Quit blaming Bush and rebuild Iraq

  • Follow Letters

Shame on those who - while exercising their right to disagree with President Bush's Iraq policy - are unable to conceal their visceral hatred for George W. Bush. Much of Hollywood, television and other media personalities and comedians also fail to conceal their personal loathing for our president. That he carries on in his position in spite of the constant barrage of ridicule is an indication of the remarkable mettle of the man.

Intelligence agencies around the world believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Even France. with its highly sophisticated intelligence agencies, agreed that those weapons existed. France tried to put off the invasion to give Saddam more time to consider the harm to Iraq if he failed to cooperate with inspectors.

While discussions were properly taking place in the West, convoys of trucks from Baghdad traveled into Syria. It is reasonable (if not certain) that Saddam shipped much weaponry out of Iraq. Why he did not, then, invite inspectors in is a mystery. Whatever his motive, Saddam caused his own downfall and the subsequent horrors that have been visited on his people.

Bush's administration can properly be faulted for not anticipating the internecine hatreds endemic in much of the Islamic world. We readily recognized the hatred that fanatical Muslims have for the West; but we (Bush's administration) failed to realize that sectarian hatred in the Middle East is equally combustible.

While unliberal liberals continue to attack the person of our president, let people of reason hope that we can depart from an Iraq led by a strong government. Our departure should be on our terms, and with our heads held high, and an undying gratitude for our fighting men and women who sacrificed so much in the act of helping the good people of Iraq.

Gene L. Rickaby, Martinez

Comments (38) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Pay What U Owe
5
Points
Pay What U Owe 04/10/07 - 11:51 pm
0
0
It's probably worth pointing

It's probably worth pointing out that while the rest of the world was suspicious of Saddam, they wanted continued scrutiny, not preemptive military action. The Iraq problem is ours alone. The character issue for Bush is that he consistently fails to seriously accept responsibility for the magnitude of the problem. In the eyes of the Arab world, we told Saddam to disarm or we would destroy him. As events unfolded, it became clear to most of the world and certainly the Arab world that Saddam had disarmed and we destroyed him anyway. Now, our word is no longer trustworthy. The infrastructure is the least of the things that has to be rebuilt in Iraq. Our reputation is shattered by the administrations moving target rationale, its efforts to minimize the suffering of Iraqi people as "worth it" for Bush's political agenda and by turning their country into a battleground because it's better to fight our enemies on their soil than our own. America will not be able to get past this because the Arabs will not. We need to reassure them that starting an unjustified war because we are afraid is a thing of the past. The only person who can do that is the Commander-In-Chief. For now, that's W.

GACopperhead
6
Points
GACopperhead 04/11/07 - 05:00 am
0
0
There is no hope that the

There is no hope that the present government in Iraq will be strong, or one of in the struggle against terrorism. As has been recently reported on, Al Sadr has called for all Iraqis to cease killing each other and to concentrate on ousting Americans. Maliqi's government which include Al Sadr and his henchmen, has not denounced these statements which, in my opinion, makes it ( the govrnment) accessories to this new call for violence against American soldiers. If Iraq wants us out, it's time to go. Al Maliqi cannot eat his cake and have it, too. The Iraqi government must publicly denounce Al Sadr and bring him to trial for the crimes he was charged with before the war, and move immediately to enact reforms to bring equality to all Iraqi people whether Shia or Sunni.
It has been proven by physical evidence that Bush new that many of the charges leveled against Saddam's regime were false, but presented them anyway. He badgered and bribed other governments into conceding to his demands, and derided the countries who objected. George Bush is no good man, he is a deceiver and and arrogant man who would take away the liberties that our Constitution states are ours.

patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 04/11/07 - 06:42 am
0
0
While the president has been

While the president has been trying to defend our country from radical islamists the left wing press has been playing politics here at home. Slanting the war news to put a democrat point of view on all of it. Not reporting any progress and printing only the most disparaging angles. Now, the people that only read left wing news sources, half of the nation, feel all is lost in Iraq and Mr. Bush couldn't even see the future well enough to predict how the insurgents would react. All of the cries from congress by the people gifted with hindsight and the ability to lie has been nothing but a fight for power.....to hell with national defence. Mr. Bush continues to fight this war on two fronts. One in th middle east and one at home. God help us if the cut and run left get control of the white house and lead this country into another twin towers situation. Thinking that all we need to do to remain safe is bury our heads is not a good national defence.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 04/11/07 - 07:35 am
0
0
This today from the

This today from the International Committee of the Red Cross: " Iraqis
face 'immense' suffering"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6543377.stm
Poor George W. Bush! Against expert advice he opened Pandora's box. We should feel sorry for
him and admire his "mettle". Today the Washington Post reports that 3
Generals who are more or less Bush admin. insiders have all turned down
the the position of war 'czar' to oversee the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, retired Army
Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston all said
they were not interested. The Washington Post reports: "The very
fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going,"
said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO
commander who was among those rejecting the job. ... Kurt Campbell, a
Clinton administration Pentagon official who heads the Center for a New
American Security, said the difficulty in finding someone to take the
job shows that Bush has exhausted his ability to sign up top people to
help salvage a disastrous war. Poor George W. Bush! He is the best
example of why an inherited aristocrisy is a bad idea and why nepotism
doesn't work.
But by far the most disturbing aspect of George W. Bush's character is an inability to comprehend or empathize with the suffering of others including suffering he has caused.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/11/07 - 07:51 am
0
0
Cain, when you only cite

Cain, when you only cite information form sources such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and The Washington Post, both left slanting sources, you just prove what we knew all along. You don't care about anything but ensuring that we fail. Why is success such a bad thing?

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/11/07 - 08:01 am
0
0
and BBC...that sure is a

and BBC...that sure is a fair, moderate source of news. Cain will believe anything that says Bush is evil, or that we should be socialists. He is a man consumed by hate, that detests anything American or capitolist. Sorta reminds me of L. H. Aswald.

Pay What U Owe
5
Points
Pay What U Owe 04/11/07 - 09:20 am
0
0
Ummm ...maybe because Clinton

Ummm ...maybe because Clinton recognized that while Saddam was a "grave danger" that the appropriate response to that was vigilance, not pre-emption? Under rule of international law, one does not strike unless struck first. One can strike back ten times as hard, od course, but war without material provocation is considered illegitimate in the international community for all the reasons Iraq is currently demonstrating. Clinton also recognized that the containment policy is effective. It's kept Castro in a box for 50 years. As post-invasion evidence has unfolded, it was working in Iraq as well until we intevened. What Cheney and W. refuse to acknowledge is that the world is not going to let us attack other nations just because we feel insecure and are scared that we might get hit. The next time we try this, the condemnation out of Europe, Russia and China may be more than verbal. We can take anyone in the world but we can't take everyone in the world. The sad part is that we had all the material provocation we need in Afghanistan and all we did was run the Taliban out of Kabul and stop. How could anyone defend that?

Dan4th
0
Points
Dan4th 04/11/07 - 09:39 am
0
0
jrhc....the only suffering

jrhc....the only suffering "w" needs to concern himself with is the suffering of the americans who were attacked 9/11....you do remember 9/11 don't you?
the enemy is the enemy, and i don't see iraq.iran sudan ,etc coughing up osama or any of his so called followers. what bush needs is a man of military testicular fortitude to take the helm and send those murdering cowards to hell and put an end to this the right way.

ForHim
2
Points
ForHim 04/11/07 - 09:45 am
0
0
If someone in America was in

If someone in America was in their home in a residential neighborhood making chemical weapons, what would the appropriate response be from the government?

Dan4th
0
Points
Dan4th 04/11/07 - 10:01 am
0
0
they would be commiting a

they would be commiting a criminal act...they would be putting innocent lives at stake for whatever agenda was the cause de jour....so you figure it out.what an stupid question....are you actually allowed to vote,drive a car ,etc.,you know some intelligence required ?

ForHim
2
Points
ForHim 04/11/07 - 10:08 am
0
0
Thank you madison for making

Thank you madison for making a point. Saddam was putting innocent lives at stake for whatever his agenda was. And the government should have responded in the manner that they did to get rid of him and his WMD's which I believe he had. And yes, I do vote and drive a car. I also, pray - which I will do for your son being deployed to Iraq. Please make sure that you thank him for me for his service. I pray God will bring him home safely.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/11/07 - 10:12 am
0
0
If someone in America was in

If someone in America was in their home making chemical weapons, the appropriate action would be to stop them by any means available. Inappropriate action would be to call them on the phone and ask them repeatedly to stop, then tell them a year in advance that we are going to make sure that they stopped. Perhaps cut off their cable TV or freeze their bank account. No the right thing to do is go in and stop them.

Dan4th
0
Points
Dan4th 04/11/07 - 10:51 am
0
0
i apologize for my earlier

i apologize for my earlier comment...it was certainly less than courteous.i am sorry if i offended you.please forgive me
thank you for your prayers and also for your point of view.i,too,pray for all our service men and women, as they are precious to us, one and all.god bless !

gagirl40
113
Points
gagirl40 04/11/07 - 10:56 am
0
0
Mr. Rickaby states, "That he

Mr. Rickaby states, "That he carries on in his position in spite of the constant barrage of ridicule is an indication of the remarkable mettle of the man." Well if that's an indication of remarkable mettle then Clinton had an astounding amount! Don1, we all remember 9/11 but people like you refuse to accept IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!! IRAQ DIDN'T HARBOR OSAMA BINLADEN OR AL QAIDA! And kpc, since when did being a charitable organization like the Red Cross make them a "left slanting source"? The Red Cross? I guess if they are charitable they must be liberal not conservative. Right? You may be on to something here. Makes sense to me. We all know the conservative right wing wants nothing to do with poor people in tragic situations. So I concur, the Red Cross is liberal. And thank God we still have liberal organizations helping needy people around the world. Thank God everything hasn't gone to hell in a hand basket.

Pay What U Owe
5
Points
Pay What U Owe 04/11/07 - 10:59 am
0
0
I don't see how you can say

I don't see how you can say Castro was not a dictator. He routinely rounded up "political prisoners" who disappeared and were never heard from again. Those refugees aren't fleeing Cuba because it's The Promised Land. The use of chemical weapons on the Kurds was an atrocity but he had not done that in a very long time. By every peice of evidence, including Bush's admission, there were no WMDs in Iraq. Saddam had complied. We were wrong to attack him and the world continues to condemn us for this. Regarding the Iraqis, freedom is a privilege, not a right. The world would be a better place without Saddam had the Iraqi people overthrown him. Having us do it denies the Iraqis the needed lessons our forefathers learned in setting up a functioning democracy. As a result, the people cannot be distracted from ethnic hatreds to deal with things like food and medicine. Our only solution that gets us out of there is Saddam 2.0, another strong man that runs things until this society matures enough to govern itself. It is a tragedy that it costs so many American lives for us to learn this. It will be greater tragedy if we refuse to learn it.

jack
10
Points
jack 04/11/07 - 11:09 am
0
0
Dont, if some one is making

Dont, if some one is making dangerous chemicals in our neighborhood, we should be "vigilant" and do nothing unless the chemicals are used against us, according to leftist posts here. In other words, allow another 9/11 before doing anything about a threat to the US.

jack
10
Points
jack 04/11/07 - 11:21 am
0
0
gagirl40, al Zarqawi and his

gagirl40, al Zarqawi and his al Queda followers were in Iraq before we invaded, Bin Laden was not there, but we have had him hiidng in caves ever since we overthrew the Taliban in Afhanistan. As for the left leaning of the Red Cross, I don't know, but what I do not is those of us who you deem "right wing" do take care of the less fortunate, but do not believe this is a function of government, but a function of people/organizations who do so.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/11/07 - 11:29 am
0
0
gagirl, the International

gagirl, the International Committee of the Red Cross, is not the same as the American Red Cross. They have repeatedly spoken out against nearly everything the US has done and is clearly anti-american. Don't put words in my mouth. Charitable does not equal left wing.

ForHim
2
Points
ForHim 04/11/07 - 11:30 am
0
0
madison - I was not offended

madison - I was not offended in the least. I was glad that you made a point that I was trying to make. gagirl - Our going into Iraq was because we believe Saddam had WMD's that he planned to use against us or our allies or would sell them to those who would do the same. He would not allow inspectors in after repeated request, so we did what we needed to do. We sent troops (and still have them there) to Afghanistan to look for OBL.

gagirl40
113
Points
gagirl40 04/11/07 - 11:40 am
0
0
Jack, in case you haven't

Jack, in case you haven't been reading or seeing the news lately, all we did was relocate the Taliban. They are rebuilding strength because we high-tailed it to Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan. Some Al Qaeda members may have been in Iraq, but they were in the Kurdish territory, an area not controlled by Saddam. Saddam wouldn't allow Al Qaeda in Iraq because they threatened his control. He was a secular leader, Al Qaeda was considered a religious fanatic organization which he had no use for. And Bin Laden and Saddam were enemies. Bin laden hated Saddam because Saddam attacked Iran with the help of America. That's history and not under dispute. Neither would have ever helped the other. Therefore I say again, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/11/07 - 11:44 am
0
0
gagirl...we are still in

gagirl...we are still in Afganastan....we didn't hightail it anywhere. And we went to Iraq for WMD...we stay there to get rid of Al-Qaeda, who IS in Iraq NOW! How would "hightailing it" from Iraq help that situation?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 04/11/07 - 11:47 am
0
0
The rabid right throws out

The rabid right throws out more red herrings. There is NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein trucked WMDs out of Iraq into Syria. The 9/11 Commission concludes otherwise. Far right news "sources" like NewsMax also trotted out some Iraqi defector with about as much credibility as Curveball claiming that airplanes flew WMD out of Iraq. That didn't pan out either. If satellite imagry captured such an event the 9/11 Commission would have access to that intelligence. No doubt the rabid right will claim there is a conspiracy covering up Saddam's WMDs. I'm thinking Peter Pan helped Saddam ship off his WMD! Jack, you throw out another red herring. Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq - in Kurdish controlled territory under the no-fly zone where Saddam couldn't get at him. He ran a group called Ansar al-Islam and was not associated with Al Qaeda until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. President Bush was told where Zarqawi's camp was, but he chose not to bomb it pre-invasion. Finally, to those who think that the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers justifies preventive war against any nation which MIGHT pose a threat in the future: Saddam was secular and HATED the religious Al Qaeda zealots, and vice versa

gagirl40
113
Points
gagirl40 04/11/07 - 12:38 pm
0
0
Yes kpc, Al Qaeda IS now in

Yes kpc, Al Qaeda IS now in Iraq. IS NOW! They arrived in Iraq while WE WERE IN CONTROL! They weren't there in the numbers they are now BEFORE we attacked! And yes, Saddam did HAVE WMD's, he HAD them before 1991 when we attacked them then. Since then they have been destroyed by constant bombings during the Clinton administration or were destroyed by the bombings during Desert Storm or have degraded so badly over time to the point they are useless as WMD's. Many countries have unexploded munitions still left behind from old wars. We even have them here in the US. Does that mean we have "huge stockpiles of WMD's?" No, and the WMD's Fox has claimed were found were those such weapons. Unexploded weapons left over from Desert Storm. Degraded so badly they have been deemed useless as WMD's. But of course FoxNews will tell you differently and you will believe them instead of all the experts.

ForHim
2
Points
ForHim 04/11/07 - 12:45 pm
0
0
Per Bob Kerrey (a former

Per Bob Kerrey (a former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner) said in 2006 that a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
He also said that the document showed that in a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. It further went to say that when Saddam learned of the meeting, he agreed to a request by Osama bin Laden to broadcast over Iraqi airwaves, sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda. Really sounds like to me that Saddam hated those zealots and vice versa.

concernednative
28
Points
concernednative 04/11/07 - 02:13 pm
0
0
Ladies and Gentlemen what we

Ladies and Gentlemen what we are seeing is the self-destruction of the last super power led by GW Bush. We are now a divided country that violated all international law with a pre emptive war. So we will not enjoy any international support. In 30-50 years China will be in our shoes. We just are here to see the beginning. Bush is not alone to blame but he is certainly the #1 guy. Look at how all the other super powers fell. It was always and ill advised war that started the down hill spiral. We just happen to be such a power right now that we can get away with it. But when China and/or India down the road makes us keep spending more on defense we will feel the crunch like we did to the Soviet Union.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 04/11/07 - 02:17 pm
0
0
don1, the 9/11 Commission

don1, the 9/11 Commission concluded there was no OPERATIONAL
connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Yes, they felt each
out, but nothing came from their feeler contacts. I
also assume, LBenedict, that David Kay & Charles Duelfer of the Iraq
Survey Group as well as the 9/11 Commission are also part of that vast
conspiracy along with The New York Times, Washington Post, Atlanta
Journal, and Dan Rather in hiding the fact from Americans that WMD were
found in Iraq. Finally, LBenedict, whatever President Bill Clinton,
Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright said in 1998 they did not recommend or order the invasion and
occupation of Iraq - a predominantly Arab and overwhelmingly Muslim
nation at the heart of the Arab and Muslim world WHICH NEVER ATTACKED OR THREATENED US. Against expert
advice President George W. Bush made that blunderous decision BECAUSE
HE COULD. This war will NEVER get better from our point of view. The
United States military will NEVER turn the corner toward pacifying
Iraq. Meanwhile the suffering of the Iraqi people is immense. Bush
wants to abdicate his job as Commander-in-Chief to some unelected
political appointee but no general worth his salt will go near the
stinking mess Bush has made. George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce
Cheney are war criminals in every sense of the word and will be
prosecuted for their crimes against humanity.

gagirl40
113
Points
gagirl40 04/11/07 - 02:24 pm
0
0
don1, So what you're saying

don1, So what you're saying is, you don't believe the words of your supreme leader? "Q: What did Iraq have to do with that? BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what? Q: The attacks upon the World Trade Center. Bush: NOTHING." You also didn't state that the so called "document" you quote was a hand written account of God only knows who, with no official seal. You also left out that Kerrey himself said the paper, "should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11." It is well known Bin laden hated Saddam because, as I stated before, Saddam attacked Iran with the aid of the United States.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/11/07 - 04:10 pm
0
0
gagirl....I ask

gagirl....I ask again...regardless of how or why Al-Qaeda got in Iraq, should we fight them there, or run home and wait for them here? And even CNN reported in the early days of the invasion that Iraq was continuing to use weapons that they weren't supposed to have such as long range scuds and french missiles that were banned per the first gulf war. If they had these weapons, why do you have such a hard time believing that they don't have others?

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/11/07 - 04:12 pm
0
0
Cain. Why are you here? You

Cain. Why are you here? You still hate everything about this country, so why stay? and gagirl, President Bush is your leader as well, regardless of how you like him.

Pay What U Owe
5
Points
Pay What U Owe 04/11/07 - 04:23 pm
0
0
Regarding with the neighbor

Regarding with the neighbor with dangerous chemicals anaology is that in the states, it is illegal for civilians to have such things. If we can provide evidence, a judge can issue a warrant and your home can be searched. If they find something, you are arrested. It would never happen that your neighbor thinks you have them, calls the cops and they blow your house up just to be on the safe side. Saddam was accused, warrants were issued and nothing was found. We blew his house up just to be sure. The world now considers us unjust. We probably are. We can fess up to that and try to make amends. Or we can continue this endless series of rationalizations hoping one of them sticks. Which is the path of honor? It seems obvious to me.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Grad rates show improvement by local school systems

Graduation rates in both Richmond and Columbia counties followed the statewide trend of slow and steady increases in 2014, although progress in individual schools varied greatly.
Search Augusta jobs