Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (20424)	6/15/2003 11:14:55 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Unanswered Questions -- Find the truth The Topeka Capital-Journal cjonline.com Posted 6/15/2003 2:15:57 PM June 15, 2003 ... Summary: With nearly 200 US troops and as many as 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed, who will be responsible for starting this needless war? Here is one of many editorials from small, conservative areas demanding the facts. Why are the network news stations and major newspapers ignoring this groundswell of public opinion? ... By The Capital-Journal Editorial Board A full investigation of whether we went to war on false pretenses should begin now The United States went to war with Iraq, spent billions of dollars, lost nearly 200 American lives so far and killed thousands of Iraqi citizens, all because the Bush administration had convinced the public that America -- indeed the world -- was under imminent threat of being attacked by weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaida. So far, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, despite exhaustive searches by U.S. military. Neither has any evidence surfaced to substantiate Saddam's ties to al-Qaida. In fact, two captured top al-Qaida leaders said in separate interviews more than a year ago that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida had shunned any connection. When Colin Powell made the case for war before the United Nations, he may have unknowingly used some fabricated evidence provided by the Defense Department. Now Condoleeza Rice has admitted that President Bush cited a forged document in his State of the Union speech to show that Iraq was a nuclear threat. "We did not know at the time -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency -- but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery," she said last weekend. "Of course it was information that was mistaken." More and more reports are surfacing that question not only the validity of the evidence but also how honest administration officials, including President Bush, were in disclosing that evidence. Did they selectively ignore anything that discredited their claims, or was the quality of the intelligence provided so bad? The heat is on not only the Bush administration -- and Congress -- to provide some answers, but also on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush's most stalwart ally in support of the war, despite strong opposition at home. In Britain, Parliament is seeking some answers. Depending on what those answers are, Blair could be out of a job. He deserves some truthful answers from the United States. Meanwhile, the Congress is only starting to move. Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, who heads the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has promised "a thorough review," looking not only at pre-war intelligence, but its accuracy based on post-war experience. He said calls for a formal investigation are premature, but are they? The credibility of the United States and Great Britain -- or at least Blair --is being destroyed as these discrepancies keep surfacing. We need to do whatever is necessary to get to the truth as quickly as possible. We just went to war based on weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida. If we were mistaken, a lot of people need to be held accountable -- from the president on down. Anything less than an exhaustive investigation keeps the door wide open for innuendo and insinuations. And it raises the suspicion that a cover-up is under way. Roberts' review will rely on documents submitted by the CIA, and who's to know they are truthful documents and not self-serving ones? A review also raises concern that it is simply a way to provide partisan cover. Further, with Parliament striding out front on this, it would be embarrassing for the United States to get scooped on what really has been going on. The U.S. image around the globe has suffered greatly because of this war. If it is determined we went to war over false pretenses, it will take another hit, but not nearly as bad as looking as if we are covering it up. To show your support for this editorial, please write: letters@cjonline.com