Why Kerry Is Right on Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5709288/site/newsweek/
Perhaps Iraq would have been a disaster no matter what. But there's a
thinly veiled racism behind such views, implying Iraqis are savages.
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
Aug. 23 issue - John Kerry isn't being entirely honest about his views
on Iraq. But neither is President George W. Bush. "Knowing what we
know now," Bush asked, "would [Kerry] have supported going into Iraq?"
The real answer is, of course, "no." But that's just as true for Bush
as for Kerry. We now know that there were no weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. Is Bush suggesting that despite this knowledge,
he would still have concluded that Iraq constituted a "grave and
gathering threat" that required an immediate, preventive war? Please.
Even if Bush had come to this strange conclusion, no one would have
listened to him. Without the threat of those weapons, there would have
been no case to make to the American people or the world community.
There were good reasons to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, but it was
the threat of those weapons that created the international, legal,
strategic and urgent rationale for a war. There were good reasons why
intelligence agencies all over the world—including those of Arab
governments—believed that Saddam had these weapons. But he didn't.
Fareed Zakaria
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0311220342.2b20f7f%40posting.google.com
.
|
