Like weapons, support for war is now missing

[chiburb]

Columnist Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, and war supporter says this:

snip:

Last Friday marked 100 days since U.S. troops helped topple the large statue of Saddam Hussein in downtown Baghdad. It also marked the date I set for myself several months ago to revisit my endorsement of the war.

snip:

Specifically, in March, I wrote: "I support this war, but will change my mind if U.S.-led forces don't find evidence in Iraq of a significant, active program for the production, storage and deployment of the banned weapons. ... is predicated on faith that the UN resolutions reflect an urgency based on exquisite intelligence, not merely impatience with a cruel but impotent dictator."

Snip:

But we never had that debate. Instead, we were asked to support the war based on what now looks like false pretenses. Whether these pretenses were offered honestly or cynically, or whether the outcome ultimately advances or retards security and freedom in the world is immaterial to anyone who believes in the Democratic process, not to mention international law.

I won't take an out. The failure to find the terrible weapons or even evidence of an active weapons program has changed my mind on the war.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0307240036jul24,1,1878581.column?coll=chi-news-hed

[meatloaf]

1. While it is heartening to see someone admit they were wrong...

It is a tragedy that 20,000+ people have had to die before he admitted it. If he had been as diligent as many here on DU, he would have known a year ago that this war was based on lies, hype, and exaggeration. Maybe then his article could have done some real good.

[chiburb]

2. I agree, but if others take his lead...

And admit THEIR mistake, maybe we can leave the Iraqis alone sooner. Zorn is widely read by suburban soccer moms (and others) and is not without influence.
Better late than never.

[gratuitous]

3. Let's allow some grace and space

Yes, it would have been much preferable if people had insisted on the answers to some hard questions back in September or October. But they didn't, and we can't go back in time to force them to change their blind idiocy.

However, anyone who says, "I was wrong," should be granted the grace we'd give ourselves on those rare occasions when we've miscalculated, jumped the gun, or otherwise made an error in judgment. The public is starting to take a hard look at how this invasion was packaged and sold to them, and though we need to keep banging away on this corrupt administration's duplicity, let's keep in mind that the folks they fooled don't have to be our enemies.

[chiburb]

4. Very nicely put. Thank you... n/t

.

[Martin Eden]

5. I wish more people were that honest

I've been having an email debate about the WMD fraud with a friend (longtime Republican), and he refuses to entertain any notion that the Bush administration was engaged in deception, or to admit the war was unjustified if WMD are not found.

When I send him credible articles (like the Judis/Ackerman piece in The New Republic) he calls it "internet junk". He dismisses the Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and even articles from the CATO Institute when they conflict with his beliefs.

This is an intelligent man whose company I've always enjoyed, but I think he's fairly representative of Repug loyalists who see efforts to get at the truth as nothing more than partisan politics. He continually tries to re-direct our debate by bashing Clinton.

I'm sure many of us have encountered family or friends who simply refuse to listen to any argument that casts shrub in a disparaging light. We've got a lot of work to do before public opinion is substantially changed.

[dfong63]

6. salute

he was wrong, but at least he admitted it. and by implication, he's saying that bush was wrong. it's not "too late" to admit he's wrong. there's still time to prevent further mistakes of this sort by DISBELIEVING BUSH NOW and DEFEATING BUSH in 2004.