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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ron who wrote (52256)	10/10/2004 2:16:01 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Vote for Kerry. Bush and Cheney are serial liars: Editorial: The next Iraq/Will U.S. still go its own way? October 8, 2004 ED1008 When chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer told Congress Wednesday that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S. invasion, the initial reaction focused backward -- on the deceitful case the Bush administration used, and continues to use, to justify the war. It is a shameful record this administration has compiled, and of course it gets major attention during this superheated presidential campaign. On his most important action as president, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are revealed as serial prevaricators, seriously undermining their case that they deserve four more years in office. But Duelfer's report has major implications looking forward: What does it instruct Americans about the way the United States should behave in the world? Europeans ask the question regularly: What about next time? Will you work with us, or will you go off on your own, as you did on Iraq? A president will never say never; conceivably, a situation could arise in which a president determines a threat to the United States is so serious, the evidence of that threat is so incontrovertible and the need for swift action so compelling, that unilateral action is justified. Sen. John Kerry made that point in the first presidential debate: The United States might have to act alone, but it should be able, at least after the fact, to present a case the world will accept -- the so-called global test. Although conceivable, however, such an eventuality is unlikely. More likely is a situation similar to Iraq, in which the evidence is ambiguous and the international community is skeptical. The key point in Duelfer's report was that international sanctions and weapons inspections against Iraq worked. Saddam Hussein may have wanted at some point to make another go at manufacturing chemical and biological weapons, and may even have wanted to try for nuclear weapons. But he had in fact gone the other direction: He destroyed his WMD programs shortly after the Persian Gulf War in 1991 because he was desperate to get out from under the sanctions and inspections. At the time of the U.S. invasion, Saddam posed no threat to anyone; he had been effectively defanged. That he had been defanged should have been evident to the Bush administration at the time. Duelfer's report is remarkably consistent with reports to the U.N. Security Council before the war. The chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was saying the same thing: Saddam Hussein is devious, and he's not played totally square with the inspectors, but the inspectors have taken the intelligence provided by the United States, have made a thorough search and have found nothing. The inspectors have more work to do, but it does not appear Iraq poses a WMD threat to anyone. So let the inspections run their course. In a matter of months, the job will be complete, and the world will know with precision just what Saddam has and what he doesn't have. President Bush repeatedly has said he wasn't going to take the word of a madman when the security of the nation was at risk. But it wasn't the word of Saddam that mattered; it was the word of Hans Blix and of the inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency. It was also the worries of America's traditional friends in the world, who listened to Blix and who rejected the Bush administration's case for war. It boils down to this: The United States could have achieved its primary goal in Iraq -- smoking out possible WMD programs -- if it had simply accepted the Security Council's proposals for tougher sanctions combined with some months of continued weapons inspections. Instead, Bush rushed into an unjustified war, without planning adequately for the aftermath, and the results are plain to see: more than 1,000 Americans dead, a cost rising toward $200 billion, a situation on the ground that looks more and more like a quagmire and Duelfer's conclusion that Blix was right, the Security Council was right, the Europeans were right and the Bush administration was wrong. Yet Bush still refuses to acknowledge that reality. He talks about a "miscalculation" in planning for the aftermath of war, but he makes no apology for the war itself. And he heaps abuse on the multilateral community, including the United Nations. Kerry talks about the need to reach out to the world, to rebuild alliances and to take seriously the concerns of friends and allies. He's right, and the Duelfer report illustrates why his approach is the better one going forward: The nonviolent alternative available through the Security Council was able to deal with the Iraq "threat" faster, cheaper and better. Chances are good that will be true as well when the next Iraq (Iran? North Korea?) comes down the pike. That's the reality Bush refuses to acknowledge. 24hour.startribune.com