I'd Choose A Different Headline

[Annie]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgardner/stories/MYSA073104.11B.gardnener.2c7ca.html

but here's their's:

J. Francis Gardner: Experts agree war isn't based on lies
Web Posted: 07/31/2004 12:09 AM CDT


San Antonio Express-News

First there was Hans Blix, then David Kay, then the Senate Intelligence Committee, then the Butler Inquiry and, now, the 9-11 commission.

All have reached the same conclusion: The Bush administration was mistaken, not lying, when it claimed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for Gulf War II.

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix: "They were mistaken in their views, but I don't think they acted in bad faith."

Iraq Survey Group leader David Kay: Agency intelligence in Iraq was almost all wrong, but there was "no sign that the administration pressured analysts."

Senate Intelligence Committee: These nine Republicans and eight Democrats issued a unanimous report that absolved administration officials of pressuring CIA analysts to inflate the case for WMD. Agency judgments on Iraq's weapons "were either overstated or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting."

Butler Inquiry: Lord Robin Butler headed this five-member committee that investigated British intelligence-gathering prior to the Iraq war. Their report found no evidence to suggest Prime Minister Tony Blair lied to the public in making a case for war.

9-11 commission: Another bipartisan panel and another unanimous endorsement of commission findings that the administration was misled by a seriously flawed intelligence-gathering network. Republicans, independents and most Democrats have united in praise of the commission's findings.

It will be interesting to see if foam-at-the-mouth liberals finally get the message — calling President Bush and Blair "liars" has been thoroughly discredited on both sides of the Atlantic.

Presidential critics who had hoped for a knockout punch from the 9-11 commission were sorely disappointed. Any highlighted failures of the fledgling Bush team (on the job seven months) were more than offset by deficiencies and lapses during Bill Clinton's eight years in the Oval Office.

Not lost on commission members is the fact that since Sept. 11, 2001, no comparable attacks by terrorists have occurred on U.S. soil. This is not for lack of trying by al-Qaida. America is doing something right.

"Because of offensive actions against al-Qaida, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today," as stated in the commission's executive summary.

In the process of spreading blame for the many failures leading up to 9-11, the commission hit a home run when it fingered Congress. House and Senate Intelligence panels were criticized for inadequate review of U.S. intelligence agencies and the State Department.

After all, these oversight bodies are privy to the same data, and receive similar briefings, as the White House.

Perhaps without intending to, the 9-11 commission brought into sharp focus the difference in meaning that terrorism has for Americans versus its perception among our allies.

Europeans look at terrorism as an inconvenience, similar to air pollution or traffic snarl. To them, terrorism is a problem to be managed — part of the price one pays for living in Western civilization. Warfare is seen as an improper analogy in this context.

The United States looks at terrorism as a direct assault against the American ideal. To us, it's personal. Terrorism is a problem that must be forever solved, not simply contained.

Declaring war against a force so antithetical to our way of life, therefore, makes perfect sense.

Commissioners referred to the 9-11 attacks as an early battle in a global struggle. They know we are at war. Not a war of Christianity vs. Islam. Not a war of Western vs. Middle-Eastern cultures. This is a war between civilization and chaos.

For now at least, America's actions are those of a nation that intends to win.