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.
April 8, 2013
In response to Quinton D. Thompson's letter ("Obama's decision to leave Iraq led to catastrophe," April 5), I must remind your readers that the underlying catastrophe was perpetrated by then-President George W. Bush's illegal attack on Iraq. President Bush led this attack on the false pretenses that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to our nation. It was Mr. Bush's irresponsible decision to take this action that led to thousands of U.S. soldiers dead or wounded (not to mention the innumerable Iraqi civilian casualties)
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.
February 21, 2013
It has been 10 years since then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. speech on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I watched the secretary's presentation intently on assignment to Fort Jackson, S.C. that day. The presentation, of course, would make the final case for war with Iraq before the world, Congress and, arguably most importantly, the American people. Like many of my colleagues on active duty, I had been highly skeptical of this pretext for war while serving as a military planner, particularly over what many regarded as plausible exaggerations and outright distortions.
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)