From a Madison Capital Times editorial, 12/15/03:
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/editorial/63313.php
Now that Saddam has been captured, advocates for the Bush
administration's misguided policy of pre-emptive war will attempt to
find justification for the invasion that has cost thousands of Iraqi
lives and hundreds of American lives.
But wiser counsel comes from U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the savvy
Illinois Democrat who was one of the wisest critics of the president's
rush to war.
"I take exception with those who see this as a major vindication of
this war and the policy of pre-emptive war," Schakowsky said Sunday.
"I disagree with those who say this proves that it was all worth it -
the loss of American lives, the isolation of the U.S., the enormous
expense born by Americans alone."
Schakowsky is right.
Before the war, the serious justifications that were offered for
attacking Iraq had little to do with Saddam or the suffering of the
Iraqi people.
The United States needed to invade the country, Americans were told,
to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to stop terrorism and to
create a model of democracy for the Arab world.
Only when the weapons of mass destruction were not found, when
connections to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida were not established, and
when progress toward democracy was thwarted did the administration
start to peddle the notion that Saddam was directing the guerrilla war
that continued to destabilize Iraq.
While Saddam loyalists have, undoubtedly, been behind some of the
attacks on U.S. troops and on Iraqi civilians who have cooperated with
the occupation forces, serious analysts suggest that the continued
violence in Iraq is the product of many resentments, many motivations
and many groups.
To suggest that the capture of one man will resolve all of those
resentments is absurd.
_____________________________________________________
The Bush attempt to disguise his lies will probably not succeed. The
2004 election will be the moment of truth. So long, Georgie.
Harry
.
|
