Why did we go into Iraq?

[BigV]

Yeah, that left wing media conspiracy... reconcile these results.

BBC News Headline:

Iraq 'no more safe than in 2003'

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged that security in Iraq has not improved statistically since Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003.

...

In an interview for the BBC's Newsnight programme, Mr Rumsfeld said Iraq had passed several milestones, like holding elections and appointing a government.

But asked if the security situation had improved, he admitted: "Statistically, no."

"But clearly it has been getting better as we've gone along," he added.

"A lot of bad things that could have happened have not happened."

That means "no", right?

Here's another gem:

He added that Syria was not doing enough to stop the insurgency and that Iran was meddling in Iraqi politics.

Iran was meddling in Iraqi politics. You say that like it's a bad thing. What do you call what the US has done and is doing? Do you see the value of the higher standard I appealed for earlier? How can I consider seriously Mr Rumsfeld's complaint that another country (Iran) is "meddling" in Iraqi politics? This utterly transparent double standard completely cuts the legs out from your argument that they want what we have. Anybody ever tell you do what I say not what I do? Without some other leverage over you, what credibility does such a command have? Zero. Perhaps slightly greater than zero if it is a negative example you would want to avoid. But that is not the kind of example we're trying to demonstrate, is it?

Back to the media conspiracy. The same day, FOXNews had this Rumsfeld story.

Spoiler Alert: Here is my favorite line in the article:

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," June 13, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

Emphasis mine. Yeah, "clarity". Hehehehehe.

HANNITY: There's still an insurgency, but there's a lot of progress. What do you make of how that war has been politicized? Where would we be today if we didn't go to Iraq?

CHENEY: Well, I think if Saddam Hussein (search) were still in power, if Iraq were still a safe-haven for terrorists, if in fact he'd been able to continue the pattern of activity he'd undertaken in the past — remember, he's the guy who did produce weapons of mass destruction, did use them against his own people and against the Iranians.

The world's much better off and much safer today because Saddam Hussein's in prison, will soon go on trial in Iraq, and the 25 million people in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, have been liberated. Those are all major achievements.

This is closest to the question asked by the BBC interviewer about the relative safety of the people of Iraq. It really isn't the same question at all and this gives Mr Rumsfeld the wiggle room to say basically the opposite, that "our good actions have had these positive effects" (I paraphrase).

But the same Google news search turned up 87 hits on this item, and FOXNews was the only one that was different. Maybe this is an indictment of Google's news search-bot. But I think it's more likely the editing for clarity that represents difference of content.