open letter

[low_delta]

Dear President Bush,
On September 11th of 2001, we learned just how dangerous terrorists can be. You promised us a war on terrorism. Why did you instead invade Iraq?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Comments

[dwivian]

Actually, we invaded Afghanistan. Because they were the source of many of the terrorists currently on the outs with our government.

The invasion of Iraq was a completely different issue - one of regime change and protection of the authority of the United Nations.

(remember, the attack on expansionist Germany in the 1940s was because they were thought to be developing a superbomb, and to remove a dictator that killed his own people for having a different ethnicity. Same as Iraq)/

[acedia.livejournal.com]

You mean destruction of the authority of the United Nations. Typo, I guess.

Even if we accept your interpretations for our attack against Germany 60 years ago, your comparison doesn't really hold. We condoned Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds at the time that he was doing it, and we knew damn well Iraq had no 'superbomb.'

And if Iraq was a completely different issue from the 'war on terror,' why did this administration worked so hard to conflate the two in the public mind?

[dwivian]

Not at all -- the UN gave the US the authority to invade Iraq, and it did so. Must be a UN authority thing, right?

My comparison doesn't hold? We condoned Hitler's rise to power and took no action on the early part of the war. Very much like Iraq. And, we did NOT know there was no superbomb. There was suspicion, but the dismantling of the US intelligencia by Bush I and Clinton left them in very little position to get the right answer, and promote it to the executive. And, once the executive started shortcutting their own safety procedures, they pretty much produced a system that accepted the statements of Iraqi scientists (which was all about how far along they were, because they didn't want Hussein killing their families).

And, the administration really DIDN'T conflate the two -- that was an action of much of the media (Fox news, oddly enough, was one of the few that made it a very DISTINCT issue. Dunno why, but that is one of their big point about it). The connection, such as it is, is that Hussein was going to fall from power eventually, and his children had strong connections with terrorist cells, so there was a very real risk that they would gain access to whatever Iraqi weapons existed.

[banana.livejournal.com]

> And, the administration really DIDN'T conflate the two...
I had the feeling on reading this that you were somewhat wide of the mark. Today I read:

Mr Bush said in a BBC interview with Sir David Frost on Sunday he was unfazed by the planned protests.

"I understand you don't like war, and neither do I.

"But I would hope you understand that I have learned the lessons of 11 September 2001, and that terrorists declared war on the United States of America and war on people that love freedom."

The "planned protests" refers to reactions to Bush's visit to London. The protests are over Iraq, not Afghanistan, as I'm sure Bush knows.


With regard to the UN, I don't doubt that you're aware that the issue is less than clear cut. Bush did not invade Iraq because the UN gave him authority, and whether he had been given that authority or not was hotly debated at the time. He would have liked a "second resolution" but didn't think it was necessary. Most of the rest of the world thought it was. From February:

The Americans and British are drafting a new UN resolution on Iraq. It may be circulated as early as this week.

"We are working with our friends and allies to see if we can get a second resolution," President George W Bush said in Washington.

But he repeated that UN backing, though useful, was not necessary.

In the face of strong opposition from France and other Security Council members, diplomats say the US and Britain are toning down what was supposed to be a very tough resolution.

With regard to Hitlerian comparisons, no comment other than I'm not sure what Intelligencia has to do with it. ;~)

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I understand that the invasion of Afghanistan had something to do with finding binLaden (and a lot to do with installing a leader who would let us build our gas pipeline) but I've heard little about Iraq being a soure of terrorism (at least, any bigger source than half the other nations over there).

[seamusd.livejournal.com]

For starteds, everybody has followed his lead and now call it a "war on terror," which to me sounds even more ridiculous than a war on terrorism.

[sirreal13.livejournal.com]

I heard that the Iraqi gov't made a last ditch effor tto cut a deal and avoid war. The only person they could think to get a hold of in the Bush Administration was Richard Perle. Perle was one of the staunchest pro-war forces and let the Iraqi's offer wither on the vine while the Dogs of War were unleashed...

Well, now that the worldwide terror movement has a magnet, maybe Bush will claim credit for bringing the terrorists out of hiding through the poorly guarded borders into Iraq... It was a big mouse trap all along! The only rodent analogy I can relate to in teh Bush context is "pouring sand (and $87 Billion) down a rat hole."

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Perle was one of the people who want Iraq to serve as the U.S.'s permanent military base.