Posted on 01/20/2004 8:06:24 AM PST by Arrowhead1952
Editorial Board
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
President Bush should explain the yawning gap between what he said, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq about its capability for using weapons of mass destruction, and what has proved the reality -- virtually none. Nine months after the president declared major military operations in Iraq over, U.S. inspection teams have yet to find any substantive evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or even had a serious research and development program for such weapons.
There are two important questions: How much did the CIA and other U.S. intelligence gatherers actually know before the war about Iraqi programs for weapons of mass destruction? And just how much of what we were told publicly were exaggerations of that intelligence by the president, Vice President Dick Cheney and other members of the administration? The answers now seem to be, "Not much, and a lot."
Those questions are critical to the nation because the administration has adopted a policy of pre-emption -- that is, it has asserted a right by the United States to launch a war against another nation that has committed no overt act against this nation, if it is planning such an attack or helping others, such as terrorists, to do so.
Pre-emption is controversial under the best of circumstances. But whatever justification it can claim rests on solid, credible information that an enemy not only wants to attack this nation but is capable of doing so. A belief, a suspicion, a fear or a dislike for another nation is not enough to justify a pre-emptive U.S. attack or to risk lives.
The Senate and House intelligence committees are studying the CIA's intelligence work on Iraq, as well they should. They shouldn't stop with the CIA but carry out their constitutional obligation to monitor the executive branch on such a vital matter of life and death -- especially given the pre-emption doctrine.
An idea suggested by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace should get serious consideration from Congress: to make the director of central intelligence a "professionalized" presidential appointment with a set term of, say, six years or more. Such a term would give the director some protection from political pressures exerted by an administration that knows what it wants to hear. Similarly, the director of the FBI is appointed by the president to a 10-year term, and Federal Reserve Board members are appointed to 14-year terms.
None of this is to say that the war in Iraq proved pointless or wasteful. Let those few who would argue that Saddam Hussein was wronged and should be restored to his rightful place join those who defend Stalin, Hitler and Mao. However difficult the situation remains in Iraq, its people have a chance at a freer, more prosperous future they never had under Saddam.
And there's good reason to think that the invasion of Iraq has produced some welcome side effects elsewhere. Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, for example, has suddenly seen the wisdom of forswearing weapons of mass destruction.
Still, it's doubtful that the American people would have endorsed an invasion of Iraq on grounds of liberating its people from a tyrant or demonstrating to other rogue nations what might happen to them if they insisted on acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
Americans backed the war because they believed what the Bush administration told them about Iraq having or actively seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and what they were told proved wholly wrong. They deserve a detailed, candid explanation.
Lately, all the letters to the editor have slammed the President on every issue imangiable. Same thing with the editorial cartoons. Of course, what would one expect in the liberal capital of Texas.
What did you find so appallingly "un-American"?
That is one of the nicknames we have for the only daily paper in Austin. They have a monopoly on what the citizens here get to read.
Oh, I guess it's an ongoing local thing not just this article. Sorry to butt in.
I feel about the same, but buy it for my daily morning laughs while I'm having my coffee.
The editorial makes some good points.
This paper takes daily pot shots at the Bush Administration. They did the same when he was governor of Texas. It is probably 99.9 % liberal on a daily basis.
Uhhh... That's the point, they didn't know. If they knew they didn't have WMDs or WMD programs we wouldn't have invaded.
And just how much of what we were told publicly were exaggerations of that intelligence by the president, Vice President Dick Cheney and other members of the administration?
It hasn't been that long, surely you haven't forgotten already. Go back and read the speeches, especially by President Bush, regarding the reasons why we invaded Iraq.
I must agree about the traffic problems. The new part of 183 will open in March, and help the people going to that area. Several more roads are being built and expanded. I hate the traffic here.
There are several areas that a neutron bomb could be used to eliminate the hard core leftists.
I'll take your word on that, but still wonder what is barf-worthy in the piece.
This is the last paragraph of the editorial. The paper, in subtle ways, hides its liberal agenda on a daily basis. I wish I had time to post half the letters to the editor on FR. This article is basically several of those letters combined into one editorial that takes another pot shot at Bush.
That's because they have taken the whole thing so far out of context, they dare not mention his actual words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.