4 ms·

I seem to recall they came out in favour of the Iraq war, which in hindsight didn't turn out to be particularly astute. Surprised to see no mention of that.

• huffmsa 7y ago
  It's in the article "The Economist has never seen a war it didn't like"
  • ekianjo 7y ago
    That sounds like a blanket statement that needs a few citations, to say the least.
    • huffmsa 7y ago
      It's right there in black and white > "As one outspoken foreign editor remarked at his retirement from the newspaper, the Economist has yet to see a war it does not like. Again and again, spreading and defending the benefits of western liberalism has offered justification for imperial adventure." Read the materials before you come to class.
• DangerousPie 7y ago
  Do you have a link to their coverage at the time? Would be interesting to see their reasoning.
  • kristianc 7y ago
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/leaders/2003/02/20/why-war-would-be-justified https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/leaders/2003/... https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/07/17/the-case-for-war-revisited https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/07/17/the-case-for-wa...
• gatestone 7y ago
  I think the magazine actually apologized later. They said they were wrong about Iraq. But many others too, including me, genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein was going to continue using poison gas, and was trying to create a nuclear weapon. I actually believe that the CIA and US were genuinely believing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance
• dagw 7y ago
  I seem to recall they came out in favour of the Iraq war They also continued to criticize how that war was handled throughout and later admitted they where wrong to come out in favor of it.