Second thoughts on Iraq (Boston Globe op-ed blasts *)

[Nightwing]

November 17, 2005

PRESIDENT BUSH should not be blaming the Democrats in Congress for using the phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to criticize his conduct of the war. It was he, not they, who exploited the widespread belief in the weapons to set the United States on course to a war that has dragged on for 2 1/2 years. The Senate finally said ''enough" this week and called for progress reports -- a hint that the president should begin planning for a phased withdrawal.

Bush has been contending lately that, before the war, many Democrats shared his belief that Iraq possessed these weapons. True, but they were basing their assessment on intelligence filtered through the administration's bias toward the ouster of Saddam.

<snip>

The Democrats in Congress were practical politicians, and in 2002 and 2003 Bush was reveling in the enhanced authority given to him by Congress and the people following the Sept. 11 attacks. He, not Congress, decided to focus on Iraq after the United States won the war with Afghanistan late in 2001 on the grounds that Saddam Hussein, as he said then, posed a threat to the United States. ''I will not wait on events, while dangers gather," he said in the 2002 State of the Union speech.

The president was wrong. Instead of attacking precipitously, he should at least have attempted to verify his claims through UN inspections and other sources. Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, though Saddam Hussein foolishly bluffed that he did. And Iraq did not harbor the kinds of terrorists who would threaten the United States. Saddam, a wily and secular dictator, would never tolerate an alternative power center on the order of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

Link: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/11/17/second_thoughts_on_iraq/

[Missy M]

1. Good article with the exception of the statement....

"after the United States won the war with Afghanistan late in 2001". It is news to me that we have won a war in Afghanistan.

[acmavm]

2. I'm with you. Ask Pat Tillman's family.

.

[Rodger Dodger]

3. There is no excuse for an "honest mistake"

To me, using the term Honest Mistake,is an oxymoron:hundreds of people get fired daily for making "Honest mistakes," in the work force, and condemned to the unemployment line; by management.

Using words, like "Honest Mistake," in that way, is tantamount to using a euphemism as a way of distorting accountability to avoid the un-comforting illusion and cozy half-truths. In this particular instance substituting an inoffensive or pleasant term "Honest Mistake" for the more explicit, offensive one,is attempting to veneer the truth using kind words..

G.W., his staff, and the Republican controlled Congress and Senate are, in the main responsible, for their irresponsible act of preemptive war, however. It doesn't let the Democrats off the hook for allowing themselves to be so easily swayed by the President. Their single purpose for there being as our representatives is to act, in the capacity of the loyal opposition, as any minority party should. Shame on them for letting us down.

We must not overlook those who voted against the preemptive strike: they are to be commended!

Considering all the pain and suffering the USA and other coalition forces have caused in Iraq and suffered they and others have caused: because of the "honest mistake" equates to a catastrophic error, that has cause irreparable damage to the US A's image world wide. It will surly bring to the front old cliche "The ugly Americans," around the world.

I suspect we'll suffer irreparable harm because of it: at some point in the future.