Bush S War

Gee, can't imagine why "Clinton Got a Pass but Bush Is Taken to Task" (Commentary, July 16). Could it have something to do with wagging the dog being quite different than wagging a herd of elephants? Attempting to equate President Clinton's bombings in Afghanistan, Sudan and various sites in Iraq with President Bush's Iraq war gives comparing apples and oranges a bad name -- not to mention defiling the memories of those killed in Bush's war. Did more than 200 service members die in Clinton's aforementioned actions?

Bush's war in Iraq will eventually cost $3 trillion. That works out to about $15,000 a person, and that's how much money I could be getting as a gift from the Internal Revenue Service, instead of $600, if we pulled the plug on the war. ("Retailers hope for share of rebates," April 14.) Matthew Okada Pasadena

Re "GOP senator sponsoring Iraq withdrawal bill," April 20 For Democrats, the war will be considered lost even if the terrorists proclaim tomorrow that they are giving up the fight and choosing to resort to more diplomatic means of achieving their ends. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's pronouncement that the war in Iraq is lost should not in any manner be perceived as an assessment that is bound to demoralize the troops. By now, American troops must have realized what a good segment of the American population already acknowledges, which is that Democrats are more interested in humiliating the president of the United States than in winning a war. It's a wonder it has taken Democrats this long to start coming out with the unvarnished truth of how they really feel about the Iraq war. Because they obviously know that we have already been defeated, the more pressing question is why not take the soldiers out right now instead of insisting on a withdrawal date months down the road, knowing full well -- at least according to their own assessment -- that more time spent there will only mean more American lives lost?

Re "GOP senator sponsoring Iraq withdrawal bill," April 20 For Democrats, the war will be considered lost even if the terrorists proclaim tomorrow that they are giving up the fight and choosing to resort to more diplomatic means of achieving their ends. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's pronouncement that the war in Iraq is lost should not in any manner be perceived as an assessment that is bound to demoralize the troops. By now, American troops must have realized what a good segment of the American population already acknowledges, which is that Democrats are more interested in humiliating the president of the United States than in winning a war. It's a wonder it has taken Democrats this long to start coming out with the unvarnished truth of how they really feel about the Iraq war. Because they obviously know that we have already been defeated, the more pressing question is why not take the soldiers out right now instead of insisting on a withdrawal date months down the road, knowing full well -- at least according to their own assessment -- that more time spent there will only mean more American lives lost?

We have followed your coverage with horror. As to the public not caring, how could we not care when our President for years cavalierly courts a despotic ruler and then suddenly turns on him, killing and injuring thousands of innocent people in the process? I suppose it should be no surprise that an Administration which cares nothing for our own children should have such disdain for the lives of distant people. Individually, most of us would not commit murder; yet we stand by silently while our President does it in our name.

In his national address on Sunday evening, President Bush made references to "Sept. 11," "Afghanistan" and "terror" and linked these events to Iraq. He is implying that Iraq was somehow connected to the events of 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. response against Al Qaeda and other militant Islamic fundamentalists. The president's argument is incorrect. Saddam Hussein's regime had no link to Al Qaeda and had no role in 9/11. Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S., as evidenced by the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found or are likely to be found.

Re "Bush makes it clear," Opinion, Jan. 11 Jonah Goldberg, like many of those still supporting the fiasco in Iraq, blames Democrats for not providing an alternative solution. The basic flaw in his logic is that he fails to recognize that the whole fiasco was created by the lies and miscalculations of the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration, partly to make George W. Bush a "wartime president" who would be immune to the normal scrutiny of a patriotic and supportive electorate. It worked.

Re "A Long Look at Response to Brief," April 12: It is ironic that President Bush saw nothing in the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily brief that was actionable. The document was simply a historical account of intentions and not a warning, he insisted recently. Yet this same president found sufficient reason in a crudely forged document warning about uranium transfers from Niger to Saddam Hussein's government and in false information about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction offered by a source connected to Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi to unleash a preemptive war on Iraq.

Bush's war in Iraq will eventually cost $3 trillion. That works out to about $15,000 a person, and that's how much money I could be getting as a gift from the Internal Revenue Service, instead of $600, if we pulled the plug on the war. ("Retailers hope for share of rebates," April 14.) Matthew Okada Pasadena

George W. Bush's war on terror produced two scandalous revelations. One was that the administration was using torture (a.k.a. “enhanced interrogation techniques”) to obtain information from suspected terrorists. That scandal continues to resonate in the debate over the movie “Zero Dark Thirty” and its supposed endorsement of the efficacy of torture in the search for Osama bin Laden. The other scandal began with the revelation by the New York Times that after 9/11, the Bush administration monitored the international phone calls and emails of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people within the United States without a court order.

Re "Bush makes it clear," Opinion, Jan. 11 Jonah Goldberg, like many of those still supporting the fiasco in Iraq, blames Democrats for not providing an alternative solution. The basic flaw in his logic is that he fails to recognize that the whole fiasco was created by the lies and miscalculations of the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration, partly to make George W. Bush a "wartime president" who would be immune to the normal scrutiny of a patriotic and supportive electorate. It worked.

Re "A Long Look at Response to Brief," April 12: It is ironic that President Bush saw nothing in the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily brief that was actionable. The document was simply a historical account of intentions and not a warning, he insisted recently. Yet this same president found sufficient reason in a crudely forged document warning about uranium transfers from Niger to Saddam Hussein's government and in false information about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction offered by a source connected to Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi to unleash a preemptive war on Iraq.

In his national address on Sunday evening, President Bush made references to "Sept. 11," "Afghanistan" and "terror" and linked these events to Iraq. He is implying that Iraq was somehow connected to the events of 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. response against Al Qaeda and other militant Islamic fundamentalists. The president's argument is incorrect. Saddam Hussein's regime had no link to Al Qaeda and had no role in 9/11. Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S., as evidenced by the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found or are likely to be found.

Gee, can't imagine why "Clinton Got a Pass but Bush Is Taken to Task" (Commentary, July 16). Could it have something to do with wagging the dog being quite different than wagging a herd of elephants? Attempting to equate President Clinton's bombings in Afghanistan, Sudan and various sites in Iraq with President Bush's Iraq war gives comparing apples and oranges a bad name -- not to mention defiling the memories of those killed in Bush's war. Did more than 200 service members die in Clinton's aforementioned actions?

We have followed your coverage with horror. As to the public not caring, how could we not care when our President for years cavalierly courts a despotic ruler and then suddenly turns on him, killing and injuring thousands of innocent people in the process? I suppose it should be no surprise that an Administration which cares nothing for our own children should have such disdain for the lives of distant people. Individually, most of us would not commit murder; yet we stand by silently while our President does it in our name.

President Obama and his wife, Michelle, will attend the 10th-anniversary commemoration of the three 9/11 terrorist attacks that reshaped U.S. foreign policy, the White House announced Tuesday. Speaking to reporters in a televised briefing, Press Secretary Jay Carney said the Obamas will visit New York City, where the World Trade Center was destroyed. They and Vice President Joe Biden will also attend the ceremony in Shanksville, Pa., and the Obamas will appear at the Pentagon commemoration as well.

Barack Obama has an Israel problem. Almost three years in, the president still can't decide whether he wants to pander to the Israeli prime minister or pressure him. The approach of the 2012 elections makes the former almost mandatory; the president's reelection may make the latter possible. Buckle your seat belts. Unless Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu find a way to cooperate on a big venture that makes both of them look good, and in a way that allows each to invest in the other, the U.S.-Israel relationship may be in for a bumpy ride.