NYT Editorial: Iraq Goes Sour

The American involvement with Iraq appears to have turned a corner. The Bush administration's old game plan — drafting a constitution, followed by elections, followed by American withdrawal — has been replaced by a new timetable. It's a bit cynical to say that the plan is to toss the whole hot potato to whatever Iraqis are willing to grab it. But the White House thinking is veering close.

President Bush gambled vast amounts of American money, influence and American and Iraqi lives on the theory that toppling Saddam Hussein would make the world safer and make the Mideast a more stable and democratic region. Obviously, the Iraqi people are better off without a vicious tyrant in power. But if the American forces leave prematurely, the country will wind up vulnerable to another dictator and possibly more of a threat to the world than it was before. Yet the administration is giving the impression of having one foot out the door, while doggedly refusing to take the only realistic next step — asking the United Nations to take over the nation-building.

(snip)

Iraqis are growing weary of American occupation and the White House argues that they will not tolerate the current situation long enough for a constitution to be prepared. That is the precise reason that the job should be turned over to the United Nations. The United Nations has far more international experience, credibility and reputation for neutrality in these matters than the United States does. There is certainly no guarantee it can succeed. There is only the certainty that the Bush administration, which has made all the wrong bets so far, does not have any better options.

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/opinion/16SUN1.html?ei=5062&en=e2e0c36d5219b34b&ex=1069563600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=all&position=

Those Bushies, They are always right, cannot listen to anyone but themselves.

Both wanted a Pax Americana, but now Bush has to decide between Cheney's vision (untold wealth for the top 1%; Halliburton; unbridled power) and Wolfowitz's (control of any dissent towards American hegemony in the Middle East; America without the UN). They seem similar, but I think Cheney's vision is more unbridled power, while Wolfowitz's is a perverted, insane, yet somewhat idealistic vision of the world. Cheney is more the realist, and will want out of Iraq soon, once it is bled dry by his rich buddies (next year). Look for his vision to take hold. I would not be surprised if Wolfowitz has an unfortunate plane crash.

snip But the White House, along with many officials of the Clinton administration, did believe that Saddam Hussein had massive supplies of biological and chemical weapons, and that he was attempting to make Iraq a nuclear power. That was what created a sense of urgency about the invasion.

No bush and the neocons created a sense of urgency so their false premises wouldn't be discovered. Remember how everything they have done is hurry, hurry, hurry. Same as the patriot act. Get it passed before people have time to object.

snip The Central Intelligence Agency, we now realize, had no idea of what was going on inside Iraq. The country had been virtually shut off since 1998, when President Clinton ordered renewed bombing and weapons inspectors withdrew. The C.I.A.'s estimates were basically worst-case scenarios of what the Hussein regime might have been up to in the interim. That was apparently a mistake, if an understandable one.

Not true. It wasn't the CIA, it was Cheney's group as DUers knew. Notice how they try to give the story credibility by using Clinton's name. More media whoring.

<snip from same article>
The Central Intelligence Agency, we now realize, had no idea of what was going on inside Iraq. The country had been virtually shut off since 1998, when President Clinton ordered renewed bombing and weapons inspectors withdrew. The C.I.A.'s estimates were basically worst-case scenarios of what the Hussein regime might have been up to in the interim. That was apparently a mistake, if an understandable one.

But the assumptions Mr. Bush shared with the American people seem to have been hyped further. That was at least in part because of pressure from the Pentagon...

</snip>

In other words, it's everyone's fault but the man in the Oval Office.

What crap. If I hadn't just started my half-price subscription to the NYTimes last week, I'd cancel it.

Why do they ignore the fact that Cheney went to the CIA multiple times and told the analysts what they must find?

Guess nobody on the NYTimes editorial board watches Nightline or even gets their information beyond Bush's own inner circle.

s_m

More a mess than before and we really turned on the terror people to do as they wish and in Iraq now.Plus the whole world now hate us and blowback is here in force. Business likes things to be set up to make money so the country must be somewhat safe to make money and I do not think our army is doing that. DoD and big business have a problem. Now if I recall Eng, Spain in their empires owned the means of production and their arms protected them so they could control the countries, and so could take out their profits. This is not working so far in Iraq. Going to cost to much to control and most in US see no profits anyhow and it is their sons who died. This is not the 1800's any more.

The SCREW YORK TIMES lied us into this with thier Neocon 5th columnist pals.

Don't worry, they'll keep lying for Der Führer!

While "measured" in tone, it does knock the bush admin around quite a bit. It's well-organized with clear sub-headlines and covers a lot of ground.