Stars and Stripes letters, all damning of the Bush administration

[lebkuchen]

Civilian leaders failed troops

Most military members pride themselves on having a strong, rigorous ethical and moral code. That’s why when something like Abu Ghraib happens, soldiers feel betrayed.

Similarly, accepting the fact that their commander in chief’s administration misled the world about the reasons for invading Iraq is a painful process. Soldiers, however disappointed they might be with this president, know that they must carry on and protect their own in a dangerous war.

Another disappointment faced with courage by military members is the stubborn fact that civilian leaders, such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, manipulated this invasion of choice and its aftermath without adhering to customary high standards of military planning. Soldiers expect that the highest standards of planning will be followed in war and peacekeeping to protect them and their mission. These high standards are drummed into soldiers as making the difference between life and death.

Expecting that these military values could or would be practiced by civilian leaders who never served in a war or active military was unrealistic. A history of cutting legal corners to maximize profits, or the rough-and-tumble oil business in Texas, perhaps led them to these moral failings.

Lying about reasons for war, ignoring terror warnings from intelligence, and dismissing experienced commanders’ viewpoints aren’t military values. Neither is breaking a promise to veterans about retirement benefits.

Accepting moral failures of civilian leaders shouldn’t deter soldiers from taking pride in their work. The American people are grateful for their sacrifices and service and don’t hold them responsible for the weak, unprofessional actions of those at the top.

M.D. Wooldridge
Würzburg, Germany

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=23897


Response to Rumsfeld

In response to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s “letter to the troops” (July 26):

• our “coalition”: two members, Palau and Costa Rica, have no armies; after seeing the futility of this war, Spain, the Philippines and others have removed their troops.

• the “liberation”: a recent Iraqi poll indicated that the majority of citizens prefer Saddam Hussein back in power rather than the United States as occupier.

• the “ultimate sacrifice” many soldiers have made: Lost lives would be acceptable for a legitimate purpose; invading a country that hadn’t threatened us and couldn’t have harmed us isn’t acceptable.

• the “threat we face”: Saddam had a third-rate army, devastated by sanctions.

• the brutality of the Iraqi insurgency: Of the more than 10,000 Iraqi innocents who were killed by U.S. weapons, how many were decapitated or otherwise mutilated? Just because we didn’t videotape the carnage doesn’t mean it wasn’t barbaric. Should we expect Iraqi victims to be less brutal than we are?

• America being “safer and more secure”: How can that be when virtually the entire Arab world now hates us?

Michele Winter
Würzburg, Germany

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=23942


Bush’s behavior on 9/11

The writer of “What he would have done” (Aug. 18) ignores facts and uses sarcasm to avoid the real issues of President Bush’s behavior on 9/11.

He implies that only Superman could have done a better job. What are the facts?

Bush was notified between 8:46 a.m. and 8:55 a.m. that the first plane had struck the World Trade Center. He entered the classroom at 9 a.m., posed for photos and began reading with the children. At 9:06 he was told about the second plane.

Bush himself — attending an announced event in a school full of children — may have been a target. What did he do? He spent another 10 minutes reading to the kiddies.

From 9:16 until 9:29, still at the school, he met with staff and made phone calls. He then gave a speech and departed at 9:34. Not until 9:56, after Air Force One was airborne and apparently not until after he learned of the Pentagon attack, did he finally give a shoot-down order.

So: Our president, knowing the country was under attack, did not issue the order necessary to defend us until 50 minutes later. Research question for the letter writer: What is the flight time of an intercontinental ballistic missile from North Korea to Los Angeles?

Sen. John Kerry gave exactly the right answer when asked how he would have dealt with the situation: Politely excuse himself and go do what a president is supposed to do.

So what say you all, do we have enough facts here to conclude that President Bush miserably failed in his responsibilities as leader of our country and commander in chief? I think so.

Matt Martin
Würzburg, Germany

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=24055

[Kikosexy2]

1. My gut...

feeling keeps telling me the Bush cabal let 9/11 happen. Sure made it easy to push their hidden agendas without a fight. Scary notion that I would think such a thing but with administration, I don't put anything past them.

[Karenina]

2. You are wise

not to.

[CarolynEC]

3. Stars & Stripes? Damned liberal media.

Seriously, that's pretty incredible, that these letters are showing up there. Speaks volumes.