Amazing. A wealthy, ultra-liberal, university and US government research dominated, thorough-goingly pro-peace town newspaper manages to backhandedly endorse a US war against Iraq. In an apparent admonishment of the peace movement, their editorial, “The mules of Baghdad,” manages to mention Clinton, although not Bush. My condensation follows [emphasis mine]: “Like millions of people and many governments around the globe, we are not convinced that war is the only, or wisest, way to obtain Iraqi disarmament, especially given the potential fallout, from increased terrorism to economic disaster. “Yet when opponents of war offer only glib, glancing condemnation of Saddam — ‘Yes, yes, he's a monster. Now let's talk inspections’ — they discredit themselves. [It sure should: a 15 day disarmament truce ‘agreement’ has been going on for 12 years—is this not the very definition of farce?] Saddam's government has willfully, repeatedly defied the world's legitimate efforts to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to its neighbors. “And it's almost comical how often Iraq has defied the United Nations. From 1991…through 1999, the U.N. Security Council was constantly drafting resolutions calling for Iraq to ‘cooperate fully with U.N. inspectors.’ "There's a lesson in all this: If — likely when — war comes to Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his regime deserve the lion's share of blame. Iraq has had countless opportunities to cooperate, to prevent war's horrors from visiting its people again. Yet it seems that [surprise surprise!] Iraq's leaders are more concerned with pride and posturing than they are about the well-being of the people they claim to protect. "If war comes, even those who opposed military action should not be too quick to dismiss the Iraqi government's role in the tragedy. After all,… Saddam chose instead to play games." www.thedailycamera.com
