September 4, 2013
I was saddened and disturbed by reader Edward McDonnell's letter about convicted Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning ( "Manning jailed while Iraq war's instigators go free, Aug. 26). While I agree it was unfortunate that the U.S. went to war by invading Iraq during President George W. Bush's term, it is important that the world knows the full story regarding this encounter. The answer appears to lie in an earlier announcement made by our intelligence agencies that they believed Iraq was manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction; and because of the apparent instability of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein the U.S. decided to attack Iraq in order to eliminate what we considered to be a highly threatening obstruction.
August 26, 2013
David Zurawik feels that George W. Bush lied about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (" Why I stopped trusting TV history - totally," Aug. 24 ). Mr. Zurawik can critique the investigative techniques of the National Geographic show, but he has no evidence to show that the Bush administration and our European allies lied about their knowledge of WMDs. Iraqi scientists even convinced Saddam Hussein's generals that they were making progress on WMDs so they would not end up in the wood chipper.
March 19, 2013
Ten years have passed since the United States invaded Iraq, a decision that almost everyone now ranks as one of the worst foreign policy blunders of our time. Why "almost"? Former President George W. Bush and his top aides still maintain that the invasion was a good idea, even though the premise on which the war was based - that Saddam Hussein had acquired weapons of mass destruction - proved false, and even though the ensuing war claimed the lives of more than 4,500 Americans and an estimated 127,000 Iraqis.
January 4, 2012
After two letters in attempt to justify himself and the invasion of Iraq ("Iraq's chemical weapons stocks were well documented," Dec. 28, and "Did Saddam have WMDs before the U.S. invasion in 2003?" Jan. 2) I still can't figure out what Michael DeCicco is trying to say in regard to the astonishingly stupid decision to go to invade Iraq in 2003. Clearly American citizens were in no danger from Saddam's stockpiles of chemical weapons even if they had ever been found or used on U.S. soldiers (which they weren't)
January 2, 2012
Paul Schlitz's letter about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction contained so many factual errors that it requires correction ("Iraq's WMD were a mirage, despite claims to the contrary," Dec. 30). First, in my letter I never suggested that The Sun was "pants on fire" when it claimed Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In fact, what I took issue with was the contention that Iraq did not have any prospects for building weapons in the future. Second, I never attempted to rationalize the basis for the war, and in fact pointed out that the case against the war could be made without suggesting that Iraq had no potential for WMD. Third, whether or not some of Iraq's weapons came from American and European companies is immaterial to the discussion, since in addition to any weapons Iraq purchased the country also had produced its own weapons and delivery systems, thereby enabling it to produce them again in the future.
January 31, 2011
It must have come as a surprise or shock for some Americans to learn that there are dictatorships in the Middle East beyond Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, and Iran. It must have been even more shocking to know that those countries (Tunisia and now Egypt) are U.S. allies. In the days and months to come we might add to the list more names like Algeria, another U.S. ally, and maybe even Jordan. It is true that not all allies are perfect. It is also true that the current crisis was ignited by the global recession, high food prices and lack of jobs, but the political system or lack thereof helped make what could have been a controlled fire seem poised to burn out of control.