11/21/2005: Then and Now...
The Chicago Tribune has started a new set of articles looking back at some of the Pre-Iraq war Adminstration premises and arguments in this series: Iraq: Case Then and Now.
This looks to be very interesting - given the current public debate on the topic - and the *faulty* memories of all that occurred so long ago. This can be viewed as a supplemental to what we all HOPE with be the Phase II investigation by Congress about How the pre-war intelligence was presented to the public and whether there was an adequate basis for the continued repetition of those bits as the intelligence changed and was updated.
"...We begin with the premise that the passage of three years has obscured much of what actually was said in 2002 and early 2003 as this nation debated whether to invade Iraq and oust its dictator. Also obscured by the passage of time, and by often vicious (and mutual) political partisanship: what subsequent investigations and other evidence suggest about the emptiness, or accuracy, of the administration's reasons for war.
This is, we acknowledge at the outset, an arbitrary exercise—beginning with our identification of the nine arguments the Bush administration advanced in making its case for war. Those nine arguments were distinct, although sometimes overlapping. They included, but went well beyond, Iraq's weapons programs.
We isolated these nine arguments for war from eight major speeches or presentations by administration officials as they advanced their case. To assess each of those nine arguments, the Tribune will present an occasional series of editorials that examine the arguments one by one.
We approach each argument by positing two questions: What did the administration say about this in making its case for war? And what do we know about those assertions today?"
Give this a read through, and I will post on further installments as they appear.
Karen on 11.21.05 @ 08:45 AM CST