Important to tell this part of history correctly
This is a very, very important part of history, and we've got to tell it right. This was not something that had to happen.
- Thomas Kean
Maybe those of us who expected the 9/11 commission to produce yet another whitewash were wrong. Meanwhile, one can only echo his sentiment: It's important to tell our history right, not just about the events that led up to 9/11, but about the events that followed.
- Paul Krugman
It would be too easy to place blame for 9.11. There are so many candidates- American Airlines, Boston's Logan Airport, US intelligences services...the list goes on. In the end, though, what would that accomplish other than salving our wounded national pride? What happened cannot be erased, and we must remember that the history of what has led us to this point in time must be told accurately, for if it is not, what will we have learned? It was, after all, a blatantly false and misleading interepretation of history and intelligence that led us into the conflict in Iraq to begin with.
Many thoughtful and well-meaning types- and I would include myself in this group- supported the war in Iraq initially. We may not have supported George W. Bush, but there is a time when political orientation can and must take a back seat to doing the right thing. Based on the "evidence" submitted to the American public, invading Iraq clearly seemed the right thing to do. In retrospect, it was clearly that we were knowingly and egregiously deceived.
[W]e should be deeply disturbed by the history of this war. For its message seems to be that as long as you wave the flag convincingly enough, it doesn't matter whether you tell the truth.
By now, we've become accustomed to the fact that the absence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -- the principal public rationale for the war -- hasn't become a big political liability for the administration. That's bad enough. Even more startling is the news from one of this past week's polls: Despite the complete absence of evidence, 53 percent of Americans believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, up from 43 percent before his capture. The administration's long campaign of guilt by innuendo, it seems, is still working.
The war's more idealistic supporters do, I think, feel queasy about all this. That's why they lay so much stress on their hopes for democracy in Iraq. They're not just looking for a happy ending; they're looking for moral redemption for a war fought on false pretenses.
As a practical matter, I suspect that they'll be disappointed. The only leaders in Iraq with genuine popular followings seem to be Shiite clerics. I also wonder how much real commitment to democracy lies behind the administration's stirring rhetoric. Does anyone remember that Dick Cheney voted against a resolution calling for Nelson Mandela's release from prison? As recently as 2000 he defended that vote, saying that the African National Congress "was then perceived as a terrorist organization."
Yes, we now have Saddam Hussein in custody, and that is both a feather in the cap for the American military AND a positive sign for the future of Iraqi democracy. Of course, given that Iraq has no democratic tradition, it is entirely possible that, not only were we deceived into supporting this war, but that in the end we will have merely swapped one dictator for another. THAT would truly be a tragedy, but it is not outside of the realm of possibility. It's a hell of an exit strategy, isn't it??
