Published: Saturday, March 23 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
President Obama stuck with the withdrawal timeline that was negotiated by
President Bush. It is completely dishonest of you to criticize President Obama
for the premature withdrawal.
Of course trust the Des News to still try and carry the water for the Bush
administrations complete and utter failure of a war.Nice to know
some things never change.
This editorial merely repeats the fairy tale version of events leading to the
Iraq War.I remember more doubts about the presence of WMDs once UN
Inspectors were allowed back in Iraq in late 2002. From the UN
Weapons Inspectors report to the Security Council PRIOR to the Iraq War:"The Director-General of the IAEA, Mr. ElBaradei, reported that,
after three months of intrusive inspections, the Agency had found no evidence or
plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.
There was also no indication that Iraq had attempted to import uranium since
1990 or that it had attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge
enrichment. IGOR S. IVANOV, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
Russian Federation, said......The submitted report demonstrated that, thanks to
pressure on Baghdad, including through military build-up, progress had been
achieved in implementing resolution 1441 (2002). Enhanced inspections were
under way. Inspectors had been given immediate and unconditional access to all
sites, and, on the whole, the level of cooperation was thoroughly different from
the practice that UNSCOM had encountered."
I thought it was a stupid decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and I still thunk it
was a stupid decision in 2013.
While your cautionary advice on judging history based on the knowledge we have
now is commendable, the problem is that there was plenty of evidence in the
run-up to the war that we were not thinking clearly. There were plenty of
dissenting opinions that Hussein was a paper tiger, that he had no ties to
al-Quaeda and Bin Laden, and that he had no military capability to renew
aggressions against his neignbors. Dissenters were told they were unpartiotic
and should shut up.There were people asking questions about what
would come after he was overthrown in terms of nation-building, destabilizing
the region, and fighting an insurgency. They were dismissed and ignored because
we would be hailed as liberators establishing freedom. There were
people asking how the war would be funded. They were told that the Iraqis would
gladly pay us back with oil revenues.To my deep regret, I argued in
favor of the war in 2002-2003, disregarding the skeptics. And I had skin in the
game by getting deployed over there. But I can admit that I was wrong. Too bad
the DN editorial board cannot to the same.
This article makes a perfect case for a drone attack taking out Saddam while he
slept.Problem solved. Thousands of lives saved. Trillions of
Sorry, but I thought at the time and continue to think, that Iraq was a
misguided distraction that from Afghanistan. There are dictators and almost
dictators all around the world, then why intervene in Iraq? The Bush doctrine
has borne out with several regimes in the region falling like the dominoes they
were, but it has not gone nearly as smoothly or favorably as Bush hoped.I like Bush and thought he generally did a good job. But there were
forces in his cabinennt that he should have reigned in. He should have
horse-shedded or moderated the more extreme ideologues. Unfortunately Bush's term weakened the Republican party to the point that
I don't see another likely win of President, despite wins at the Governor
level. The public distates for republican politics, the spectacular spending
and the precedent for even more spectacular spending are the greatest tragedies
of the Bush administration.
"But the invasion itself was entirely understandable." It was? We
attacked a nation that had not attacked us. We started a preemptive war and most
people were ok with it.In the rule of law can someone murder someone
as a preemptive measure and not go to prison?
I think that 10 years is enough time to conclude that the invasion of Iraq was a
moral and military mistake. If the moral standard for invading a sovereign
nation is that it is led by a burtal dictator that thumbs his nose at the
international community, then how come we have not invaded Iran, North Korea, or
even Syria? The main reasons we invaded Iraq are that we were led to believe
that Hussein had connections to 9-11 and he was on his way to a nuclear weapon
(yellow cake). If the American public had known the truth about those two things
they never would have supported the expenditure of blood and treasure on the
war.One last thought, maybe the Deseret News should do a scientific
survey of combat soldiers who served in Iraq and ask them if they thought the
war was worth it.
While you are correct that judging acts of a previous age using the knowledge
made available through the perspective of time the eclipsing error is having
journalists fail to do their jobs in exposing George Bush's history of
mendacity. I have learned and now your editorial amounts to nothing but excusing
your jingo journalism.
The Iraq invasion was wrong from day one, and no amount of postmortem excuse
making will make it right. Every bit of rationale the bush administration came
up with to invade at the time made a stronger argument for invading North Korea
than Iraq, (unstable dictator, real, not imaginary WMD, axis of evil charter
member, threatening other countries including the USA) but there's no oil
in North Korea, is there?
The sad truth is that the true story of the Iraq war will never be told. The
history of any war is in the agenda of the teller. And since all governments
are commercially directed with the goal of wealth and power, the true nature of
war will always be covered up by phony reasons. It’s hard to get men to
fight and die just to make another man rich.
This editorial is stunning in its willingness to cover for the Bush-Cheney WMD
fabrications that so many of us recognized even back then. I'm not sure
what motivates them to sacrifice their credibility at this point in time. This
is a genuine head-shaker.
The DN Editorial staff spends two paragraphs and 236 words to list the
atrocities of Saddam Hussein and that is juts a brief summary of his dirty
deeds. Certainly pages could be filled with the inhumane acts of this
despicable despot. Wouldn't it have been nice if the Bush Administration
used any of these reasons for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.But it
didn't. Instead it told outright lies to the American people about the
existence of WMDs (did any of the experts actually ever see any of these
weapons). It used hyperbole st scare the American public - "We don't
want the next smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." It told lies about the
purchase of yellow cake uranium and then jeopardized the life of a covert agent
and compromised many of her operations in their attempts to discredit her
husband, the man who revealed their lies. And through it's deceitful
actions over 4500 of Americas brave soldiers lost their lives...for a lie.There was nothing honorable about any part of the War in Iraq and
neither ten years hindsight or the belated justification for an unjustified war
will ever make it right.
Without going into details becuase others have all ready done it here..what
hindsight and ten years have shown us is that there was not only no evidence
that he had weapons of mass destruction but our government from the intelligence
community to our highest elected officials knew this and lied to us. Yes lied
to us. First hand accounts abound now from insiders at the highest levels of
both the intelligence community and the administration of how they knew the
country was broken, the aluminum tubes couldn't possibly be used for
nuclear production, of how the yellow cake story was fabricated etc. etc. DN you have done a real disservice to your credability as a viable new
organization with this editiorial. Yes, there is much to learn from
history..but those lessons don't include repeating ideological
falsehoods..in fact the lesson is exactly the opposite.
That war was WRONG and still is wrong.(Okay, censors, I just took
out the upper case letters in the second wrong. Does it pass muster now?)
Bush chose (was not forced) to go to war with Iraq, and ten years later, the US
is no safer for that decision. Iraq was a war of choice, not of necessity, no
matter how much apologists want to say otherwise. On top of that, the real
fight was in Afghanistan. After 9/11, our message to the world was "we will
seek out and destroy terrorist organizations anywhere in the world and will
remove the governments that harbor them." That was an important and
necessary message. With Iraq, the message changed to "we will remove an
occasional despot leader." The world has plenty of despot leaders. Bush
chose to attack this despot leader for personal reasons, not for the safety of
the US. It weakened our message to the world in the war on terror. It weakened
the effectiveness of our troops by speading them too thin. It wracked our
economy. In 2001, we had an unstable Iraq. Ten years later, we have an
unstable Iraq, thousands of dead or maimed soldiers, and trillions in new debt.
It was not worth the price.
The war was wrong when it started. It was wrong during the
occupation. And it is still wrong during the rebuilding.It was, is, and always will be wrong.We had absolutely NO right to
invade that country. In fact, we have NO right to invade any country unless we
are directly attacked by that country.How many more Americans must
die before repubs admit that their president was wrong in his decision to invade
Iraq? How many more need to be maimed? How many trillions must be spent? How
many Iraqi civilians must be slaughtered?Iraq=VietnamA
quagmire that will never be resolved. They are just as bad if not worse today
than even before the invasion. One of the worst decisions ever made by an
American president was bush's decision to invade Iraq.Lastly,
demeaning and belittling those who spoke and who currently speak in opposition
to war is completely unnecessary and ridiculous. Shame on you dnews for
publishing this pathetic drivel.
Rather than trying to excuse flawed and a self serving agenda, why not look at
the real reasons for our invasion. I told my sons, when GW was elected, that he
would find some pretense to invade Iraq to vindicate a perceived failure of his
father to remove Sadaam in Desert Storm. We as a country and society have a long
history of reapplying flawed and failed solutions over and over hoping for a
different result. We just refuse to learn from the mistakes.
Bush misplayed what could have been one of the greatest moments in history. At a
time when our Country was reeling from the worst attack on American soil since
Pearl Harbor, when there was more support for going to war than even previous to
WWll, Bush could have called for calmer heads, civilized responses; harsh
punishments and heightened world security. He could have isolated the criminals
and fought back with a few precision strikes aimed at terrorist camps. But
instead, he stormed out of the White house in his pajamas firing his shotgun in
the general direction of the threat then sent our best and bravest into the
hornet's nest he created to clean it up. Nobody has more weapons of mass
destruction than we do. And nobody has a better defense system for deterring
attacks on our soil. A calmer head, a real leader would have led the masses to a
better place. Opportunity missed.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments