To me it all seems like a case of over-zealous propagandists putting the cart before the horse....

This is a pretty incredible display of journalistic arrogance. I find it amazing how many influential voices of the mainstream American press were just unable to consider even the possibility that, perhaps, the American invasion of Iraq would involve more than a quick ass-kicking, where nobody would get hurt except the bad guys.

(For the record, I wouldn't expect them to question the war's morality - I know whose side the people quoted here are on and their "interpretations" of events aren't surprising. But you'd think they could at least open their eyes and acknowledge the piles of evidence predicting the tragedy that eventually did unfold. If thousands of people hadn't died unnecessarily I'd say it's hilarious.)

"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it."
(CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)

"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war."
(Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)

Take a look here for more of the same.