This was a refreshing change: a liberal newspaper taking a critical look at the administration’s rationale for the Iraq war, and examining each argument carefully without inserting the spin so often found in opinion/editorial pieces on the Iraq war from either side.
The conclusion from the Chicago Tribune piece:
After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of “the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq.” We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year.
Some of us have been arguing that for quite some time now, that Bush didn’t lie, nor was there a conspiracy to mislead the American people as to the threat from Iraq.
These days it’s very hard to argue with anyone on the other side of the aisle about this war, because Bush hatred usually trumps any rational discussion on the issue. I know pro-Iraq war supporters have experienced this often, as have I: pointed out the basis for the Iraq war, the history that led up to the Iraq war, with carefully researched links and a thoughtful analysis, and in the end, it always comes back to “Bush lied in order to avenge his daddy/get rich off the oil/help out the VPs buddies at Halliburton/to jump start the economy by creating a demand for defense weapons/” etc etc. It’s very difficult to argue about the issue of the Iraq war when you know in the back of your mind that’s what it will always come back to, once the arguments of the other side have been debunked. It’s difficult to be rational with the irrational, or logical with the illogical. Yet argue we must do.
In any event, it was a nice change of pace to see the liberal Chicago Tribune do a critical examination of the Iraq war rationale and come to the same conclusions many of us had ages ago. Hey, better late than never. Now if only the Democrats in Washington, DC would admit this.
(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)
Related: Amy Proctor blogs about her husband’s (an Iraq war veteran who served from Feb. ’03 – Feb ’04) perspective on Saddam’s WMDs.
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Roll Call 648
- The undermining of this war
- Rep House calls Dem House’s bluff (MINI-LIVEBLOGGING)
- Dem House Representative calls for immediate troop withdrawal
- Where did the WMDs go?
- The public’s perception of the Iraq war correlation with 9-11
- Playing politics with the war
- GOP releases video detailing Dem statements
- W tells the Dems to stop rewriting history
- Who’s really lying about Iraq?
- Dems on Iraq – a quote recap