Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Explain again why we invaded Iraq?

After two letters in attempt to justify himself and the invasion of Iraq ("Iraq's chemical weapons stocks were well documented," Dec. 28, and "Did Saddam have WMDs before the U.S. invasion in 2003?" Jan. 2) I still can't figure out what Michael DeCicco is trying to say in regard to the astonishingly stupid decision to go to invade Iraq in 2003. Clearly American citizens were in no danger from Saddam's stockpiles of chemical weapons even if they had ever been found or used on U.S. soldiers (which they weren't). Rather the justification to go to war was that Saddam had or was near acquiring nuclear weapons that were an imminent threat to the U.S.

President Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleisher, stated that "we know as a fact that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." This quote appears in the July 10, 2005 edition of the Sunpapers under the title "It all looked so easy," which shows the reckless and outlandish disregard for the truth by Bush Administration officials, which Mr. DeCicco is apparently still an apologist for. Or maybe not, since he's never told us the real reason why we should have invaded Iraq. He should try to talk to that fellow in Towson who keeps writing that the decision to withdraw from Iraq in 2011 was somehow Obama's fault (hint, the Status of Forces Agreement determining the time of American withdrawal from Iraq was negotiated by the 43rd president before Obama took office).

Paul R. Schlitz Jr., Baltimore

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Lessons learned in Iraq, Rwanda

    Letter writer Paul R. Schlitz Jr. can't seem to grasp the fact that an acknowledgment of Iraq's potential to harbor weapons of mass destruction doesn't necessarily indicate current agreement with the decision to invade, nor does it require someone to justify the invasion ("Explain again why...

  • ISIS should be described as murderers, not militants
    ISIS should be described as murderers, not militants

    The Sun's report on the burning to death of the captured Jordanian pilot refers to his murderers as "militants" ("After Jordanian's death, U.S. moves pilot rescue aircraft closer to battlefield," Feb. 5). The juxtaposition of the barbarity of the murderers coupled with the anodyne description...

  • U.S. should attack ISIS now
    U.S. should attack ISIS now

    I write as a 93-year-old retired educator who worked in a classroom for 35 years, 32 of which were as the principal of an independent middle school and before that as a Naval Reserve Officer for eight years of active duty including five during World War II, two of which were aboard the aircraft...

  • Treason is treason
    Treason is treason

    There is only one word to describe the behavior of an American citizen who provides "aid and comfort" to the enemy — it's treason ("Girls' alleged attempt to go to Syria worries some," Oct. 23). I've no idea what the federal statutes are today, but in the past the penalty was a death....

  • The U.N. must coordinate the fight against the Islamic State
    The U.N. must coordinate the fight against the Islamic State

    Sectarian violence is tearing apart much of the Middle East. One of the major antagonists, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is also becoming a serious domestic security challenge for more than 80 countries around the world grappling with concerns about foreign terrorist...

  • Obama should attack ISIS
    Obama should attack ISIS

    As a veteran of World War II who served five years in the Pacific almost three of which were aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise and later recalled for three more years during the Korean War, in my opinion President Barack Obama is absolutely not defending the safety of our citizens...

  • New thinking in war on terror
    New thinking in war on terror

    Thank you for publishing Eve Bruce's commentary on America's failed war on terror ("America's failed war on terror," it is evident that "we the people" have been had by the fear mongers and those who are benefiting from unending war. Now is the time to stop and think. Is the world any better...

  • Why must media use the term ISIS?
    Why must media use the term ISIS?

    I was elated to see the article, "U.S.: Airstrikes in Syria, Iraq change Islamic State tactics" (Oct. 18), use the same terminology as President Barack Obama when referring to the Islamic State that we are currently combating. I wish I could say the same for the media. Prominent anchors and...

Comments
Loading