From the last link, time.com , I must point out what seems to me to be a typical discontinuity in the neocon line. Compare and contrast:
Though there is a near consensus in Washington that the U.S. can no longer afford the failed containment policy of the past decade, which consisted of sanctions, no-fly zones in the north and south and periodic bombings, there is no real agreement on how or how quickly to achieve "regime change" in Iraq. For all the tough talk along the Potomac, the only war now being waged is the one involving the White House, State Department and Pentagon over how and when to move against Saddam.
Versus the later line:
Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week.
So. The containment policy "failed", but Saddam is now weaker than most people believe because of it. Once again, the Dark Prince and friends get to have it both ways. Then there's the dubious Saddam / Al Qaeda connection, which I'm sure will live on here regardless of how many times it's discredited. Hey, if the first casualty is going to be truth, you might as well ditch it before the war gets started . Sort of a preemptory triage operation, or something. |
