem now.

But the man who searched in vain for those weapons told ITV News it would be

better to acknowledge a huge intelligence failure.

To be honest, I don't think anyone thought,

I certainly didn't think, it would take this long to find them.

I mean, this is a crucial moment.

This man knows what he's talking about and

it's now that the world finally realises that

the pretext for war has effectively been a lie.

It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgement.

And that is most disturbing.

Have you found any weapons of mass destruction?

I've barely found lunch.

This report comes out in 2004 and that

even confirms that Saddam had actually destroyed his

WMDs in the 1990s and there had been no active programmes since then.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, that

these were all lies, that these were all

mistruths that were peddled by the neocons in the Bush administration.

So as a result, it was very easy for critics to go, right, well there are

no WMDs, you had a pretty good idea there weren't any WMDs, so why did you

go in?

Why were you manipulating intelligence?

Why were you exaggerating the threat?

Did you go in because you want American control of the Middle East?

Did you go in because you want oil?

Is this part of a broader strategy to reshape the Middle East?

Did you lie about WMDs?

To get your way.

♪ Weapon of mass destruction ain't never been found ♪

♪ Homeland Security, please lay your weapons down ♪

By 2007, public support for the war in Iraq had really dwindled.

In fact, a vast majority of Americans wanted US troops to come home and some 60

% were in agreement that the war in Iraq was a huge failure.

This is George Bush and the Queen as you will not see them in London this

week, riding in an open carriage, surrounded and

protected by anti-war demonstrators.

This was the closest George Bush and his

entourage have come so far to the protesters

who object to his state visit to Britain.

Anti-Bush activists were running towards the Queen Victoria Memorial.

They hoped their cries would carry to the

apartments where the Bushes are staying.

The government told us that there were weapons,

there were some weapons ready to be used within 45 minutes and there was such a

threat that we not only had to invade Iraq, we had to do it then.

Before dusk, there'd been 22 arrests according to

Scotland Yard, none under anti-terrorism laws.

The Prime Minister, he says, has until the

end of the summer holidays, just seven weeks, to come up with proof of WMD or

he should resign.

The UK and US leaderships wanted to justify

military action on the basis of weapons of

mass destruction and so they talked them up.

Now we hear them talking them down because they haven't found them.

Information is what the British public and the

United States public as well as the world

need with reference to why we went into this war and where, if any, are the

weapons of mass destruction.

Well, I think the surprise about this report is there really are no surprises.

We've taken virtually another 12 months and about

800 million US dollars to come to the conclusion where we were last October.

We're here to report to President Bush that

we found his weapons of mass destruction.

They weren't in Iraq.

They're located in Britain and in the United States.

Saddam and his delusional state had every intent

of recreating weapons of mass destruction.

The physical and social infrastructure of Iraq had

so decayed into a vortex of corruption and

utter incapability of reproducing large amounts of weapons of mass destruction.

So no, there was no imminent threat.

The anti-war movement has taken to the streets.

These neocons like the American Enterprise Institute believe

in freedom, the freedom to lie, the freedom

to cheat, the freedom to exploit a false

democracy of which our country is foreign victim.

Once again, the Hawks are back in the ascendancy.

Just a week ago, President Bush sought to

dampen the frenzy of speculation on Iraq.

So on November the 8th, 2006, US Secretary

of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he resigns.

There's been so much criticism regarding what's been going on in Iraq.

This was at a time when public support for the Iraq war was really low.

There was very low morale.

There was very little support for the neocon policies.

Blame for poor planning, mismanagement of the war,

lack of proper planning for the post-Saddam phase.

Then you've got all the abuses carried out

by Americans on prisoners at a prison called

Abu Ghraib in which prisoners are tortured.

A suitably somber Mr Bush engaged in what's

become an almost daily act of contrition.

People, there will be a full accounting

for the cruel and disgraceful abuse of Iraqi detainees.

This isn't looking like, you know, the West

being a nice, democratic, respecter of human rights.

This is just basically a complete cock-up.

The president reeling from his first full-blown

scandal, though still determined to stand by his man.

You're doing a superb job.

You are a strong secretary of defense and

our nation owes you a debt of gratitude.

Yet behind the show of unity, divisions festering.

Dick Cheney pressing for Rumsfeld to stay, an

aide to Condi Rice claiming she wouldn't mind

if he went, though she's denied it.

I must say that it's been the highest honor of my life to serve with the

talented men and women of the Department of Defense.

They will remain in my prayers always.

Thank you.

Now, throughout all this period, back in Afghanistan,

you've got bin Laden still in hiding.

The US invaded Afghanistan with the aim of capturing bin Laden.

And though they were able to control probably

about 90% of Afghanistan by December of 2001, in a famous battle in Tora Bora,

which was bin Laden's stronghold, he somehow mysteriously escaped.

And why haven't they found bin Laden?

That was one of the primary reasons for

going into Afghanistan, was to not only dismantle

the country being used as a safe haven

for terrorists like al-Qaeda, but also you've got to capture the head guy.

You've got to capture bin Laden.

It was definitely a source of embarrassment for

the Bush administration that they were never able

to capture bin Laden, given that that was

one of the main objectives of the invasion of Afghanistan.

Now, you could say that this is a

complete failure of the Bush administration to find him.

But the truth is, it is very, very difficult trying to find one man in a

country like Afghanistan, which is chaotic, it's mountainous,

and besides, bin Laden may not even be in Afghanistan at all.

I believe the proper use of power by

America will make the world more peaceful, America

more secure, and as importantly, people more free.

I call upon all nations to do everything

they can to stop these terrorist killers.

Thank you.

Now watch this drive.

It's obviously very easy to be cynical about

why the Americans went into Iraq, but they weren't the only nation going in.

The British and other nations also supported the American forces.

The U.S. wanted to go to war with Iraq because there was all kinds of

business potential deals to be made, there was

all kinds of lucrative economic opportunities, and because

Iraq had oil, and it was one of the big oil producers in the world.

We flew up to the Ramallah oil field

this morning, west of Bashar, where about 60

% of Iraq's oil is produced.

The army cares about its PR and the

story they wanted reported was the speed with

which this oil field was secured, with very little damage.

They felt that it would be better to

have a more pliant democratic style leader in

power than Saddam Hussein, who they viewed as a menace to U.S. stability.

I genuinely feel that the motivation for going

in was a sincere neoconservative belief that the

way to make the world safer is to

go into these countries, invade them, and install

democratic, friendly governments.

The neocons were accused of wanting to rebuild

Iraq because this would be profitable for them,

profitable for their relationship with oil companies, and

profitable for the reconstruction company Halliburton, which Dick

Cheney had been on the board of, but was no longer officially on the board of

once he became vice president.

The facts are the vice president's company that

he was CEO of, that did business with

sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions

of dollars in fines for providing false financial information.

It's under investigation for bribing foreign officials.

The same company that got a $7.5

billion no-bid contract.

Halliburton was accused of overcharging the U.S.

for these contracts.

Some $60 billion or so was the amount that they overcharged the U.S. The rule

is that part of their money is supposed

to be withheld when they're under investigation, as

they are now, for having overcharged the American taxpayer.

But they're getting every dime of their money.

And at the same time, other companies that

were engaged in private security were earning, I

mean, billions, billions and billions of dollars.

So for the neocons, this was this one big business venture.

Who could have possibly envisioned an election in

Iraq at this point in history?

Even if we're going to be kind to the neocons, this is just simply a very,

very flawed way of trying to conduct international politics.

What we've learned from Iraq, and what happened

afterwards, is that actually what you do by

trying to, you know, get rid of these

dictators is that you end up destabilizing these countries even more.

And you create an even more deadly and

evil kind of breeding ground for violence and

terrorism and extremism than you did under even someone like Saddam Hussein.

So you're getting rid of a bad guy,

but you're replacing him with hundreds of thousands of bad guys.

To most people, there was really only one

response, which would have been to invade Afghanistan

and to deal with al-Qaeda.

But instead, the U.S. got distracted by Iraq.

And this came at a really critical time when the U.S. was starting to really

gain headway in Afghanistan, when there was a

chance for stability in Afghanistan, when there was

a lot of troop deployment there.

At this very critical time, the U.S.

is diverted.

Its military, both troops and just attention, is

diverted into Iraq, which then created a hotbed

for terrorism, which had not even existed before.

And this is the problem.

So I think that the neoconservatives were arrogant.

I think they were naive.

I think they genuinely believed that regime change

was the way to make the world safer.

They were wrong.

But given the situation in Iraq right now, achievements will be a hard sell.

This week alone, at least 300 people were killed in attacks by insurgents.

Most recent figures show an average of 87

attacks each day, the highest number so far.

And then there's the growing hostage problem.

More than 100 foreigners have been taken hostage

in the last six months, and 30 have been killed.

At the moment, at least 26 foreigners are

still being held, including a Briton and two Americans.

So there was a huge cost of the war on terror.

Financially, it cost $8 trillion.

That is a big number.

And that's including all those military operations, reconstruction

and aid, and also care for veterans afterwards.

But it also led to some 4.5

million deaths indirectly, if you look at all the conflicts that took place.

900,000 people died in the direct conflicts in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

38 million people were displaced.

You've got huge displacements of millions of people.

Something like 4 million Iraqis were displaced in that war alone.

And so this sparks this kind of global refugee crisis.

And because of poor policies concerning nation-building

in these countries in which the Americans and

our allies went into, what you are fomenting

is instability, and an instability which can be exploited by terrorists.

The war on terror was aiming to eliminate terrorism.

But what it really did was help generate

more terrorist groups than ever before in the Middle East.

An immoral war was thus waged.

And the world is a great deal less safe place than before.

The invasion of Iraq instigated the formation of

al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was the most brutal of the al-Qaeda franchise.

And from that would emerge the Islamic State.

And so as a result, you get, you

know, organizations like ISIS starting to come to

prominence in places like Iraq.

Which would then be wrecking havoc in not

just Iraq, but also in Syria and would prolong the Syrian civil war.

Because, you know, they have got a chaotic system which they can feed off.

So the war on terror is partially successful,

but ultimately, in the long term, it also creates lots more terrorism.

So if you're trying to weigh it up, it's very difficult.

You clearly argue, which is now quite a

familiar argument, that the Bush administration was intent

on going after Iraq, regardless of what the truth was about the 9-11 attacks.

What do you believe was the right response to 9-11?

What should they have done?

I would have responded in the same way

that it was a highly devastating criminal attack,

but it's a terrorist attack at the end of the day.

We have a very good means.

We have good intelligence.

There was no need to build up and militarize this planet in response to 9-11

and call it a huge, as Bush did,

what was the words he used?

A tremendous battle, monumental struggle between good and evil.

I mean, come on.

The United States chose a different path with Bush.

It decided that the laws and the treaties

that exist between countries did not exist for them.

And that we had the right to arrest or go after anybody who was a terrorist.

But the definition of terrorism has been extremely clouded.

And as we know, there's a lot of lawsuits out there.

So the United States essentially behaved like an outlaw.

Weak and insecure people hardly ever say sorry.

It is large-hearted and courageous people who

are not diminished by saying, I made a mistake.

President Bush and Mr. Blair would recover considerable

credibility and respect if they were able to say, yes, we made a mistake.

If you ask who won the war on terror, there's no simple answer.

I'm sorry.

I mean, on one level, you could say, yes, the Americans did get rid of some

bad guys.

They did get rid of the regime in Afghanistan, the Taliban regime.

You know, they did get rid of Osama bin Laden.

They did really denude al-Qaeda's capability for

creating more terrorist plots on United States soil.

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, he wasn't a nice guy.

Maybe it was good that he was got rid of.

But when you start looking beyond those immediate

kind of wins, you look at Afghanistan now.

It's now ruled by the Taliban.

Hold on. I thought we got rid of those guys.

Iraq feels a bit more stable.

But there were years and years and years

of insurgency and instability and hundreds of thousands

of deaths and displacement of civilian populations.

So I think you have to say there were some short-term victories.

But in the long run, yeah, it's hard to say that the Americans won the war on terror.

And in fact, it's still being fought and will be fought for decades.

So who won the war on terror, a war that lasted decades, cost $8 trillion, saw

almost 1 million people die in direct conflict?

No one.