Monday, March 19, 2007

The Ides of March 2003

Today, exactly four years after Bush launched his war of choice against Iraq, it feels appropriate to look back at what was being said a few days before, during, and after the March 19 air attack on Baghdad.

Frank Rich, (photo) the New York Times op-ed columnist, has provided us with a chronology in his article, The Ides of March 2003, “of some of the high points and low points in the days leading up to the national train wreck whose anniversary we mourn this week.”

Selecting quotes from March 5 -7, 10, 14, 16-21, he adds in brackets “where are they now” updates.

Here’s what Rich wrote on March 7: "Appearing before the United Nations Security Council on the same day that the United States and three allies (Britain, Spain and Bulgaria) put forth their resolution demanding that Iraq disarm by March 17, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reports there is 'no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.' He adds that documents 'which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.' None of the three broadcast networks’ evening newscasts mention his findings.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Greg Palast says we went to war to keep Iraqi oil off the market (we're doing a really good job of it). And we certainly did not go to war over yellowcake, or other "WMDs".

If Greg Palast is right, then the administration apparently is willing to sacrifice thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis just to keep Iraqi oil off the market.

If El Baradei gets the Nobel Peace Prize, what does Bush get?

What would be a fitting name to connect to such a prize? (A Cheney War Prize??)