0.cached.png

By Newsweek Editors

0

Share

Newsweek is a Trust Project member

See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.

Readers were up in arms over the subject of our Feb. 9 cover story--the role of faulty intelligence leading to the Iraq war. Many were "outraged by an immoral, unjustifiable war." One defined WMD as "Wanton Mass Deception." Insisted another, "It was no intelligence failure--it was a lie. Bush lied."

A Failure of Intelligence?

Before the Iraq war, I argued with people repeatedly over its necessity and justification. I supported the war for reasons beyond just the WMD, but part of my argument included WMD and the threat Iraq posed to the world. When the "major hostilities" ended, I thought that while we might not find tons of biological- or chemical-weapon stockpiles, they existed and would eventually be found, as the Bush administration assured us. Now after reading your Feb. 9 cover story," 'We Were All Wrong,' " and the news reports about David Kay's findings, I am embarrassed, and must admit to those with whom I argued that I was wrong. The United States lost its credibility and more than 500 lives for what President Bush repeatedly said were irrefutable facts about Iraq's WMD and their threat to us and the rest of the world.
David Goldberg
New York, N.Y.

Read More on News

It was no intelligence failure--it was a lie. The president of the United States of America lied.
Jay Berner
via internet

"What Went Wrong" is an excellent piece of journalism that deserves commendation for presenting a candid and coherent chronology of facts. The report also raises many questions that need forthright answers. In the absence of WMD, Bush's list of other justifications for war seems immaterial when compared with the carnage and chaos America reaped and its loss of credibility in the world. Who will respond the next time we cry wolf?
Sandra H. Mitchell
Warrenton, Virginia

Neither WMD nor Saddam were ever the issue. Long before 9/11, the present U.S. administration hoped for a valid reason to secure Iraq's oil reserves, as the world's thirst for oil will increase by 20 percent over the next 20 years, and probably substantially more in China. Saudi Arabia is a shaky bedfellow; Latin America is politically unstable. Russia, currently the second largest exporter of oil and gas, is not necessarily a business partner that the United States considers as a reliable, long-term supplier. Bush and his crew were selected and sponsored by the U.S. energy giants to represent their interests.
Hannes Lanz
Hong Kong

The best proof that the United States did the right thing in Iraq is the new attitude of Libya, Iran and Syria toward the West.
Victor Klapholz
Ramat Hasharon, Israel

Your Feb. 9 cover examining the Iraq intelligence mess asks, "Will Anyone Pay?" Scores of U.S. servicemen and -women and Iraqi civilians already have.
C. Garvey
Rochester, Minnesota

Nations like Iran and Libya, which had earlier adopted an intransigent attitude by refusing to acknowledge that they were pursuing a nuclear agenda, have begun to sing a different tune and have gone out of their way to extend their cooperation to organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency. Further, it is now absolutely clear that Libya and Iran acquired their nuclear know-how from the disgraced head of the Pakistan atomic agency, Abdul Qadeer Khan, whose hands were in the till in the sale of nuclear technology to these countries, a fact that he has sheepishly admitted. It is imperative that North Korea's march to becoming the world's most dangerous nuclear state is arrested before it assumes alarming proportions and threatens world peace.
Arvinder Walia
Kolkata, India

In the unlikely case that American leadership got it so wrong, they should be rejected at the polls for incompetence. More likely, if they knew all along they were wrong and lied to us, they should be impeached. Prior to going to war in Iraq, the administration claimed to have proof--let's see it and settle this question once and for all.
Ian Reynolds
San Antonio, Texas

I find it absolutely shocking that after leading their respective countries to war solely on the basis of faith, not facts, effectively slaughtering thousands of Iraqi civilians by their bombs, George W. Bush and Tony Blair remain in office. What's more, far from being apologetic, these equivocating leaders have the cheek to justify their crimes with blatant lies, saying that the world is now a lot safer. Claiming they were misinformed is no excuse when dealing with such serious matters. Neither seems to consider resignation; they are even less worried about criminal prosecution. That unlawful attitude should be punished by the voters in the next election.
Julienne Happich
Barcelona, Spain

Did the United States have to bomb a country, killing thousands of civilians, in order to capture one man? It was President George W. Bush and his ilk who contributed to the making of that villain of Baghdad. Isn't Bush also a sort of dictator in daring to order an air attack against Iraq without the backing of international law or the support of most other countries of the world?
Dan Chellumben
Amboise, France

"We were all wrong"? So France was right!
Jacques Spalart
Avon, France

Your Feb. 9 article "What Went Wrong" says that "even the French and Germans believed that Saddam had WMD." This is simply not true. From thousands of citizens demonstrating against the war because they were not convinced that the Bush administration's "proof" of WMD was real, to the German government led by Chancellor Schroder, who insisted on longer and more intensive inspections, it can be seen that Germans weren't sure about Saddam's weapons. Neither were the French. Donald Rumsfeld called Germany and France the "old Europe" for refusing to go to war. Most Germans considered Bush's Iraq policy a dangerous mix of suspicion, arrogance and pure warmongering. I agree that Saddam was an evil tyrant and the world is better off without him, but this was not the right way to go. Violence provokes counterviolence and President Bush aimed to fight terror--not to produce new terror.
Peter Jehle
Niederrieden, Germany

New Europe, Old Russia

In his article on European Union-Russia relations ("Eastern Exposure," Dec. 29/Jan. 5 ), Stefan Theil suggests that many people perceive the Russian threat not to apply the free-trade agreement with the EU toward the new Eastern European members as a sort of punishment for joining the Union. The true reason behind the Russian threat is the European Commission's continued reluctance to adopt procedures necessary for the new members to join the agreement. On the negotiations with Russia, the European Commission claims that the signature of "acquis communautaire" by the new members will automatically mean joining the agreement with Russia. This contradicts the Vienna Convention on International Treaties. It is striking that, while the agreements signed with other states (such as the Cotonou agreement signed with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries) have all the necessary provisions on EU enlargement--giving the partner states the opportunity to express their concerns, receive a quick response and sometimes adopt temporary measures if enlargements threaten their interests--Russia, basically, has no voice in the EU-enlargement process.
Artemy Izmestiev
Moscow, Russia

In my opinion, the main reason for the divide between Old and New Europe is not fear of an increasingly resurgent Russian expansionism targeting former satellites of the old Soviet Union, as pointed out by Stefan Theil. Rather, it is a sense of gratitude to the Americans for helping facilitate their liberation from communism. One should also bear in mind that the "split" exists mostly in the minds of the countries' leaders and not so much between ordinary citizens, as became patently clear in the controversy over the war in Iraq. Last but not least, there is this perception of arrogance and overbearing concerning France's and Germany's about-face over the issue of voting rights in the EU, which they had agreed upon in Nice more than three years before. The scrapping of the stability pact to boost the euro wasn't much help either. Were Poland's governing politicians to take a less bellicose stance toward the French and the Germans, they would likely strengthen the hands of ultranationalist Europhobes like Jean-Marie Le Pen, and that would be in nobody's interest except Le Pen's.
Werner Radtke
Paderborn, Germany

The King of Hell

A book review by Tara Pepper entitled "Sinful Reading" (Dec. 29/Jan. 5) states, to my utter amazement, that "in Dante's epic poem, 'The Divine Comedy,' Satan insists: 'Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven'." The words are, in fact, taken from John Milton's "Paradise Lost," (Book 1: 263). The context is a discussion between Satan and the other fallen angels concerning their new lot in Hell. Dante's "Inferno," in contrast, published three centuries earlier, recounts Dante's voyage through hell, with Virgil as his guide, until they emerge on the island of Purgatory. In this work, Satan is depicted as a three-headed machine devouring the three worst of the damned in the frozen center of the underworld and does not speak to the visitors at all.
Michael S. Carter
Paris, France

An American Model for the EU?

There is something I don't like about the article on the European Convention ("The 'Awkward Squad'," Dec. 22). It said that the power of Spain and Poland in the EU is out of proportion to their wealth and population. If we want to have a real United States of Europe, many countries have to have power out of proportion. If you look at the United States of America, the state of Wyoming with 500,000 inhabitants has the right to send two senators to the Senate, exactly as California does with 35 million inhabitants. The problem of Europe is the way the countries are trying to build the EU. Changes in the voting system will not change anything. What Europe needs is a bicameral Parliament, transnational parties and a president elected directly by the people, exactly like the United States. The European Constitution, in fact, is just another treaty like the ones before but with another name. About France I would say that its right of veto in the U.N. Security Council is out of proportion to its population. If France is so European, will it leave its place in the Security Council to the wealthy and populated EU?
Juan Carlos Galocha Morales
Belgrade, Serbia

In "The 'Awkward Squad'," you suggest that Poland and Spain acted as "spoilers" at the recent Brussels summit. However, it seems to me that they should be congratulated for having prevented the European Union from being controlled by a minority--the richest and most populated nations. Otherwise, instead of continuing to operated democratically, the Union would degenerate into an old-fashioned aristocracy.
Stanislaw Laskowski
Gdansk, Poland

Spanish and Polish attitudes toward the draft of the new European Constitution do not mean preservation of the European status quo. Their position aims to preserve the provisions of the Nice Treaty, adopted by present members of the EU. Poland is not one of them, Germany and France were and are. I cannot understand why you state that the present status quo of the EU is "cumbersome, slow" and later estimate it as "more effective than Washington seems to realize." You seem to apply different standards to the EU according to the issue raised: differently with regard to the Spanish and Polish negotiating position and differently to the EU as opposed to the United States. It is impossible to transform the EU into a single and democratic entity as long as its citizens do not all enjoy the same and equal rights. Polish farmers will receive 25 percent of subsidies that are and will be received by "the same" French and German farmers from the EU budget. So, stop using the equality argument.
Bartosz Kostecki
Chorzow, Poland

View 0 Comments

Request Reprint & Licensing

Submit Correction

View Editorial & AI Guidelines