March 19, 2007
Knowing what we know now about what we knew then
Longtime-Lefty Christopher Hitchens -- whose status as a skeptic of U.S. foreign policy was cemented during his vocal oppositition to the Vietnam War -- poses a series of questions as we mark the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War.
Was the president right or wrong to go to the United Nations in September 2002 and to say that body could no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein's open flouting of its every significant resolution, from weaponry to human rights to terrorism?
Was it then correct to send military forces to the Gulf, in case Saddam continued his long policy of defiance, concealment, and expulsion or obstruction of U.N. inspectors?
Should it not have been known by Western intelligence that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?
Could Iraq have been believably "inspected" while the Baath Party remained in power?
Wasn't Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations a bit of a disgrace?
Was the terror connection not exaggerated?
Was a civil war not predictable?
Keeping in mind that Hitchens is anything but an apologist for the U.S., his answers are interesting to anyone claiming to care -- one way or the other -- about the war.
Posted by Mike Lief at March 19, 2007 10:50 PM
| TrackBack