Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLetter to the Editor:
How could we have been so wrong about war?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008 | 2:04 a.m.
With all the time and lives lost and money loosely spent on the Iraq war, I can’t help but comment on an article about the war in Sunday’s Las Vegas Sun. It was five years ago, on May 1, 2003, that President Bush declared major combat was over in Iraq as he addressed men and women aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
How could we have been so wrong in our assessment of the outcome of this war? Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared the initial cost would be $2 billion and the rest of the war’s cost would be paid for with Iraqi oil sales.
As we approach a trillion-dollar war bill, and more than 4,000 lives lost with another 28,000 wounded with no end in sight, I can’t help but wonder what we were thinking.
We all know that Iraq needs to be stabilized after we made such a mess of it. With Iran waiting on its heels for our departure so it can take over Iraq and invade Saudi Arabia, the rest of the neighboring countries will fall easily. If you think $4 for a gallon of gas is high, how about $6 or $7 a gallon for gas once Iran takes over, if we let it? What a mess.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Mr. Pizzo,
Not all of us were wrong about the war. Some of us spoke up about it before the invasion. If any of them shared my experience, however, their letters were ignored by their elected representatives or were not published by the local newspapers. If we chose to voice our opinions on local blogs we were shouted down as being somehow unpatriotic and less than American.
Barack Obama, for one, spoke out against this war. For all the blather about Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama is the only of the Presidential candidates who had the ability to look at the situation in Iraq prior to the invasion and come to the conclusion that invading was the wrong thing to do. Now that things have turned out exactly as Obama said they would, Hillary Clinton is opposed to the war, saying that if she had known then what shes knows now she wouldn't have voted for the war. Senator Obama, unlike Senator Clinton, wasn't duped.
And Senator McCain wants us to keep on keeping on in Iraq. Somebody once said the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Now McCain and Clinton are both on the bandwagon for this ridiculous suspension of the federal gas tax; pandering in its most base form. Only Obama has the nerve to stand up against it.
How is it that, of the three remaining candidates, Obama's judgment, and not Clinton's or McCain's, is being called into question?
"Blather" about being a spiritual pupil of the mega-racist Wright for 20 years?? Although Wright seems the truth-teller when he commented that Obama was only distancing himself from (Wright) because "he's just a politician". Sorry, chief! "Weak" deflections like that don't cut it!
What Obama "would have" voted for or against before he was a Senator is irrelevant. What Obama has done is provided multiple versions of what he'd DO as President (god help all of us!).
Has Obama - as things turned out like he said - embraced the fact America et all are winning? When Petraeus faced Obama down 2-3 weeks ago in the Senate, all Obama could sputter out to the FACTS of successes in Iraq with was (para) "well, I thought this war was a mistake". lol.....
Obama's a political puppy of empty resume and Black Liberation Theology (Religious Marxism) racist indoctrination. "BLT" is his declared personal philosophy from his own book information.
Obama considers it a political "rite of passage" to have William Ayers, unrepentant "Weatherman" domestic terrorist, as his long-time "friend". They met when Barry was circulating for political support to run for the IL Legislature, and today = he still stands by him.
Anyway, it IS unpatriotic and anti-American to keep attempting to choke out American forces in the field, as Obama and Clinton have repeatedly tried to do.
It will be disqualifying to have the associations, of which Obama claimed pride and appreciation for Ayers, Wright and others.
Obama IS the least qualified, most inexperienced, racist-mentored, terrorist-associating and economically destructive (1.5 TRILLION in new programs from Day 1?) person to have sought the Presidency in our lifetimes. He's little more than "Slick Barry", snake-oil salesman.
IF his associations, mentors and others who shaped this man HAD been known earlier, say in the Iowa - Nevada timeframes = Barry would be gone back to showing up 40% of the votes in the Senate - by now. But, the major lib-media got "wobbly" over this "new politician" and covered for him.
McCain is still not who I would have wanted (Romney), but he's a towering colossus of political gravitas compared to the two liberal social communist liars and corrosive frauds running from the far-left in 2008.
A political puppy and the most scripted, shrill and phony former first-lady as the liberal candidates? Not a very deep bench, is it??
It is not unpatriotic or ant-American to want to remove our troops from a bad situtaion that more intelligent decision-makers - like Obama - would never have put them in in the first place. Nobody is "attempting to choke out American forces in the field." The President has been given everything he's asked for in the way of funding for this war. As a matter of fact, the President's been given more than he's asked for; things like body armor for the troops and armored humvees. You know, those troops who you say it's anti-American to choke out in the field.
Further, the President and his sycophant, Senator McCain, are on the record as opposing the bipartisan effort on the part of Jim Webb, Chuck Hagel, John Warner, and Frank Lautenberg to increase the educational opportunities for our returning servicemen and women. So tell me, who is it that's really looking out for the people who are serving our country?
As for our "winning" in Iraq, where did you get that idea? The "surge" has led to a temporary suppression of some of the violence (bringing the violence back to the then unacceptable levels of 2005), but General Petraeus himself will tell you we can't sustain the current level of troop deployments beyond the end of this year. So how does this constitute winning? The disastrous decisions made by our President have damaged recruitment to the point where even the Marines are now accepting convicted felons. And this is winning?
As for Bill Ayers...
The controversy surrounding Obama and Ayers stems from the fact that both he and Ayers served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty, philanthropic foundation established in 1941, for about three years, until Obama left in 2002. So you're going to tar Obama for working for an anti-poverty group simply because another member of that group is a reformed criminal? Apparently you'd be OK with Ayers serving in the Marines (although Ayers is not a convicted felon), but you're not OK with him working to eradicate poverty.
Try turning on something other than Bill O'Reilly every now and again.
There is no "Vietnam"(mq) here for you libs!
"Nobody is "attempting to choke out American forces in the field." There goes your cred! The President and proponents of the Liberation of Iraq have been under attack at every turn by weak-libs who effort America's loss in ANY situation. Still, the Iraqi terrorist wears down...
Most of the 2006 Lib-led Congress has been not in serving the people (energy prices, Medicare, etc, etc), but in effecting snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in their do-nothing way.
Troops in the field, from all sources I've ever heard from when they compare political parties, including two nephews ('03) and ('05), loath the liberal. Hated Clinton 1, hate Clinton 2, pity Obama.....
A "Slick Barry" political "rite of passage" was meeting Ayers and gaining /sustaining his "friendship". There's simply no spin you got to negate this. If Obama HAD broken off with Ayers in 2002, he'd have a case. He's STILL a "friend". Otherwise, he'll be hearing about it again and again and again......
So, an unrepentant domestic terrorist gets on a board, and he's cleansed by you?? A man who, like global entities the lib aligns with who wants America DEAD, and you excuse him? Like Al Capone giving to his local churches and the YMCA??? Lol on priorities, boss....
You need to get away from "The Nation" , the "Huffington Post" and "Bill Maher" at least once a year..... Clear your head from the smoke and fog....
Please point out to me one instance where Congress has not give the President everything he's asked for for Iraq. Then I will believe that you have some credibility.
By the way, you should choose your terms more carefully. Merriam-Webster defines "liberate" as "to set at liberty : free; specifically : to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power"
Call our action in Iraq what you will, but it's not a liberation. We are the foreign power.
Answer a question for me, if you would. Since General Petraeus has told us that we can't sustain current troop levels in Iraq past the end of this year, what would you have us do? We need troop levels at least as high as they are now just to sustain the current situation. Recruitment will not supply us with the troops we need. So the only way to sustain whatever gains the surge has provided us would be to institute a draft. Do you:
a) support a draft
b) support staying in Iraq with reduced troop levels and consequently higher levels of violence
c) support withdrawal
d) disagree with General Petraeus and believe that we can sustain current troop levels beyond the end of this year
e) believe that somehow Iraq will be pacified by the end of this year
Congress has given most, if not all the funding asked for. This is mainly from political pressures which turn Democrats into hypocrites. I didn't say that from your post. I said liberals have attempted - and are on the side of - "choking out American forces in the field". This is simply undeniable if you read a newspaper....
Uber-Lib "Led" Congress '06, for most of its impotently led tenure, have spun this way and that to crimp, threaten the supplies of the troops, add un acceptable conditions to funding = weedle this way and that to "choke off American forces in the field". That they have failed to date doesn't impede my meaning, but enhances it.
That they haven't been able to get that done really puts the liberal in a bind. Talk against, then vote for the funding, then run to the nearest TV camera to decry the funding they just voted for and on and on and on
Kinda an contra-extension of "voting for it, before voting against it".
This running to the dictionary is an old, sorry excuse for modern debate. Under your meaning, millions would still be living under Communism, or some other crushing-of-the-human-spirit type of dictatorship. Liberals love to prop up dictatorial, freedom-crushing monsters = they have my whole life. They serve as examples of what the socialist in America has in store for us.
Liberation, it is! Like it or not......
I'll not play your "answer me this" game. I decline to play your game. Write a LTE, and maybe I'll think about it.
I suppose you decline to play because there is no good answer. I recognize this, why don't you? It's a question we're going to have to answer by the end of this year and we ought to be thinking about it now. "Stay the course" won't work because, as General Petraeus has told us, we can't continue to maintain current troop levels.
Democrats continue to vote to fund the war despite being against its continuation for the very reason that they don't want to leave the troops high and dry. They know that President Bush isn't taking them out of Iraq, so failing to fund the war is not an option. The President has put them between a rock and a hard place on this, politically speaking. This is not hypocrisy, this is reality. The hypocrites are the ones saying they're behind the troops, but then cut their medical benefits, send them to inferior medical facilities, or oppose giving returning soldiers help in attending college. Congress can only do so much to fight the power of the Executive in military matters, especially when control of either house is tenuous, at best. The President is still the Commander-in-Chief, after all. The only way Democrats will be successful is by putting one of their own in the White House.
Does modern debate mean we can use words without regard to their meaning? The misuse of the word "liberation" to describe what we are doing in Iraq is important because it lends legitimacy to the invasion; legitimacy it does not enjoy.
I could call the invasion a chicken, but calling it one doesn't make it so. Neither does calling it a liberation.
"Does modern debate mean we can use words without regard to their meaning? The misuse of the word "liberation" to describe what we are doing in Iraq is important because it lends legitimacy to the invasion; legitimacy it does not enjoy.
I could call the invasion a chicken, but calling it one doesn't make it so. Neither does calling it a liberation."
Kinda of as calling the American liberal social-communist "progressive", you mean? Or the 90s Clintonista calling tax hikes "revenue enhancements"?? You make me laugh...........
If the Dems win the POTUS and "be successful" regarding Iraq, global enemies of America win. They each have like 3-4-5 different stories as to what they'd do any-and-everywhere, and now Hillary would "obliterate" Iran if they attacked in the region???
Was there any differences to those meanings as well, considering all the variations already expressed by the candidates = and depending to where they are in the polls that is....
Don't bore right-thinking people with tying down anything to the strict definitions of a dictionary? It's tired debate strategy and it just makes "you" more rigid, considering the warping of words and meanings the liberal must engage in just to survive these last 60 years and also going forward.....
See ya', "progressive".............
Is that really the best you can do? To call me a communist and say that Democrats represent the enemies of America? How about fashioning a reasoned position and backing it up with facts?
A proper debate means using words according to their meaning. If you don't know what a word means you can hardly be expected to use it properly. When you misuse words the reader doesn't know if you're intentionally twisting their meaning or if you're simply illiterate.
I didn't call you a communist personally in the last post. There must be a reading-comprehension issue re: the warping of language for political purposes. The Democrats have taken the lead with this for decades. Perhaps, you didn't get the memo?? Perhaps you are simply cluelessly underwhelming......
DemocRATs really do - and have since Vietnam - represent the corrosive, sand-in-the-gears end of American politics.
A proper debate means using words according to their commonly understood interpretations at the time. Trying to tie back to a dictionary, once again, is tired, weary and worn-out as a retort effort = especially in the e-argument world. Kind of e-whiny, you know?? You DO understand these words, eh?? I know I blew out a common lib-argument pointoid (language can be invented also) but that was blown out long ago.
Anyway, there's a lot more for me to do. When "you" try and stifle my debate, "you" uphold the most corrosive history of the social-communist party these days. Twist, turn, flip and flop = the Democrat E-resume. Live with it.