Iraq in Review

[bemildred]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

What a load.


A READER ASKS: "When are you going to admit you were wrong?" We've
received a number of such inquiries (not all quite so polite) about our position on
the war in Iraq, particularly from readers who were disappointed in our prewar
stance. Now they cite several postwar surprises, or ostensible surprises: the
absence of weapons of mass destruction, the absence of a proven connection
between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and the continuing violence in Iraq. In
light of these developments, it's important for supporters of military intervention to
look back and, where necessary, reevaluate -- something the Bush
administration so far has resisted.

---

Many Americans understandably have been surprised by the continuing
casualties months after the president's appearance on an aircraft carrier under
the banner "Mission Accomplished." Mr. Bush's abrupt submission last month of
a large and poorly explained spending request to Congress also has
strengthened public support for the idea that the Iraq mission must be failing. Yet
the president's missteps have merely obscured the facts that these costs were
inevitable, and that outside of the Sunni towns where support for Saddam
Hussein was strongest, there is no quagmire -- only a slow, slogging progress
forward.

Continued progress is far from guaranteed. In our view, the administration could
improve the odds of success by forging a broader international coalition. For that
to happen, the administration must drop its insistence on monopolizing power
over Iraq's political transition, as well as the contracts for reconstruction. It must
compromise with those well-meaning allies who want Iraq to succeed but
disagree with U.S. tactics.

Success or failure in the effort to stabilize Iraq under a reasonably
representative government that poses no threat to the world will provide the
ultimate answer to the question of whether the war should have been
undertaken. Because we continue to believe that U.S. security is at stake, we
also believe that the United States must be prepared to dedicate troops and
financial resources to that goal until it is achieved, even if it takes years. In our
judgment success is possible, but much will depend on whether the
administration and Congress face the magnitude of the challenge and summon
the political courage and diplomatic skills necessary to meet it.

Wash Post

[LittleApple81]

1. It looks that The Washington Post is still in denial and trying to

justify their pro-war stance.

[JeebusH]

2. in his new propaganda, err opinion piece, Tom Friedman calls the ...

continued US occupation of Iraq "the least bad option", so its getting harder and harder to justify the pro-war stance