Once upon a Time, there was an article, which predicted our failure in Iraq...

[originalpckelly]

and one day in 2003 that article went POOF, and was no more. Well, at least in that Time. However, there was a Wayback Machine, which could take the stumped investigator to the Time where the article was.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020411073350/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980302/special_report.clintons_29.html

That's the page I got from the Wayback Machine.

Here is the main page from the Wayback Machine, you will notice that the article was available all the way up until 2002-2003.

http://originalpckelly.googlepages.com/externallink

Odd how five years passed from the publication of the article on Time's website until they (the publisher of the book the excerpt was from) figured out that they hadn't sold Time the rights to publish the information on the internet. (You can read Time's explanation of the missing article here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980302/special_report.clintons_29.html)

Five years is a long time, and certainly the "mistake" should have been noticed all the way back in March of '98 when it happened, right?

You know, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they probably did have the rights to publish it until Bush 43 decided to invade Iraq, and do exactly the opposite of what his father advised. I admit, I might be wrong, but what you do think?

My, my, my how the Times are a changing.

[originalpckelly]

1. Memory hole anyone?

Maybe we can forget the Bush 43 Presidency.

[LSK]

2. how about this article?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts.

BY BRENT SCOWCROFT
Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone.

That said, we need to think through this issue very carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities--notably the war on terrorism--as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

[originalpckelly]

3. Did it go poof?

:shrug:

[LSK]

4. not yet

[originalpckelly]

5. I think this article was particularly special because 41 wrote it.

[pnorman]

6. Here's what's in the last citation:

"The page you've requested is an excerpt from a book by Brent Scowcroft and George H. W. Bush titled A World Transformed, which appeared in the March 2, 1998, issue of TIME magazine under the title "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam". It has been removed from our site because the publisher did not grant us rights to sell the piece online through the TIME archive."

Sounds reasonable to me.

pnorman

[originalpckelly]

7. Yeah, except that the publisher pulled it down only five years...

after it had been up on Time magazine's website.

They did have five years didn't they? I wonder what could have sparked their interest in the article in '03? Oh wait...

[Crunchy Frog]

10. How many other book excerpts published by TIME

has that happened with? Must be a fairly common occurence.

[lyonn]

8. Bush I wrote this about the time Saddam kicked Inspectors out,

or at least refused to allow them to inspect his palaces in 1998, is that right? So it seems he was trying to explain to the media why he didn't do more damage to Saddam when he had a chance. No doubt he was getting flack for leaving him in place, also not helping the Shites when they attempted to get rid of Saddam and thousands of them were killed, or maybe mad because Bush I didn't demand Saddam sign the peace papers himself rather than a lesser official??

In any case, Bush I was exactly right wasn't he?

[originalpckelly]

9. Yep, exactly.

So sad his fucking son couldn't listen to daddy just once.