Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

War motives

March 26, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

Our vice president, just back from a trip to Iraq, makes the statement that the United States' involvement in Iraq is due to its part in 9/11. We all know that Saddam Hussein and Iraq weren't involved, so Cheney's statement must be an attempt to justify U.S. involvement.

I was a resident of south Texas in 2002, and I well remember George W. Bush making the announcement that when elected president, he would avenge the threat Saddam Hussein made against his father, George H.W. Bush, no matter what it takes, so I think this and the possibility of additional income through Halliburton and the no-bid contracts allowed by the White House are the big reasons we are at war in Iraq.

Why else the mismanagement of funds and the extravagant spending on the most expensive and elaborate embassy in the world that there is a possibility the United States may use only short-term.

Howard Lynch,

Lawrence

Comments

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 9 months ago

"So the United States made a decision: to hunt down the evil of terrorism and kill it where it grows"

Then we abandoned that important mission in Afghanistan and invaded Iraq where there was an egotistical dictator that only gave lip service to Al Queda. Now we have a whole lot of new converts to Al Queda to fight who didn't exist before. I've asked over and over, why is Bin Laden still alive? Why are there still Al Queda in Afghanistan? How many new recruits have they gotten since we invaded Iraq? The invasion of Iraq has been a godsend to the terrorists, more targets, more recruits. Bush has no goals for the future. He'll just leave it up to the next president to clean up the mess. What a wimp.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

It takes a severely willfully ignorant ideologue to deny that BushCo lied (continually) to the American people about a connection between Saddam Hussein and the attack of 9/11. Many of them still believe it, and Cheney's statement is clearly designed to reinforce that belief.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 9 months ago

Agnostick, bin Laden is free because President Clinton and his advisers deliberately chose not to take advantage of the sure opportunity of his capture, primarily out of concern for how certain European countries would view such action. Had they done what they should have, as President Reagan did with Libya, the tragedies of September 11, 2001, could have been avoided.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"So, do we invade Pakistan, a sovereign nation with nuclear weapons, to get bin Laden?"

That's what BushCo did with Iraq-- they claimed Saddam had WMD, and needed to be disposed of. Why the different policy with Pakistan?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"Agnostick, bin Laden is free because President Clinton and his advisers deliberately chose not to take advantage of the sure opportunity of his capture,"

Never happened. Repeating lies doesn't make them true.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

" She is a Barack supporter and Bush-hater,"

He's murderous lying a**hole. What's not to hate?

" yet even she refuses to even repeat that bogus 1 million dead figure because she knows it would be a lie."

No one knows exactly how many people have died. BushCo have set out from the start to conceal that figure, and in a country that has been destroyed in every way conceivable, we'll never know exactly how many have died. But given that there are over 4 million refugees in a country of 24 million, the surveys which estimate that as many as 1 million (or more) people have died, it isn't all that hard to believe-- unless you know nothing about anything outside your precious ideology.

Jcjayhawk1 6 years, 9 months ago

"We never abandoned the mission in Afghanistan. It's an insult to the troops who have been serving in Afghanistan to say that they have not been doing their jobs. They have been there the whole time and risking their lives every day."-Vet4

Lets distinguish the difference between troops doing their jobs and the failed outcome of a mission......

The troops do what is asked of them and they have done so for the most part. But when it comes to the overall construction of the mission plan they have little to do with it's design.

The troops can do their job and still be part of a failed mission.

Using the ....(It's an insult to the troops who have been serving in Afghanistan to say that they have not been doing their jobs.)....as an argumentative tactic is an example of the " say anything critical about our overseas operations then you are insulting and not supporting our troops" crowd. Vet don't be one of those people....please

pisafromthewest 6 years, 9 months ago

scenebooster (Anonymous) says:

"Explain the surge, or the fact that 2007 was the most violent of the war:if major combat ops have ended?"

So tell us, scenebooster, when the last tank battle took place. Or maybe the last battle between opposing aircraft. Or a battle between brigade sized units of organized armies.

Of course, if you really think that an operation to capture a handful of resistance fighters using small arms and IED's constitutes a "major combat operation," that goes a long way towards explaining why the Democrat's heroine defines this as ducking and running for cover during a sniper attack:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/03/20/PH2008032002697.jpg

Jcjayhawk1 6 years, 9 months ago

Vet4

I don't see where Dorothyhr said we had no troops in Afghanistan.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"I truly feel sorry for you. You must lead a miserable life."

Ah, that's touching. You want to know what would be truly miserable? To be an ignorant, ideological cheerleader for a bunch of lying, murdering thugs.

"They have? Where's the proof for that? Or are you merely manufacturing claims again?"

You never tire if demonstrating your ignorance, do you? The military has repeatedly said that they don't do casualty counts. I don't believe that, but that just means their real intent is to conceal the count, and not to just not make the count.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 9 months ago

logrithmic (Anonymous) says:

"Bush's war is illegal and criminal because it violated the U.N. Charter ..."

Maybe you'd be kind enough to provide a link to the UN resolution forbidding US entry into Iraq or ordering the US to leave.

Jcjayhawk1 6 years, 9 months ago

"Why do you nutcases call it an illegal "war" then turn around and say Bush never declared war and proceed to prop up your propaganda?"


The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress.

The Iraq war was never approved by congress.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 9 months ago

There are too few troops in Afghanistan. All our troops should be there, not Iraq. They can't do their job, because they were ordered to do something else. They left the capture of bin Laden up to Afghani warlords who are on the side the pays the most. Our energies have been focused on Iraq, not Afghanistan. Their commander in chief is the one responsible for them not being able to complete what should have been the real mission.

Jcjayhawk1 6 years, 9 months ago

"The Iraq war was never approved by congress."-Jcjayhawk

Correction the war was "approved" through a RESOLUTION sponsored by Bush and approved by vote in congress.

The case for the war was outlined in the resolution (H.J. Res. 114). Some of the reasons are violations from the previous military engagement with Iraq and had nothing to do with 911. One other reason was Iraq's treatment of it's civilians which as deplorable as it was could be applied to a host of other countries that fit the bill.

The most disturbing provision of the resolution is as follows:

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Read the part about defending the national security of the US against the threat POSED by Iraq?

Iraq was crippled and incapable of attacking us. Any theoretical attack would not be a case for war........err I mean extended military engagement.

Jcjayhawk1 6 years, 9 months ago

7 out of 9 of H.J. Res. 114's list of reasons for action can be applied to Iran, possibly Saudi Araiba, and a few other mid-east countries with stronger ties to Al Qaeda and state sponsored terrorism.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 9 months ago

logrithmic;

And Hussein was following the UN Charter when he attacked not one but two of his neighbors?

The UN charter has never been worth the paper it's written on. It does nothing ... nothing ... to control people like Saddam Hussein and everything to hamstring a country that follows the rules from taking any action. The UN's own resolutions called for a reconvening of the security council if Iraq did not comply with their earlier resolutions, and Hussein laughed in their face for eleven years while the UN hemmed and hawed and tried to make up their minds whether to ... you guessed it ... pass yet another useless resolution.

Jcjayhawk1 6 years, 9 months ago

"She said we abandoned Afghanistan. Is there some confusion over the word "abandon"?"-Vet4

I seriously doubt that Dorothyhr contends that we have NO troops in Afghanistan eventhough he/she used the word abandon. It's similar to the interpretation of what Cheny had said regarding Iraq's involvment.......or lack thereof..... in 911.

It's this type of selective & literal interpretation of words that troubled me when you replied to the post. You are obviously an educated individual on the topics of the war. (which I sincerely believe) I also enjoy your insights. But we both know what Dorothyhr ment by abondon. Your energy is better applied to providing information.

Jcjayhawk1 6 years, 9 months ago

"Can you tell us when Congress authorized the use of force during Operation Desert Fox and Operation Allied Force? When did the UN offer its approval for those operations?"-Vet4

There are 2 types of resolutions we are talking about here.

1.) The UN resolutions. Resolutions that provide authority for operations such as Desert Fox. UN resolutions cover a wide variety of compliances enacted by committee.

2.) The H.J Res. 411. The resolution approved that gave Bush the power to act as he wished according to the threat Iraq posed at the time. (which was little to none)

My commentary should be referenced only to the latter.

The problem is..... Congress and the President(s) have replaced declaration of war with resolution & extended military action. We are at war. Our actions are consistent with war.....let us declare it not redefine it. Resolutions are created to bypass the checks and balances that are important when deciding to go to war.

I think the US should operate independently of the UN and throw any relationship we have with them into the toilet.

mick 6 years, 9 months ago

Read up on PNAC in wikipedia. Read their manifesto and you'll see what the invasion and occupation of Iraq is really all about. Iran is next and none of the current candidates will do anything to stop the neocon agenda. The mainstream media will make it seem acceptable to the hypnotized American.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

This is the sketch from Monty Python's Holy Grail that I think typifies the defenders of all things BushCo. Just substitute the posts of any BushCo sycophant for the words of the Black Night, and I think you get the gist.

Enjoy--

ARTHUR: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir knight. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. [pause] I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in my Court of Camelot. [pause] You have proved yourself worthy; will you join me? [pause] You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy. BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass. ARTHUR: What? BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass. ARTHUR: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir knight, but I must cross this bridge. BLACK KNIGHT: Then you shall die. ARTHUR: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside! BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man. ARTHUR: So be it! [hah] [parry thrust] [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off] ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary. BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch. ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off! BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't. ARTHUR: Well, what's that then? BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse. ARTHUR: You liar! BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy! [hah] [parry thrust] [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off] ARTHUR: Victory is mine! [kneeling] We thank thee Lord, that in thy merc- [hah] BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then. ARTHUR: What? BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you! ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine. BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh? ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left. BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have. ARTHUR: Look! BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound. [bang] ARTHUR: Look, stop that. BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken! ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right! [whop] BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that! ARTHUR: You'll what? BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere! ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me? BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible! ARTHUR: You're a loony. BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then. [whop] [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off] BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw. ARTHUR: Come, Patsy. BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

Richard Heckler 6 years, 8 months ago

Protest is justifed as a reaction to the insanity of the blood thirsty republican party that which mismanages the economy much like the local "emergency real estate anti economic growth Chamber party" demostrates. Both expand our tax bills.

Why is protest justified? British Correspondent Patrick Cockburn on Iraq's Growing Sectarian Divide and the Myth of "Success" in the US "Surge" As a new civil war threatens to explode in Iraq between US-backed Iraqi government forces and Shia militiamen, we go to London to speak with Patrick Cockburn, Iraq correspondent for the London Independent. Covering the invasion and occupation from the ground in Iraq for the past five years, Cockburn has been described as "the best Western journalist at work in Iraq today." He is author of the new book Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival and the Struggle for Iraq. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/27/british_correspondent_patrick_cockburn_on_iraqs Iraq Imploding As We Speak http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-implodes-as-shia-fights-shia-801214.html http://antiwar.com/ Baghdad - Most dangerous City http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,484661,00.html

ReadingSports 6 years, 8 months ago

Here is the report on captured Iraqi documents that shows the relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It should dispel any myths about the relationship between the two and why the president led the United States to war.

It's an interesting read; although, you have to get past the rather vague Executive summary and read the report. put the http:// in front of the following: a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

or http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"Actually, it's for you to see that Cheney says there may have been ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, ties that have since been confirmed."

Similar ties can be found between George Bush and Hugo Chavez.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.