In your cover article, "Next Stop Iran?" (Feb. 10, 2007), it is reassuring that your position on a potential US attack against Iran is conscientious: Caution.
What about 'last time'?
In your courageous mea culpa-cum-justification since losing the true religion along the way, we are informed ad inf. that The Economist supported the US invasion of a sovereign country to destroy both non existent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and fudged "terrorist" connections. When the first two banalities dried up and blew away, the Neo Con-Fundamentalist crusade to reform America's ex ally, bad man Saddam and his country, somehow also received your magazine's support.
"This newspaper supported America's invasion of Iraq. We believed, erroneously, that Saddam Hussein was working to acquire nuclear weapons. And we judged that the world should not allow a mass-murderer to gather such lethal power in his hands. In the case of Iran, the balance of risks points, though only just, in the other direction."
Everyone makes mistakes. But on such a scale? I am a long time admirer of The Economist. However, your reputation has suffered irreparable harm from your impetuous rush to join the fray. It is only slightly pardonable because this is not a trait with which you are normally associated. I suggest at least caution, if not better judgement the next time you seek to influence the world. Well before the planes flew, too many of us saw what you apparently did not. Too many of us recognized the hype on TV. Too many understood, if not the game below the surface, that there WAS one- that we should not call into serious question your editorial judgement. Kindly do your readership a favor: Drop further references to your excuses for supporting the worst judgement of the worst leader of the free world in our lifetime. Thank you.
Bob Beadle
Peninsula de Marau, Bahia
Brazil
www.maraupeninsula.com
