http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1087649716272056.xmlExcerpted from news services:
"The Bush administration has plenty of explaining to do in the aftermath of Wednesday's release of staff reports from the bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks. By now, the primary reasons given for going to war in Iraq have become annoyingly repetitive: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and he had formed an unholy alliance with Osama bin Laden. On that basis, hundreds of thousands of troops were ordered into combat, the Saddam regime was ousted and the United States found itself confronted by the massive task of nation building -- at a cost to exceed $200 billion. So it is troubling, to say the least, that the 9/11 commission, which pored over more than 2 million documents and heard 1,000 witnesses, including the president, has concluded that there was no credible evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaida. Nor was there evidence of Iraqi cooperation with bin Laden's attacks against the United States."
-- editorial, The Hartford Courant
"As newspaper headlines screamed in front-page, above-the-fold stories, the 9/11 commission found 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein played a role in the terrorist attacks. But what you won't hear is that Saddam's possible role in 9/11 had little to do with the case for war in Iraq. Quite simply, war was waged in Iraq to prevent another 9/11. Apparently, this is too much nuance for most of the media to handle. . . .Obviously, if the administration had made the case for war based on Saddam actively supporting 9/11, the media would be pulling those quotes. Which explains why the media instead had to distort the administration's words."
-- Joel Mowbray, National Review
"Ironically, as the commission reported, the al-Qaeda-Iraq connection has become a self-fulfilling prophecy with terrorists pouring into Iraq to attack U.S. forces. But that is a situation caused by Bush's war, not prevented by it. If Bush wants to build support for the difficult occupation of Iraq and, if he seeks to inspire trust at home and abroad for the war on terrorism, he should start by making sure he is getting the right facts and getting the facts right."
-- editorial, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
<snip>
"President Bush should apologize to the American people . . . Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaida claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: Either Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world."
-- editorial, The New York Times
<snip>
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1087649716272056.xml
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
