Editorials Consider Latest Iraq-WMD Report

By: E&P Staff Editorials in several leading newspapers today responded to the final report released yesterday by Charles A. Duelfer, the U.S. chief weapons inspector in Iraq.

The report found that Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles more than a decade ago and that its ability to produce such weapons had been significantly eroded by the time of the American invasion last year.

The New York Times and The Washington Post had markedly different reactions, as usual, in the ongoing controversy over the legitimacy of the war.

"The report shows that the international sanctions that Mr. Bush dismissed and demeaned before the war -- and still does -- were astonishingly effective," the Times editorialized this morning. "For months, administration officials have tried to deflect charges that they invaded Iraq under false pretenses and have urged critics to wait for Mr. Duefler's verdict on the weapons search. The authoritative findings of the Iraq Survey Group have now left the administration's rationale for war more tattered than ever. ... And as the war continues to bog down, the power of nonviolent international sanctions looks more muscular every day."

The Washington Post, on the other hand, opined: "Because Mr. Bush chose to act, we know what capabilities Iraq did -- and did not -- possess, and we've learned how difficult it is to occupy and attempt to reconstruct that country. What can't be known is what would have happened had Mr. Bush chosen not to invade. ...

"The larger question is how, or even whether, decisions about preemptive war can be made in the absence of unambiguous intelligence. This is not hypothetical: Whoever wins November's election may face a similar dilemma. Extremist anti-American governments or terrorists may acquire weapons of mass destruction, and neither al Qaeda nor the rulers of Iran and North Korea are inclined to transparency. The case of Iraq has shown that it is possible that the intelligence on which a war decision may be based may later prove to be mostly wrong. Does that mean the president cannot act in such cases? That's a question Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry would do well to discuss."

Other excerpts from editorials follow.

The Philadelphia Inquirer: "The chief U.S. weapons inspector said Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not possess or have concrete plans to make WMD. In other words, the inspections and sanctions begun after the Gulf War had limited the threat. The new round of inspections President Bush had masterfully induced the United Nations to begin would eventually have demonstrated that fact -- if the inspections hadn't been shortcircuited by the invasion."

The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J.: "Duelfer's report is particularly damaging to the administration, because it goes to the heart of the central question of the presidential campaign: What will best protect this country from terrorism? Identifying priorities in that effort is the key to an effective policy. Yet the White House continues to defend, without question or apology, a strategy that made Iraq central to national security when accumulating evidence shows that, at best, Saddam was a secondary issue.

"Why harp on these old mistakes? First, because many Americans still don't know these facts. Second, even though such blaming hindsight doesn't make clear how to salvage the Iraq mess, it might help avoid a repeat of the central Bush-Cheney error: seeing only what you want to see.

Chicago Tribune: "It's fair for those who oppose Bush's decision to ask whether he was wrong to take his country to war based on the pre-war WMD intel that was gathered by the U.S. and several other governments. As the Duelfer report affirms, that global intelligence appears to have been mistaken.

"But it is also fair for Americans to ask any would-be president why, having digested that same intelligence about Iraq and its alleged weapons programs, he wouldn't take military action rather than risk another Sept. 11. Or worse.

"It is also fair to ask why that would-be president thinks that waiting for multilateral enforcement actions -- especially from an entity as tarnished as the United Nations -- is anything more than a sucker's bet."

The Denver Post: "President Bush is doggedly working to 'stay on message' in defense of his Iraq policy, but a series of recent remarks and reports raises new questions about the rationale and the operation of the war.

"One of the most detailed reviews yet undertaken was released Wednesday when the top U.S. arms inspector said that Hussein did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began, and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing. These findings were in conflict with Bush's pre-war statements. ... The situation in Iraq is a perilous one, and the context for it continues to be a matter of debate."

San Antonio Express-News: "Three stunning pieces of news this week have given the American people fresh material to process in the debate over the war with Iraq. ... President Bush should address these issues head-on. He and Congress must continue to push for a better intelligence operation that will help avoid future miscalculations. Foreign policy decisions are too important for incorrect assessments."