Betrayal by the president

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar

Re: Terry Paulson’s Sept. 17 essay, “The stalemate continues�:

The Democrats do have "enough votes to cut off funding for the war." They have a majority in the House and well more than 40 votes in the Senate. Hence, they may simply refuse to act on requests for funding for Iraq. They have not done this yet, but they may well soon need to.

The surge has been a failure even by President Bush’s own criterion. It was supposed to enable a political settlement to happen. Surprise, surprise: Nothing happened. So, Bush and Gen. David Petraeus moved the goalposts, altered the definition of “violence� and claimed there had been a reduction. Sunni on Sunni and Shia on Shia violence was ignored, not being “sectarian.� This trick was spotted by the Government Accountability Office, not Democrats.

Americans resent Bush’s nonstop lies. He was hellbent on war and twisted facts as he pleased. Britain’s MI6 remarked on this. The 9/11 Commission and the Senate report on Iraq officially exposed his lies. George Tenet confirmed that weapons of mass destruction were merely a way to sell the war. Colin Powell regretted going along spinelessly and apologized in 2004. Iraq was not even remotely connected to 9/11, and even Bush himself said so — eventually.

Not everyone who despises these lies is from the "angry far left." The king of Saudi Arabia described the invasion of Iraq as "illegitimate." Conservative Republican Alan Greenspan has recently stated the obvious: "The Iraq war is largely about oil." Pope John Paul II described the invasion as "immoral." Bush’s inability to "build a case around the world" is due to his moral standing around the world. He is on a par with Judas Iscariot.

— Ian Freeman, Thousand Oaks

Leave a comment

Letters To The Editor
Letters to the Editor are published as they come in and are verified by our editorial staff. You may respond here to any and all letters published.