Back to your local site:
 



Knight Ridder election blogs
  • Hot off the Trail
  • Life of the Parties
  • Ozblog
  • Ohioblog
  • Campaign Extra!
  • Infomaniac: WeBlog
  • Free-Fire Zone
  • Debate This!


  • Blogroll
  • Jay Rosen's PressThink
  • Yahoo's Blog Roundup
  • Feedster's Politics Page
  • Technorati Election Watch
  • Romenesko
  • CyberJournalist
  • Lost Remote
  • TV Newser
  • Blogging of the President
  • Tapped
  • Nat. Review's The Corner
  • The Command Post
  • Daily Kos
  • Campaign Desk
  • Scripting News
  • Roger L. Simon
  • Matt Welch
  • KausFiles
  • ABC's The Note
  • Tacitus
  • Power Line
  • Blogs for Bush
  • OxBlog
  • Talk Left
  • Political Wire
  • Glenn Reynolds: Instapundit
  • Jeff Jarvis: Buzzmachine
  • Talking Points Memo
  • Betsy's Page




  • Free-Fire Zone

    Campaign commentary from the left and the right
    Have a question? E-mail our columnists!

    Friday, October 08, 2004

    The Next Time  

    AP reports today that President Bush finally - finally! - has acknowledged that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq (more than a year after everybody else recognized the truth.) Apparently the report of Charles Duelfer, our top inspector in Iraq, made continued denial impossible.

    Now Bush says that we lost more than 1,000 of our own children - with thousands more maimed for life - in order to stop Saddam Hussein from abusing the U.N. oil for food program.

    So all that stuff about a "gathering threat" and a "mushroom cloud" is inoperable.

    Maybe Bush's supporters will buy this new line.

    This is what the rest of the world is taking: In the test of who was telling the truth in the runup to the war, it is Saddam Hussein who has been proven right. He told the world he didn't have WMD and he didn't. It is the United States that now has been proven wrong, decisively.

    And that is about the most dangerous thing that could have happened.

    The fact that we were so wrong and yet seemed so certain, cripples the U.S. in any future attempt to marshal international support to deal with any other country we think is a "gathering threat." Heck, it makes it near impossible to marshal majority support among Americans for another military campaign.

    Duelfer's report adds even more credence to John Kerry's contention that, above all, we need a "fresh start." Kerry as president would face a monumental task in convincing our allies to join again with us in a true coalition of the willing. He may not be successful.

    But for sure, George W. Bush - with his disastrous track record - wouldn't have a chance.

    posted by Carol Towarnicky at # 1:48 PM




    TowarnickyMorris

    On the left: Carol Towarnicky, chief editorial writer for the Philadelphia Daily News, from a liberal point of view.

    On the right: Leo Morris, editorial page editor of the Fort Wayne (Ind.) News-Sentinel, from a conservative point of view.


     Latest posts
       •  This ain't Lincoln-Douglas
       •  Why start in Iraq?
       •  What would you call it?
       •  Carrots and sticks and liars and such
       •  Reader comment
       •  Foreign v. domestic
       •  Can you take it?
       •  A vote for Cheney
       •  The case for Iraq
       •  Calling Gwen 'Gwen'



     Archives
       •  09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004
       •  10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004
       •  10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004
       •  10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004
       •  10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004
       •  10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004
       •  11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004
       •  11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004

    XML-RSS feed










    About Realcities Network | About Knight Ridder | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement

    Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any
    of the contents of this service without the express written consent of Knight Ridder is expressly prohibited.