Sadder and wiser about Iraq

 

In January 2003, a few weeks before the United States went to war in Iraq, I wrote in this newspaper about what appeared to be a double standard or maybe no standard in Bush administration foreign policy: 

“Iraq has allowed U.N. inspectors to resume searching for whatever deadly weapons it may have, has released lists of its scientists, seems willing to have them leave the country for questioning and has yet to build a nuclear bomb. Therefore, we may be about to go to war with Iraq.”

At the same, “North Korea has thrown out its U.N. arms inspectors” and “announced its intention to resume the manufacture of nuclear weapons” but “we are not about to go to war with North Korea.” I was on to something — there was no earthly reason for going to war in Iraq.

I wondered if “having gone to all the trouble of building up the threat of Saddam Hussein, President Bush doesn’t want to trade tyrants in midstream.

“Or maybe, the administration prefers a war with Iraq because it can be done on the cheap, between $50 billion and $60 billion.” I mentioned this estimate was disputed by the president’s chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, who got fired when he said the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. He was, of course, only off by about a trillion dollars.

•      •      •

Then I found another column from the fall of 2002 I never finished. It questioned the Bush people’s motives and began by asking, “What’s the hurry?

“Even though there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein is, among a number of others, a threat to the security of the United States and its people, I can’t shake the nagging feeling that we are being stampeded into a war with him to accommodate the politicians with a stake in the coming mid-term election and the next run for the presidency.

“Much has been made of the case cleverly laid before the United Nations by President Bush but it is a case that could have been made months, even years ago. If, in fact, the Saddam Hussein threat was overlooked in the Clinton years, why was that little matter ignored by candidate George W. Bush in the 2000 campaign? Was the policy of containment so wrong that it must be replaced by a unilateral war followed by who knows what? 

“With a sagging economy, a profound need for health-care reform and other domestic issues relegated to the sidelines by war talk, President Bush has deftly won control of the coming election....”

And there I stopped. You will notice that I had swallowed the myth that Saddam threatened our security but why didn’t I continue? Was I reluctant to go against the prevailing wisdom? Don’t forget a lot of smart people from both parties, people like Hillary Clinton, supported the war.

I made up for it a bit in April 2003, a month after the war started. John Kerry, one of the potential Democratic candidates in 2004, had gotten into trouble for remarking that “what we need is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.”

The Republican national chairman screamed, “Sen.Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest a replacement of America’s commander in chief at a time when America is at war.” 

Without imagining what friends of Bush would do later to malign the war record of the highly decorated Kerry, I compared his Vietnam experience to the future commander in chief, who “was defending the friendly skies of Texas against the Viet Cong as an occasional member of the Air National Guard.”

And I recalled Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican they’d never invite to CPAC today, who wrote this during a bigger war in 1917: 

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people.”

And now, a decade later, when we’re all sadder and wiser about Iraq and we’re at the “who knows what” stage in the Middle East, I wish I’d been smart enough to have finished that other column.

 

Simsbury resident Dick Ahles is a retired journalist. Email him at dahles@hotmail.com.

Latest News

Sharon voters reject controversial school budget, 114-99

The May 8 town meeting and budget vote were moved from Sharon Town Hall to Sharon Center School to accommodate what officials said was the largest turnout for a Sharon budget meeting in recent years.

Alec Linden

SHARON – More than 200 residents packed the Sharon Center School gymnasium Friday, May 8, where voters narrowly rejected the Sharon Board of Education's proposed 2026-2027 spending plan by a vote of 114-99, sending the budget back to the Board of Finance after weeks of heated debate over school funding.

The rejected proposal – the ninth version of the budget since deliberations began months ago – carried a bottom line of $4,165,513 for the elementary school, unchanged from last year. The flat budget came after the BOF ordered the BOE in early April to remove nearly $70,000 from its spending plan.

Keep ReadingShow less

Liane McGhee

Liane McGhee
Liane McGhee
Liane McGhee

Liane McGhee, a woman defined by her strength of will, generosity, and unwavering devotion to her family, passed away leaving a legacy of love and cherished memories.

Born Liane Victoria Conklin on May 27, 1957, in Sharon, CT, she grew up on Fish Street in Millerton, a place that remained close to her heart throughout her life. A proud graduate of the Webutuck High School Class of 1975, Liane soon began the most significant chapter of her life when she married Bill McGhee on August 7, 1976. Together, they built a life centered on family and shared values.

Keep ReadingShow less
‘Women Laughing’ celebrates New Yorker cartoonists

Ten New Yorker cartoonists gather around a table in a scene from “Women Laughing.”

Eric Korenman

There is something deceptively simple about a New Yorker cartoon. A few lines, a handful of words — usually fewer than a dozen — and suddenly an entire worldview has been distilled into a single panel.

There is also something delightfully subversive about watching a room full of women sit around a table drawing them. Not necessarily because it seems unusual now — thankfully — but because “Women Laughing,” screening May 9 at The Moviehouse in Millerton, reminds us that for much of The New Yorker’s history, such a gathering would have been nearly impossible to imagine.

Keep ReadingShow less
google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

By any other name: becoming Lena Hall

By any other name: becoming Lena Hall

In “Your Friends and Neighbors,” Lena Hall’s character is also a musician.

Courtesy Apple TV
At a certain point you stop asking who people want you to be and start figuring out who you already are.
Lena Hall

There is a moment in conversation with actress and musician Lena Hall when the question of identity lands with unusual force.

“Well,” she said, pausing to consider it, “who am I really?”

Keep ReadingShow less
Remembering Todd Snider at The Colonial Theatre

“A Love Letter to Handsome John” screens at The Colonial Theatre on May 8.

Provided

Fans of the late singer-songwriter Todd Snider will have a rare opportunity to gather in celebration of his life and music when “A Love Letter to Handsome John,” a documentary by Otis Gibbs, screens for one night only at The Colonial Theatre in North Canaan on Friday, May 8.

Presented by Wilder House Berkshires and The Colonial Theatre, the 54-minute film began as a tribute to Snider’s friend and mentor, folk legend John Prine. Instead, following Snider’s death last November at age 59, it became something more intimate: a portrait of the alt-country pioneer during the final year of his life.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sharon Playhouse debuts new logoahead of 2026 season

New Sharon Playhouse logo designed by Christina D’Angelo.

Provided

The Sharon Playhouse has unveiled a new brand identity for its 2026 season, reimagining its logo around the silhouette of the historic barn that has long defined the theater.

Sharon Playhouse leadership — Carl Andress, Megan Flanagan and Michael Baldwin — revealed the new logo and website ahead of the 2026 season. The change reflects leadership’s desire to embrace both the Playhouse’s history and future, capturing its nostalgia while reinventing its image.

Keep ReadingShow less
google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.