Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Patterson's opposition to Iraq war vindicated</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Dennis Morrison
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>In the months before the US-led invasion of Iraq, serious questions were raised about the stated reason for this action - the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The head of the UN weapons inspection team as well as the leading US expert in this field cast doubt on intelligence reports from the CIA and the Pentagon that Iraq was in possession of such weapons.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=70 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Dennis Morrison </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>But the Americans supported by Britain were determined to make a pre-emptive strike and brushed aside opposition to their plan.
The German and French governments did not support the action and many developing countries pointed to the danger of a pre-emptive strike where serious doubt existed about the basis of such a step.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The PJ Patterson administration was among the governments of the non-aligned countries which took a public stance against the Iraq war. There was displeasure in Washington and London over what was seen by them as defiance. In line with the Bush doctrine, anyone not supporting the war was regarded as the enemy and Americans who opposed it were accused of unpatriotic behaviour.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The feeling in the immediate period after victory was declared was that countries like Jamaica would be isolated and treated unfavourably by Washington. Fears were expressed here in Jamaica about the potential damage to the tourist industry if an unfriendly US government decided to turn the screws. The Opposition party was against the position adopted by the Patterson administration and even some supporters thought it unwise.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Now four years later, an agency of the US government has revealed that the basis on which the invasion was carried out was false. As was alleged before the war, the intelligence reports were doctored so as to show that there was a threat and to justify the invasion. While this most recent report from the auditors of the US military apparently has put to rest the Bush Administration's case for the war, the claim of weapons of mass destruction has long been destroyed.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The justification for the war has now become the removal of the tyrannical Saddam Hussein regime and dubious claims of links between that regime and Al Qaeda. Having been misled by the original arguments in support of the invasion, many Americans and others have been unmoved by the case for regime change and claims of terrorist links. Indeed, the loss of moral authority by the Bush Administration with respect to the Iraq issue was evident in the defeat of the Republicans in last November's Congressional elections.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Though the case against the Hussein regime was unchallenged, the question has always been whether the invasion was the sensible approach. Even as he presented "proof of the threat of mass weapons", Colin Powell, the military leader turned diplomat, was fearful of the consequences of political instability in Baghdad. In the rush to act swiftly, the Bush Administration supported by the British was not about to consider any other approach. Its anxiety to act was such that proper planning of the post-invasion strategy was not done.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=120 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><IMG height=175 src="http://jamaicaobserver.com/columns/images/20070220T200000-0500_119399_OBS_PATTERSO
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Dennis Morrison
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>In the months before the US-led invasion of Iraq, serious questions were raised about the stated reason for this action - the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The head of the UN weapons inspection team as well as the leading US expert in this field cast doubt on intelligence reports from the CIA and the Pentagon that Iraq was in possession of such weapons.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=70 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Dennis Morrison </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>But the Americans supported by Britain were determined to make a pre-emptive strike and brushed aside opposition to their plan.The German and French governments did not support the action and many developing countries pointed to the danger of a pre-emptive strike where serious doubt existed about the basis of such a step.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The PJ Patterson administration was among the governments of the non-aligned countries which took a public stance against the Iraq war. There was displeasure in Washington and London over what was seen by them as defiance. In line with the Bush doctrine, anyone not supporting the war was regarded as the enemy and Americans who opposed it were accused of unpatriotic behaviour.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The feeling in the immediate period after victory was declared was that countries like Jamaica would be isolated and treated unfavourably by Washington. Fears were expressed here in Jamaica about the potential damage to the tourist industry if an unfriendly US government decided to turn the screws. The Opposition party was against the position adopted by the Patterson administration and even some supporters thought it unwise.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Now four years later, an agency of the US government has revealed that the basis on which the invasion was carried out was false. As was alleged before the war, the intelligence reports were doctored so as to show that there was a threat and to justify the invasion. While this most recent report from the auditors of the US military apparently has put to rest the Bush Administration's case for the war, the claim of weapons of mass destruction has long been destroyed.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The justification for the war has now become the removal of the tyrannical Saddam Hussein regime and dubious claims of links between that regime and Al Qaeda. Having been misled by the original arguments in support of the invasion, many Americans and others have been unmoved by the case for regime change and claims of terrorist links. Indeed, the loss of moral authority by the Bush Administration with respect to the Iraq issue was evident in the defeat of the Republicans in last November's Congressional elections.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Though the case against the Hussein regime was unchallenged, the question has always been whether the invasion was the sensible approach. Even as he presented "proof of the threat of mass weapons", Colin Powell, the military leader turned diplomat, was fearful of the consequences of political instability in Baghdad. In the rush to act swiftly, the Bush Administration supported by the British was not about to consider any other approach. Its anxiety to act was such that proper planning of the post-invasion strategy was not done.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=120 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><IMG height=175 src="http://jamaicaobserver.com/columns/images/20070220T200000-0500_119399_OBS_PATTERSO
) .. Suh how come this is a shining moment fi PJ? Seemed like a no brainer. Obviously people looking for reasons to praise PJ. I guess the more man have cyar, gal and phone is no longer valid.
Comment