Comments about ‘Letter: Commander-in-Chief’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, June 27 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Thursday, June 26 2014 10:02 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bob K
Davis, CA

Half truths make a pretty good case when they reinforce what you want to believe.

President Obama only had to emphasize bringing the troops home -- on Bush's schedule -- because War Crazy McCain and Palin wanted to keep trying to win in Iraq.

After all, we lost the heart out of our own economy and many thousands of lives trying to prove that we could change in a year or two, people who had 5000 years of grievances, tribalism, and wars.

I missed the DN article telling the people of Utah that Haliburton, Dick Cheney's company, took in $39 billion dollars from those oil wars.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

In my view Mr. Obama is making the best of the current situation. There are many options available, but the only one that would satisfy most Republicans is more American blood.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

" rather than allow Obama to accept any blame for our withdrawal."

You would do well to educate yourself Mr. Phillips. President Obama did campaign on a promise to bring the troops home because the status of forces agreement wasn't signed until December of 2008, a month after he was elected President. Then he simply followed what Bush had outlined.

The whole idea that withdrawal was a mistake is the height of hubris and ignorance of the uninformed. In fact even some of the most ardent war supporters are now going woops.

Remember the week long chalk board lecture by Glenn Beck on why the war and our efforts were not only correct but righteous because of the world wide caliphate? Now even he knows you can't create artificial countries out of tribes that have been at war for centuries and then say and by the way just govern yourself like we do.

FT
salt lake city, UT

Democrats authorized the use of force based upon the evidence presented to them. We later found out that evidence was manipulated and distorted by the Bush administation. Also, let us not forget even though Congress authorized the use of force it was Bush/Chenney that decided to use it. Most of the world and many here in the country preached for patience and to let the UN inspectors finish their work. Bush/Chenney did not want that and rushed us into a war, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands. No matter how hard conservatives try to rewrite history the facts are still there for all to see.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Democrats made a mistake supporting the war. They don't have to repeat it.

MaxPower
Eagle Mountain, UT

If you want more military action, follow the guidelines set forth in the Constitution.

Write your congressman and urge them for a declaration of war. It is their decision whether or not we commit troops; it is the President's job then to lead the military, AFTER Congress has done it's job.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"The withdrawal will take place in two stages. The first stage will occur next year, when Iraqi forces assume the lead for security operations in all major population centers, while U.S. combat forces move out of Iraqi cities and move into an overwatch role. After this transition has occurred, the drawdown of American forces will continue to the second stage, with all U.S. forces returning home from Iraq by the end of 2011."

President George W Bush in a radio address on December 6, 2008

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Maybe... just maybe, the case for Iraq wasn't just WMDs (as some people pretend).

Even IF we KNEW there were no WMDs (which we didn't).... People inside Iraq were telling us they had them. Saddam said he had them (was threatening to use them during Operation Desert Storm). His top officials thought they had them. The UN inspectors were there to inspect the facilities where they were making them (but were kicked out). We kinda had to play it safe and take them at their word, and assume they had some weapons. Heck... they had used them on the Kurds!...

But regardless of WMDs.... We still had a strong case for confronting Hussein. #1. On his funding and encouraging terrorism, 2. mass murdering his own people, 3. encouraging anti-American groups in the middle-east, 4. His plot to kill our President, 5. His brutality to Kurds and Shiites in his country. It was MANY factors (NOT JUST WMD).

The current regime in Iraq makes the same mistake as Hussain... Google "How were the Shias treated under Saddam"... (no role in government, killed, their churches destroyed, their people oppressed). We're right back where we started...

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Herriman --

That would Jason Chaffetz.

Rather than pull the same old, same old typical GOP response,
and write endless letters and radio talk shows compalining about the black Democrat in the WhioteHouse who was elected there TWICE, day after day...

Tell Jason Chaffetz your concern.

He is the only one Constitutionally authorized for you to declare War.

As a Military Veteran who's actually had the courage to put skin in the game --
President Obama is doing the RIGHT thing.

If Iraq attacks us,
then call me.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

The right never seems to let an opportunity pass to criticize the President, do they?

It's almost like they're cheerleading for more destruction and death to occur in Iraq, just to blame Obama.

I have an idea, if you really feel like Iraq is worth fighting for, sign up. Ryan, you nearest army recruiting center is:

U.S. Army Recruiting Station
9045 S 1510 W, West Jordan, UT

See ya there!

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The Iraqi war was started by the Oil men of Texas for their business reasons. After completing the mission for the oil men, and murdering the one leader that seemed to know how govern the people of Iraq, the Americans thought they could just step aside and natural events would make a democratic and peaceful Iraq. The defenseless Iraqi people were now put at the mercy of unscrupulous American businessmen who turned the Iraqi war in to a perpetual money cow. After a dozen years or so, the profitability of the Iraqi war was exhausted and the American forces were withdrawn.

steamroller
Salt Lake City, UT

Let's face it....Obama is in a Catch 22 situation with the GOP...Hannity and Limbaugh are famous for this....I'm referring to criticism of this President when he sends advisers into Iraq...but he would also be criticized if he did nothing about it.

Keep in mind that took action on this with the advice and counsel from those on both sides of the aisle.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "The intelligence on WMDs in Iraq ultimately proved faulty . . . ."

No, it didn't.

Saddam possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. He transferred some to Syria, and some of those are being destroyed today [though Obama allowed Syria to maintain a significant chemical weapons capability]. He was actively, though fecklessly, working on obtaining nuclear weapons, threatening his enemies with them, and bragging about them to his friends. Though he thought he had more time than he really did to obtain those weapons, he was determined to use them against any threats to his vicious regime or its expansionist, modern-Caliphate objectives, including his neighbors and us.

Our intelligence [and that of every other nation with an intelligence service] was faulty only to the extent it ascribed to Saddam less corruption, more ability and effectiveness than turned out to be the case.

Obama knows that every scary motive that determined Saddam's actions also applies to ISIS. He knows we will eventually be engaged in a difficult, existential fight with ISIS, or some other demonic group on the Islamist fringe.

He just refuses to address the issue.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

@ 2 bits

Hogwash. Syria didn't get WMDs from Iraq. They got them from Russia. Everyone knows that except for the staunchest Bush apologists and Iraqi war supporters (which you are one of). Just how many times must you folks be proven wrong?

Saddam didn't have WMDs. His WMDs programs had been destroyed for nearly 2 decades before we invaded Iraq. He knew that actually having these programs would risk further action from the UN. However, he did want to lead others to believe that he indeed had WMDs. Why? Because look at his neighbor next door. If he could lead Iran to believe that he still had WMDs, they wouldn't mess with him.

Hence, why studying history and seeing things from other perspectives (not just the American one) becomes so important. Unfortunately, repubs hate anything foreign these days. Just look at Ann Coulter's comments against soccer!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Maverick,

Never said Syria got WMDs from Iraq... did I? Read my post.

If you KNEW his weapons had already been destroyed... you knew more than the UN and their inspectors. Otherwise... why all the UN resolutions insisting Iraq dispose of it's WMDs and allow inspectors to verify it??

I mean we know a lot of things NOW... that we didn't know FOR SURE then.

But you can't pretend we should have made decisions on stuff we know now... that we didn't know for sure then (and couldn't find out for sure because Hussein kicked out the inspectors).

==========

I wish we hadn't done anything militarily in Iraq as well... but we don't know what WOULD have happened in the middle-east IF we had done nothing.

I seriously think the middle-east would be even WORSE off IF Saddam Hussein was still in power and doing what he was doing.

We may have had a world war (started in the middle-east) if we had done nothing and let Saddam Hussein do his thing. We will never know.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Lives are at stake. Those who tell us that Obama is correct need to review history. When Ted Kennedy told us to get out of Vietnam, 400,000 people were killed after we withdrew. This who have no regard for life will always put a dollar figure on military support. They will tell us that only their life is important; that the life of the citizens of Iraq are not important, even though we promised those people that we would protect them against those who wanted to kill them.

Mr. Obama has a duty to those people because HE removed the troops that protected them.

MaxPower
Eagle Mountain, UT

@Mike Richards

You strike me as a strict constitutionalist...So before the President were to send in troops and jeopardize more lives, shouldn't Congress issue a Declaration of War as per Section 8 of Article I?

Wouldn't it be more prudent to urge Congress to action rather than the Executive to overstep the bounds set in the Constitution?

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Mr. Phillips,

Your extremely biased perceptions mirror those of Right Wing propagandist who try to influence public opinion by broadcasting half-truths and outright lies. Apparently these propagandists are really good at their jobs, or perhaps a certain segment of society does not really want to know or admit the truth.
The premise of your anti-Obama spiel is faulty and typical of the Right Wing mindset.

“ . . . but democrats supported the war at the time . . .” Yes, but you forgot to mention that Democrats supported the war ONLY because they believed the falsehoods perpetrated by the Republican GW Bush administration. In other words, the biggest mistake the Democrats made was to believe Republicans. Fortunately, we learn from our mistakes.

Blaming Obama for Iraq is preposterous on other levels as well. GW and the Republicans embroiled the nation in a completely unnecessary war. GW signed the SOFA stipulating US forces would be withdrawn by the end of 2011. The Iraqis insisted. Obama complied.

Now, Republicans are implying that US forces should be stationed in the Middle East in perpetuity like sitting ducks, perfect targets for terrorists.

Face it, Republican “logic” is dangerous to this nation and the world.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Max,

Congress approved the "war" with Iraq. Both Republicans and Democrats voted to fund the war. It wasn't a formal declaration of war, but it was a "de facto" declaration of war. The President did not act without the consent of Congress (as required) and funding for the war (as required) was legislated by Congress. Congress was consulted. Congress approved. Congress allocated the funds. There was no move by the President to circumvent Congress, unlike what Obama is doing now.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

I'm sorry. I'm a conservative Republican, but I must come over to the liberal side on this issue.

No good can come from continuing involvement in the middle east, militarily, or otherwise. They ARE tribal, and will probably continue that trend for the next 5000 years. We have the sunnis, shias, and kurds, then within those "tribes" are the various military factions, (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) The ONLY reason they recognize borders at all is due to world, and U.N. influences.

I feel terrible that we have lost so many American lives in the middle east, but continuing to send troops there, ultimately, won't do much good.

THEY need to stabilize their countries - IF they have the desire, which I doubt.

Can we CONTINUE being the worlds policeman?
We have actual U.S. troops in over 70 countries, (besides the Marines in embassies)where will it end?

Our OWN citizens need help. Not to mention our southern border.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments