Sunday, March 18, 2007
He writes another self serving piece about how he was correct in supporting the Iraq mess as the lead editorial in today's Washington Post. Some
We will never know what might have happened had Saddam Hussein and his sons been left in power. Nor do we know how Iraq will evolve; history's judgment in five years or 10 may look very different than today's.
History in five years will likely say that Bush belongs at the Criminal Court at the Hague. You really think history is going to prove Bush right here? You are sounding like Bush. But that is obvious.
The easy way out is to blame President Bush, Vice President Cheney or former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld: The decision was right, the execution wrong.
It would be easy because it's the truth. The decision was not right. How can you say that now?
David Kay's postwar report suggests that Saddam Hussein would have used the resulting loosening of bonds to build a dangerous arsenal.We underestimated, too, the regime's determination to fight back and its resourcefulness in doing so.It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had "lied the nation into war," as is frequently charged. The best postwar journalism instead suggests that the president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed -- as did the CIA -- the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations.
Give me a freaking break. Saddam had the opportunity to cheat during the sanctions regime. He didn't start building back up his arsenal during 2001 & 2002 when "geniuses" such as yourself said he was because of the corrupt food for oil program. So when was he going to start again exactly? What would have made his arsenal any more dangerous that that of his neighbors?
The risks of war with North Korea or Iran are evident; but the cost of leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or a Kim Jong Il may not become evident until the price has been paid.
Don't you even go there, you little weasel. I don't care how much you have invested in this failed policy. The United States is not going to allow you to cheerlead us into a military action in Iran. North Korea seems off the table now btw. You hear about that? We tried something called diplomacy for a lark, and it's working.
Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.
Perhaps in six months, or in a Friedman unit, things will be much better in Iraq. If you had been running the Washington Post during the Nixon regime, we would have seen peace is at hand, and calls for the paper to fire Woodward and Bernstein for destabilizing the Nixon regime.
Fred Hiatt needs to be fired.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
|