Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

IRAQ: America’s worst foreign policy mistake

Letter by Fred LaMotte, Steilacoom on Dec. 22, 2011 at 3:09 pm with 67 Comments »
December 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: “Wave of bombings across Iraqi capital kills 69″ (TNT, 12-22).

The day after the U.S. declares a formal end to the war in Iraq, the president of the sham democracy we imposed arrests his vice president. Now scores have died in waves of bombings. Sunnis, teamed up with Kurds, resume their civil war against Iranian-backed Shi’as.

Which side will we arm and finance now?

We based our imperial invasion of Iraq on fictionalized intelligence and blatant lies told by our president, vice president and secretary of state. The war bankrupted our treasury, exhausted our military, killed hundreds of thousands and empowered Iran. We won nothing.

Furthermore, Bush’s invasion was a war crime according to our own military tribunals at Nuremberg, who declared a non-defensive war “the supreme international crime.” Iraq did not attack us, had no WMD and was no threat. In fact, Iraq was a buffer against Iranian power – precisely why the Reagan and Daddy Bush administrations armed Saddam Hussein as a U.S. ally in his war against Iran.

The Iraq war was the worst mistake in the history of American foreign policy. What is particularly odious is that the warmongers now try to blame the failure of our dim-witted imperial scheme on President Obama.

Leave a comment Comments → 67
  1. Dave98373 says:

    Oh boy…here we go again…another hate letter by Fred….and another letter that is in love with Obama–who is NEVER held to any standard or any level of accountability. Sorry Fred, Obama owned Iraq and Afghanistan the day he was swore in…he has plenty of time to change course. As this country slowly slips into continued economic and transnational despair, at what point can we stop the “blame Bush” rheteroic and move on? Oh, I forgot, as AG Holder said…it is racism why Obama Inc. is failing.
    Why does TNT continue to print this trash?

  2. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:


    Yay, brail reading works!

  3. concernedtacoma7 says:

    More Bush is evil and stupid (nice ‘daddy’ comment).

    Sorry democrats, your guy is in the WH. Deflect from his failures all day, people are not as short minded as you think (plus, there is a large group of people that actually believe in American values who will correct the left’s misinformation).

    The great tragedy is that due to political correctness we did not get the Iraqi oil and are not maintaining a presence; to keep the peace and maintain influence on the region. BHO cut and ran, wasting the hard work done by military.

  4. bobcat1a says:

    The right talking about misinformation is like Newt Gingrich talking about marital fidelity.

  5. Cut and run? Misinformation from the Left?

    All US Forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by December 31, 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement between the Republic of Iraq and the United States, signed on November 17, 2008, by George W. Bush. So Obama withdrew 12 days early and that wasted years of hard work?

    “The great tragedy is that due to political correctness we did not get the Iraqi oil and are not maintaining a presence; to keep the peace and maintain influence on the region. BHO cut and ran, wasting the hard work done by military.”

    Does morality have any meaning whatsoever to conservatives? So it was political correctness that kept us from stealing oil after invading Iraq against their will and under false pretens, as opposed to a sense of morality?

    How dare you speak for the values of Americans.

  6. Between Fred LaMotte’s letter and the other letter written by Thomas W. Glenn (IRAQ: U.S. should have exercised patience) this letter by Fred is far more informed, accurate and honest than the Glenn letter.

    All you guys who have a problem with this letter should just leave this topic and go over to the Thomas Glenn letter and sing his praises. You can live there in the la la land of self-delusion that justified the George W. Bush initiated War in Iraq by faking WMD threats and fearing the totally non-existent potential for nuclear strikes from Iraq on the U.S.

    Bush started and owned this war. President Obama inherited and ENDED this war.

    That’s just the way it is. If you don’t like the truth it’s only because

    … you can’t handle the TRUTH!

  7. We had no reason to invade Iraq.

    Everything that has happened in Iraq is due to our unnecessary, illegal invasion and occupation.

    Bush put us there, therefor the mess is his and his alone.

    Moreover, for the somnambulate righties on this blog, It is the Rpots who are claiming that we should have kept troops there.

    Bottom line Iraq is OWNED by BUSH. Live with it and get on.

    Sorry Cirrus, but Iraq’s went to the Big Oil companies where Bush wanted it to go. Iraqi Oil was never meant to come here That was just one more Bush Lie to sell the war to American.

  8. lamofred says:

    No, friend, I am not into hate. I am into Truth. Speaking Truth to power. If you want to see hate, look into the face Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, those civilian leaders who misled our citizens and misused our troops, who killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq,who devastated the lives of fine military families all over America just to satisfy their megalomania and greed for hegemony.

  9. lamofred, you wrote a great letter. I thank you for it!!!

  10. P.S. Let’s please keep in mind that over four thousand five hundred American servicepersons died in that stupid war. One of them is my cousin, who is buried in Marysville. Thank you George W. Bush!

  11. Misunderestimated says:

    I have to agree with Mr LaMotte that Iraq was one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in our nation’s history.
    Bush did pull our frontline special forces out of Afghanistan and send them into Iraq.
    Rumsfeld forced the military to go in before they were ready, and with fewer forces than he was told repeatedly that they needed to control the country.
    This Iraqi war deflected our warriors from Afghanistan and gave the Taliban time to regroup and return, causing many unnecessary casualties.
    The war crimes charges will have to be addressed in another venue; however, I felt then and I feel now that Bush made a great, foolish mistake when the US invaded Iraq.
    Sadly, Obama is working to top Bush in foolish foreign policy moves: breaking us away from and insulting traditional allies (England), restarting a failed misadventure in exchanging nuclear scientists with China (must we really bring them another 30 years ahead as we did with the Loreal bungling on the 90s?).
    Unfortunelatly there is not bright lamp on the horizon in either party for the forseeable future; thus, we are condemned to the government we deserve…

  12. xring: My paragraph about not getting Iraq’s oil because of political correctness was quoted from ct7, and was in quotation marks. I wouldn’t lay claim to those thoughts, ever!

    And muckibr is right about lamofred writing a great letter.

  13. tommy98466 says:

    In the mean time Fred, we would have had a worse proxy war with Iran that would have killed more Americans here on our soil. The only way to end this thing is to kill them all. What happened to your savior Obummer? He was going to end everything and the only thing he has done right was to continue most of BUSHES policies. Kept Guantanomo open, the surge in Iraq,killing Osama. What a guy. You are still a whiner. Why don’t you complain to your liberal represenatives in Washington? They are pathetic just like you.

  14. I am a supporter of former Presedent George W. Bush. I think the Iraq war was justified. For people that do not engage in revisionist history that is evident. Even President William J. Clinton said they had WMDs. The left cannot admit that today though. It would make them look bad, and they don’t need anymore help with that.

    This is one of the most visceral threads I have seen here in a long time. Everybody needs to relax and enjoy life. Merry Christmas!

  15. Can’t wait to have civil war here..every time you lefties open your mouths another step toward your goal is realized, keep it up..

  16. concernedtacoma7 says:

    20-20 hindsight and more armchair generals from the left.

    We had an opportunity to finish 8 years of hardship with a huge strategic ally and presence in the region. Yes, the end date for combat was under Bush. But the lack of a SOFA is what made us leave, and BHO never encouraged a change in the situation. He sent Joe over time and again. Come on! And if Bush caved to pressure from te left that was a mistake.

    His motives were always clear and without a partisan basis. Agree or disagree but unlike today the air of partisan selfishness was not like it is today.

    The physical cost of war is incredible, and I respect and know that cost more than the average joe on this board. It is that understanding that makes my blood boil when every chance to capitalize on those sacrifices is not taken.

  17. LuckyCharm says:

    tommy98466 says, “The only way to end this thing is to kill them all,” after bringing Iran into the conversation. Kill WHO all? All Iraqis and Iranis? You believe in genocide as America’s foreign policy? Sheesh…. I saw some pretty frightening things in Iraq, but some of the things my fellow countrymen say literally chill me to the bottom of my soul.

  18. LuckyCharm says:

    “It is that understanding that makes my blood boil when every chance to capitalize on those sacrifices is not taken.”

    Exactly how would you propose we “capitalize on” the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform? The very phrase makes me shudder.

  19. ct7: My 20-20 vision was very active during the build-up to the invasion and afterwards. Sure, some more information has come out since then but it was available and – anyone who was willing to dig themselves out from under the reign (pun intended) of propaganda that was being catapulted upon them could see exactly what was going on – no hindsight necessary.

    For those of you who were so willing to be fooled by Judith Miller of the NYT (yes, that “liberal” paper!) and need to look at what happened, here is a timeline of the Iraq War:

  20. I have no idea why we waste time in that part of the world. That culture has, and has not contributed anything to the world for nearly a thousand years, other than sand and horrible human rights. You cant make gold out of tin. They will never be what we understand, nor will they ever understand us. There WAS some strategic value back in the days when the Med was the Soviet Unions only warm water port, but the Soviet Union is long gone!

    As far as the lame, tired hate George Bush, Iraqi oil comments go. We never did get much from there. Europe gets some, maybe we should have let France handle this waste. Last time I looked, only 5% of our oil was Iraqi in origin! We get more from Norway!!!

  21. Concerned – (the throne setting private who makes Bush seem like a Napoleon)

    How many retired flag officers went public with their criticism of Bush’s Iraq policies?

    Now chew on this, The Number of retired flag officers who have criticized Obama’s military policies and actions is ZERO.

    The only way the US could have made an ally of Iraq would have been to NOT invade and occupy them, dictate what kind of government they had to have, and to whom they were forced to turn over operations of the Iraqi oil field.

  22. harleyrider1 says:

    Our Constitution says only Congress has the power to declare war. If Congress declares war, America uses every weapon in its arsenal to defeat the enemy and quickly – not protracted arguing and more fighting.

    Americans will stand together with such a declaration.

    Presidential “conflicts” are bogus. They are often dependent on politics, guesswork, and what if’s. They always have created catastrophic results in our Country first with death and injury to troops that cannot use all their weaponry; torn families apart for the rest of their lives; and always – always – divide a great Country.

    I understand what Fred is saying. I’m a Marine. I’ll go where I need to go. Marines are asked by America to give all they have and then some. But it is frustrating when the Country itself allows us to be sent into harm’s way and no war is declared.

    Everytime there is a “police action” from Korea to Libya, it is at the hands of a commander in chief who has made a policy decision. Not a war.

    I’ll say this again. Don’t allow America’s fighting men and weapon to be used for politics and “what if’s”. These are real families, your neighbor’s son or daughter. The grocery checker’s husband or son or niece.

    There’s a reason for that Article being included in the Constitution. America will make the same sacrifices when war is declared as every military family is asked to. Thus we are all in. We will be able to use every weapon we have, in hopes of staying alive, and bringing it to end quickly.

    War is a huge undertaking. No one man, President or not, should commit us to battle without the Country alongside of us. All in or all out. Semper fidelis

  23. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Xring- you seem to have forgotten the whole DADT repeal. Nice try.

  24. What does “DADT” have to do with a thread about Iraq?

    Someone is reaching to new levels of disgust.

    This comment, coupled with an earlier bigoted statement, is why the Conservatives have no business managing our country.

  25. ReadNLearn says:

    Oh great!

    Please don’t consider the letter writer to be indicative of the culture, education, and intellect of Steilacoom residents. We find him odd too.

  26. “(nice ‘daddy’ comment)”

    Daddy Bush got his nickname from “W”. Blame him.

  27. concernedtacoma7 says:

    You are not the sharpest tool in the shed. Look at xring’s comment and then my statement.

    I was speaking about flag officers publically disagreeing with BHO.

  28. concerned – then you were talking about that which does not exist.
    Have R-N-L read MY post to you.

  29. LarryFine says:

    He had congressional approval.

  30. xring – LOL

  31. During the first crusade, the crusade leaders were advised to acknowledge the deep divides between the sunni and shia, and use those divides to their advantage. Funny how, 1,100 years later, Dubya, his staff and the pentagon didn’t bother to crack a history book. The result was a waste of treasure and tens of thousands of lives, civilian and military. Well, at least the world is safer…

  32. SandHills says:

    Both sides of this argument need to get a grip. Bad mistakes have been made throughout history – Both Napoleon’s and Hitler’s invasion of Russia were mistakes – as was Lee’s decision to send Picketts Division on its famous charge.

    But without those mistakes many of us would not be here today…

    In 2003, and in over 34 months spent in Iraq, I have always questioned the value we can expect for the cost we were making as a nation to invade Iraq. But not having the power of reading how history will have been altered by this event – not only by the Iraqi people, but by the countless ripples caused to Americans, especially those soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice – it might take a while to realize.

    But one fact is immutable… what is done is done.

  33. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Norsey, go read a book titles Cobra II.

    You sectarian divide was a key planning factor.

  34. BlaineCGarver says:

    Everyone KNOWS that Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds and his own people. He also worked very hard at making the world believe he still had them….Almost every ‘Crat voted for and believed in the Iraqi invasion. Only after did they try to make political hay with it. That’s the sad part of all this. Using dead Military as Chess Pieces..Hang your heads, ‘Crats.

  35. No WMDs found, Blaine. None, Zip, Zero.

    As to what Saddam used 20 years back on his own people – supplied by…guess who, Blaine?

    Joe Wilson reported BEFORE the attack on Iraq that there were no WMDs and all that happened is his wife was outted as a CIA agent.

    As Country Joe McDonald sang – “there’s plenty good money to be made by supplyin’ the Army with the tools of the trade”

  36. Just hope and pray that when they drop the bomb
    they drop it on Republi-cons!

  37. “Retired Flag Officers”??? If my memory serves me, it seems like all the news coverage right after 9-11 that included “expert opinion” and “technical advise”, included just about ANY retired military officer who wanted to get some air time fame….

    Sheesh could have been a retired Captain in charge of the Mess Hall in 1952 and he became a master tactician on loan to the media!!

  38. Dave98373 the two war are the reason why this country is in deep do-do Obama did change the course that’s why all of the troops are pulling out. Iraq we had no reason for being there. The mission in Afghanistan was completed when the Navy seal team 6 bust a cap in Bin-Laden. So he bring the Soldiers home like he promissed. He also promissed National healthcare which passed it’s not his fault that the repukican took it to court. Now what campaign promiss did bush complete? The wars were not part of his Campaign promiss. Also Bush was the one who gave the first bail outs. Which opened a pandoras box

  39. Concerned “sectarian divide was a key planning factor”
    And it worked so brilliant just like all of Bush’s invasion plans.

    B-G-C – Bush lied. And the Cants brought, and still buy, into those lies hook-and-sinker.

    Dcr628, 9/11 had to do with Afghanistan NOT Iraq.

  40. harleyrider1 says:

    Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya have not been wars. Sitting presidents ordered military into foreign countries to attack because of the sitting president’s political belief. One man. There have been many smaller “actions’ that have cost many American lives as well.

    All Americans, you and I, are not much better than the president that does this. We allow it. We control by voting. We control by the media. We control by blogging. We are America.

    Congress pretends to take exception, but they continue to fund every month, every year with the sitting president’s political party connecting health care or welfare to the conflict’s funding so it “has to pass” we are told.

    The Articles of the Constitution require a declaration of war by Congress. Americans do not go to war lightly. We do not go to war without sacrifice. And we do not send our military into war without allowing them to use all their weapons.

    Let’s learn from history.

    End all presidential combat political actions now. If they need to continue, see if America will support a full declaration of war.

    As a Marine, I think all in or all out is the only mantra. Semper fidelis

  41. harleyrider1 says:

    It was not a war.

    America did not declare war. America does not go to war lightly; it makes great sacrifices. It uses every weapon in its arsenal to force or bring about an end.

    Only Congress can declare war and only congress can fund such action.

    Americans have allowed sitting presidents – one man – to order our military to invade other countries since 1950 solely based on his political opinion. Right or wrong. We passed sweeping resolutions in the 60’s as an endorsement to such action.

    But Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as well as countless other smaller invasions, have not been war.

    Let’s learn from history. Vote Country first, party second. We’re all in or we’re all out. End all the presidential conflicts now. If the president believes America needs to stay, then seek a declaration of war. if it doesn’t warrant America declaring war, it doesn’t warrant American deaths. It doesn’t warrant such American debt. It doesn’t warrant much except one man’s political opinion.

    I am a Marine. All in or all out. If one sacrifices, we all do. If we go to war, we use everything, every weapon, every option, every person to win. If it doesn’t warrant that type of response, it not war and we should not be in that country.

    Vote Country first; party second. All in or all out.

    Semper fidelis.

  42. BlaineCGarver says:

    Ummm…..Congress and the rest of our allies were provided with the same intelligence and reached the same conclusion. Let’s see…oh, yes, the CIA boss was a holdover from the Clinton years….Don’t be childish, Muck *roll eyes*

  43. Blaine, just change one word in your statement and I will gladly agree with you. Change the word “intelligence” to “disinformation” and you have it exactly right. Even Colin Powell quit as Bush’s SecState when he discovered he had been used by the Bush administration to manipulate entry into that invasion by the false claim of WMDs which WERE NEVER EVER FOUND IN IRAQ!

  44. concernedtacoma7 says:

    After saddam was captured he stated he wanted the world (mainly Iran, in his eyes the biggest threat) to think he still had WMDs.

    And why is this debate still ongoing? It was 8 years ago. We should be celebrating the fact that we defeated a challenging insurgency (rare thoughout history) and more troops will be home. Instead we are debating whether or not it was worth it since Iraq has been abandoned by BHO.

    The left is trying everything they can to paint republicans as the party of Bush. They cannot run on BHO and have to deflect to Bush and class warfare. They have to buy votes or scare votes (unions and SS; ref the ‘biggest lie of the year’).

  45. ItalianSpring says:

    Hahahaha- flamotte. Hilarious!

  46. Other than that It..spring do you have anything INTELLIGENT to add.

  47. “Almost every ‘Crat voted for and believed in the Iraqi invasion”

    Revisionist history. The total vote (House and Senate) by the Democrats was 111 yes, 147 no.

  48. From the film The Astronaut Farmer

    FBI agent: How do we know that the rocket for your space ship isn’t a weapon of mass destruction?

    Farmer: Because, if it were a WMD, you wouldn’t have found it.

  49. Cue video of W looking under his desk for WMDs……I’m sure that the survivors of lost service personnel thought that was really, really funny. They were so happy that their loved ones paid the ultimate sacrifice so W could make a joke.

  50. crusader says:

    Sadly Obama cares only about leaving Iraq and fulfilling an ill advised campaign promise by the junior, never had a real job Senator from Illinois.

    Leadership would require he focus on HOW he leaves Iraq, but political expedience takes higher priority for the worst POTUS ever.

  51. agent8698 says:

    “Iraq had no WMD and was no threat”?

    You understand that with wmd, you can’t wait until you are hit with one. Or rather, you can wait, but the president of the United States, especially after 9/11, cannot wait, because it is his job to protect America. So you use the best intelligence available at the time. And that intelligence, at the time (starting 1998) was this: go to davidstuff wmdquotes. (I can’t remember but I think the News Tribune policy is to delete comments that contain a link).

  52. Dcr,
    The reason we spend so much time in the Middle East is because that is where the oil is.

    “provided with the same intelligence” NO – they were provide with the same falsified intelligence summaries, Not the original intelligence.

    “CIA boss was a holdover from the Clinton years” – which explains the posting that Clinton thought there were WMD’s in Iraq.


    We did not defeat an insurgency; we created one by illegally invading and occupying Iraq.

    Rpots sellin their votes to the highest bidder is the root cause America’s problems.

    Muckibr – RE I-sprung: Just change ‘do you have’ to ‘have you ever” and I would gladly agree with your statement.

    Ehill – also consider HJR-114: 10 Oct 2002: To Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
    House Results
    Republican: Yeas = 215; Nays = 6; Not Voting = 2
    Democrat: Yeas = 81; Nays = 126; Not Voting = 1
    Independent: Yeas = 0; Nays = 1; Not Voting = 0

    You do understand that with Intelligence Analysis you can’t lie.

  53. agent8698 says:

    I see that beerBoy used a link in a comment above, so I must have been thinking of youtube, they delete comments that contain a link, not the News Tribune. So here is the link that shows, starting 1998, what democrats said about Saddam Hussein and WMD: http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

    Starting in 1998, regime change in Iraq was offical U.S. policy.

  54. Agent8698 – maybe for us, but not our Saudi Alley. They viewed Saddam’s Iraq as a buffer against Iran.

  55. “Starting in 1998, regime change in Iraq was offical U.S. policy.”

    …a policy which specifically precluded the use of American armed forces.

    Section 8 of the Iraq Liberation Act: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces”. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/content-detail.html

  56. “You understand that with wmd, you can’t wait until you are hit with one”

    Congratulations, you just justified the pre-emptive attack on this country by al-Qaeda.

  57. agent8698 says:

    @ehill: I read parts of the document at the link you provided. My understanding is that the document says that it cannot be used to justify U.S. military action against Iraq, meaning: if there is to be any such military action, it has to be authorized elsewhere. And OIF was authorized by congress.
    Your comment that I justified a pre-emptive attack on this county by Al-Qaeda is cute and clever stunt with words, but it does not address the problem of what to do, after 9/11, to best protect America from further WMD attacks. The intelligence services said that Saddam had WMD, and that he had the inclination to either use them against America or help others use them against America. What would you have done, as president?

  58. Okay folks, I don’t want to worry you, although it cannot be completely verified, I have heard there is super secret intelligence of the existence of WMDs in……


    It’s time to INVADE CANADA!!!

  59. “You understand that with wmd, you can’t wait until you are hit with one.”

    As soon as we get the intelligence, or lack thereof, together, we can attack Bermuda.

  60. “The intelligence services said that Saddam had WMD…”

    That’s a nice myth, but it isn’t true.

    What the intelligence agencies said was that Saddam definitely had WMD in the past (of course he did, we helped supplied them), and that he MIGHT have WMD at the time. Prior to the invasion, there were media reports that CIA agents were being pressured to remove the caveats from their intelligence assessments about Iraq and WMD. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15019-2003Jun4?language=printer

    The Bush administration had decided within days of 9/11 to attack Iraq, and was looking for ANY justification it could find (see the Downing Street memo: http://downingstreetmemo.com/). When the CIA/NSA couldn’t say definitely that Iraq had WMD, Rumsfeld set up a separate “intelligence” agency inside the DoD to tell him and the President what they wanted to hear. http://www.salon.com/2003/07/16/intelligence_4/

    If you looked at assessments of Iraq before 9/11, you saw a completely different picture. Here are the words of Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell in February 2011: “frankly [sanctions] have worked. [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place”. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4810.htm

    “… and that he had the inclination to either use them against America or help others use them against America.”

    Another myth. There was no evidence of any connection between the Iraqi leadership and al Qaeda. For just one thing, the Iraqi leadership was secular, and al Qaeda was a profoundly religious organization.

    Iraq did not attack us on 9/11.

    Iraq had little or nothing to do with those who DID attack us on 9/11.

    Thanks to the sanctions, Iraq posed little or no threat to its own neighbors. Or us.

  61. WMDs in Bermuda too! OMG!!!

    The one in Calgary is something they are calling “The Stampede!”

    Okay, so we will need to withdraw frontline troops from Afghanistan and put them into a two front anti-WMD war against Canada and Bermuda.

    But wait, are not bot Bermuda and Canada part of the British Commonwealth of Nations? Are we talking WWIII now?

  62. “a decision made in 2002 does not cover up the horrible economic and foreign policy nightmare”

    No it didn’t. It was a major CAUSE of the horrible economic and foreign policy nightmare.

  63. agent8698 says:

    @ehill: I’m not finished reading the links you provided, but let me say this: as a conservative, I’m not aware that anybody in the Bush administration said that there was some kind of link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. The connection between Iraq and 9/11 was simply this, that Saddam Hussein hated America, and that he was known to have developed and used WMD and killed thousands of people with them, and in a post 9/11 world, the president had to take some kind of action. But there’s also the conditional cease-fire of desert storm, where Saddam Hussein had formally promised not to do a whole bunch of stuff, which he ended up doing anyway (like firing at U.S. aircraft for years). This is another point that liberals find hard to understand: if a law enforcement officer, in the course of his duty, pulls you over and instructs you to step out of the car and put your hands on the hood of the car, you must follow such instructions. If you suddenly reach into your jacket pocket and pull out a pack of cigarettes and end up dead, that is called “suicide by cop”, the cop did nothing wrong, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD NO GUN. The cop was authorized to conduct his investigation. It is similar in Iraq: because of the treaty signed by Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, there was an obligation on the part of Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N. resolutions concerning weapons inspections. Saddam violated many or most of the resolutions repeatedly. Those are acts of war right there. That’s before the intelligence services made their report and before 9/11.

  64. agent8698 “If you suddenly reach into your jacket pocket and pull out a pack of cigarettes and end up dead, that is called “suicide by cop”, the cop did nothing wrong, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD NO GUN. The cop was authorized to conduct his investigation.”

    I think you will find if you present that exact scenario to any Internal Affairs Office they will most like tell you that you are wrong in most cases. What you have described does not qualify as a justified officer involved shooting, UNLESS the victim attempted to make a gesture with the pack of cigarettes to present it as if it were a weapon.

    Not really a very apt analogy for this topic.

  65. agent8698 says:

    @muckibr: you may know more than I do, but: if you are told to put your hands on the hood of the car, and at that moment, you suddenly reach into your jacket and pull something out: that’s a deadly threat! The cop doesn’t have 1 or 2 seconds to identify the object, the cop has maybe half a second. The sudden reaching into your jacket, and pulling something out, in that situation, that is already the deadly threat, there need be no gun. The reason I mention this as an analogy is to show how naive it is to say something like: “There were no WMD in Iraq, THEREFORE, there was no threat”. The cop doesn’t know what you’re suddenly pulling out of your jacket. He might give you the benefit of the doubt (and be killed). Or, he might kill you (and later face criminal charges). None of this is easy. Some cops are killed because they gave the subject the benefit of the doubt. An example of that is deputy Kyle Dinkheller: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX5kwVc9IOk

  66. I don’t have a YouTube login, so I could not view the video. Sorry.

    However, if a cop shoots and kills a suspect, and no weapon is found on that suspect, then that officer will be subject to an intense internal review by the department, and in some cities a citizens review as well. Unless there is clear evidence, such as a dashboard camera that show the suspect actually pretending to threaten the officer, the likelihood is that the officer would be suspended from the force. If there is no follow-up court case,that officer could join a different police force in a neighboring community without prejudice.

    Now, as to comparing this to the pre-war intelligence which was used to justify the invasion of Iraq, I don’t quite see it the way you do. I would categorize the kind of intelligence that the Bush Administration used to justify the invasion as being similar to a cop planting evidence, like a throw-away gun, in order to justify a suspect shooting after the fact. That happens too, and there are cops in prison for that kind of thing.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but I just don’t see it the same way as you do. But, thanks for the debate!

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0