Several stories during this war have led some of us in the newsroom to wonder which side is being more honest about their military operations. Is it the peace-loving and devout coalition of the willing led by the US and Britain, or the duplicitous regime of Saddam's evil empire?

Just consider the following examples:

* On Friday, both the Ministry of Defence and the Pentagon proudly claimed to have swept into the town of Umm Qasr and completely secured the strategically important port. Iraq denied this. And Sunday morning saw US marines still involved in a tense stand-off with Iraqi troops in... erm... sorry, no, Umm Qasr.
* According to Iraq's Information Minister, 77 people died in Basra on Saturday night, and another 300 were injured. The MoD scratched its head and wondered aloud how this could have happened. "Couldn't have been us," they said, "after all, Basra's not a military target." Several hours later, the familiarly sheepish tones employed by British civil servants down the years: "Oh, those bombing raids on Basra. Well, I s'pose..."
* And of course the kicker: despite the months of heartfelt pleading with the UN, there's no evidence yet of Iraq possessing any weapons of mass destruction. Of course, I hope this observation doesn't come back to bite me on the arse.

Of course, propaganda is an essential part of war, but surely the US and UK want their claims to be seen as credible. Draw your own conclusions but given the smoke and mirrors that's going on, I know who I'm more inclined to believe...