NYT: "We Were WRONG"

[nostamj]

But we do fault ourselves for failing to deconstruct the W.M.D. issue with the kind of thoroughness we directed at the question of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or even tax cuts in time of war. We did not listen carefully to the people who disagreed with us. Our certainty flowed from the fact that such an overwhelming majority of government officials, past and present, top intelligence officials and other experts were sure that the weapons were there. We had a groupthink of our own.

By the time the nation was on the brink of war, we did conclude that whatever the risk of Iraq's weaponry, it was outweighed by the damage that could be done by a pre-emptive strike against a Middle Eastern nation that was carried out in the face of wide international opposition. If we had known that there were probably no unconventional weapons, we would have argued earlier and harder that invading Iraq made no sense.

Saddam Hussein was indisputably a violent and vicious tyrant, but an unprovoked attack that antagonized the Muslim world and fractured the international community of peaceful nations was not the solution. There were, and are, equally brutal and potentially more dangerous dictators in power elsewhere. Saddam Hussein and his rotting army were not a threat even to the region, never mind to the United States.

Now that we are in Iraq, we must do everything possible to see that the country is stabilized before American forces are withdrawn. But that commitment should be based on honesty. Just as we cannot undo the invasion, we cannot pretend that it was a good idea — even if it had been well carried out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRI1.html

[frank frankly]

1. it is titled, A Pause For Hindsight

what a disgusting title. how very NYTimes style...

GOOD EDITORIAL, though. thanks for the link.

they have far to go, but this is good news.

[maggrwaggr]

2. what the fuckwads don't get is it wasn't about the weapons

I knew that the war was a mistake from the getgo and here's why:

It had nothing to do with WMD's.

It had to do with Saddam Hussein. The one thing Hussein was NOT .... was suicidal.

And he knew that if he attacked the United States or Israel he would be nuked back to the stone age.

The man was all about surviving, NOT about being a martyr.

That's why during the buildup to the "war" my stomach had that knot in it that kept growing more and more painful.

I didn't care one whit if he had WMD's or not, he was never EVER gonna use them against the US or his neighbors or anybody else.

He'd had his ass kicked back to Baghdad once, his army, once the 5th largest in the world, virtually destroyed, and he had absolutely no intention of going through that again.

He was basically the mayor of Baghdad.

We all knew it then and we all knew it now.

But nobody said SHIT. Everybody wanted to kick his ass. Everybody CHOSE to believe he was a threat.

Nobody was deceived in this. Everybody knew EXACTLY what they were doing. And everybody knows that it was a CRIME.

And the result is that America is now a war-criminal nation.

This country has shamed itself in a way from which it will never recover.

[hang a left]

6. Everyone wants to wash their hands of the responsibility the press

had in promoting the WH agenda.....now. "We were duped" is everyone's meme. I feel like *hit today.

[spanone]

...and it was all due to 'group-think'. Yea, tell that to the families of

the dead.

[maggrwaggr]

9. it sure wasn't the CIA that got the idea to go to war

That's what people don't want to face.

At least the RW press doesn't want to face it.

It's not "we were duped".

It's "we wanted to go to war and now we're ashamed"

[kentuck]

3. But what puzzles me...

..is the way they dissed the international inspectors, who were looking in places that America was telling them to look, and were still finding nothing. Surely, they knew more than the White House and the press about what weapons Saddam might or might not have, but they were completely ignored by the media.

[oasis]

4. The name "Hans Blitz" is hardly ever mentioned in the news anymore. Kerry

people should be using it like a sledgehammer.

[gratuitous]

5. That's because his name is Hans Blix

But I know what you meant. :hi:

The Times has much to atone for; a mere apology this far after the fact is insufficient.

[maggrwaggr]

10. but America wasn't telling them where to look

I remember clearly back during the buildup I thought to myself "you know, if the Americans know EXACTLY what these weapons are, and exactly where they are, as they claim, all they have to do is tell the weapons inspectors where to look ONCE and they will gain credibility."

They could not do that.

In fact they WOULD not do that. I remember Bushco saying "we know where they are but we're not going to tell the inspectors because that would compromise our security" or some such bullshit.

How could any person with half a brain not see right through that?

[JackRiddler]

7. So did they fire Judy Miller?

Are they going to give her (and her editor) 11 times the Jayson Blair treatment, which is the minimum they deserve? Puh-leaze.

[Jacobin]

8. Assholes. Now that they got their war on

They say oops and all is supposed to be forgiven?

Fuckwads.

First Fire:

Judith CIA Miller
David Brooks
Tom "JustGiveWarAChance" Friedman

Then Hire:

Molly Ivins
And any two other journalists who have been fired in the last two years for speaking out against the junta.

Then I may read that once great paper again.

Not until then.