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: lurqer who wrote (39972)	3/20/2004 12:36:49 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

LEONARD PITTS JR./COMMENTARY If only I had been mistaken about Iraq war It takes a certain amount of ego to do this job. I don't mean an unhealthy obsession with the wonderfulness of oneself. Rather, I mean that inflicting one's opinions on others for a living requires immense confidence in one's own judgment. This is not a job for people who don't like saying, ``I told you so.'' Your humble correspondent was typical in this regard until a year ago today. That's when the war against Iraq began. As bombs began raining on Baghdad, I worried -- and argued in this space -- that we were making a dreadful mistake. It was one of the very few times in my professional life that I wanted to be wrong. Indeed, I tried to convince myself that I was. After all, the decision to go to war was based on reports from intelligence experts, which I assuredly am not. So I sought comfort in the fact that ''people who know about these things'' felt it necessary to attack a nation that had not attacked us or our allies. I was like a number of other people whose paths I crossed that winter -- retirees, students, working people. All of us dubious about the war but hoping we were wrong. The price of being right was too high: lives lost, bodies maimed and American credibility crippled, for nothing. A year later, much that wasn't clear has since become crystal. Starting, obviously, with the weapons of mass destruction we were told Iraq possessed and would use against us unless we moved first. ''We were all wrong,'' former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told a congressional committee in January. If the fact that the weapons apparently do not exist was the only thing that had become clear here, it might be possible to swallow hard and move on. Unfortunately, something worse has also become obvious. Namely, that the weapons don't matter and never really did. You can infer this if you like from the stubbornness with which the architects of this war -- national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell -- have defended it. Unabashed and unapologetic, Team Bush has assured us in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary that the invasion was a good thing. But it's more than inference. The president himself has as much as said the weapons never really mattered. He told an audience in Charleston, S.C., last month that even knowing what he knows today -- i.e., that weapons of mass destruction probably don't exist -- he would still have invaded Iraq. ''America did the right thing in Iraq,'' he said. It was arguably the starkest indication to date that the nation's show of diplomacy in the days prior to the invasion was always a sham, a fig leaf to cover the fact that George W. Bush was determined from the beginning to go to war. Diplomacy would not get in his way, nor would facts, nor would the hesitation of allies. And what has it gotten us? Everything we feared. Lives lost. Bodies maimed. American prestige crippled. And daily attacks of ever-increasing intensity on soldiers who we were told would be greeted with open arms as liberators. All for nothing. Yes, it is said by Bush men and women that we fought to strike against terrorism -- except that Iraq had no documented role in the Sept. 11 attacks. It is said that we fought from a moral objection to tyranny -- except that we don't seem all that troubled by tyrants in nations that lack huge oil reserves. Everything is said except the truth: that we rushed into an unnecessary war on a half-baked mission. And that the repercussions of our hubris will shadow us for years. It takes me back to those earnest conversations of a year ago, all of us watching war coming like black clouds gathering on the horizon and feeling, the way you feel a storm in your bones, that this was a mistake. We all wanted so badly to be wrong. We were not. miami.com

To: lurqer who wrote (39972)	3/20/2004 7:38:16 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Now it's Garner's turn... _____________________________ General Sacked by Bush Says He Wanted Early Elections by David Leigh Published on Thursday, March 18, 2004 by the Guardian/UK A retired officer who helped to set up the Kurdish safe haven after the last Gulf war, Lt Gen Garner was the de facto post-conflict governor of Iraq up until he was sacked and replaced by Paul Bremer Jay Garner, the US general abruptly dismissed as Iraq's first occupation administrator after a month in the job, says he fell out with the Bush circle because he wanted free elections and rejected an imposed program of privatization. In an interview to be broadcast on BBC Newsnight tonight, he says: "My preference was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can, and do it with some form of elections ... I just thought it was necessary to rapidly get the Iraqis in charge of their destiny." commondreams.org