Presidential Deceptions on Iraq Led US to Abandon Core Values (Guest Voice)

Bill Day, Cagle Cartoons

Bill Day, Cagle Cartoons

Presidential deceptions on Iraq led US to abandon core values (via GlobalPost)

Commentary: Torture and killing innocents with drones continue to haunt Americans. Alan Gilbert DENVER, Colo. â?? In 2002 and early 2003, the Bush administration rolled out a campaign to promote an invasion of Iraq. Condoleezza Riceâ??s statement, the â??smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud…

LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: The copyrighted cartoon on top is not part of the original article. It is licensed to run on TMV. Reproduction elsewhere without licensing is strictly prohibited. See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com

Author: Guest Voice

Share This Post On

7 Comments

  1. Sad but true.

  2. Most Tea Party Americans don’t care if a Muslim, or someone with a Muslim sounding name (including American citizens who are not terrorists) are killed by either the US government or terrorists. The Tea Party is against anything that is not white Christian.

    Even though the Tea Party did not exist at the time of the Iraq War, there is still something I can’t help but wonder about, especially given the hatred necessary to be a Tea Party member, which doesn’t suddenly appear over night…. which came first, the US government abandoning America’s core values or Americans without American’s traditional values electing officials with the same values.

  3. Agreed.

  4. Sadly, with the possibility of Syria using chemical weapons now, FNC is now running with the idea that Hussein hid all his WMDs in Syria before the US invasion of Iraq. Yesterday, Brian Kilmeade interviewed Lt. Gen. McInerney, who asserted that we knew about the high traffic criss-crossing the Iraq-Syria border in the days and weeks before the invasion and that is why we didn’t find any WMDs in Iraq. They believe Bush and Co. will be vindicated once we invade Syria and secure that country’s chemical WMDs. After that initial interview, it became a running theme the rest of the day.

    Honestly, the only thing missing from this channel are the skimpy outfits and pom poms for each on-air personality to wear when they speak of Bush, Cheney, Rice, et. al.

  5. Once again we are treated to information which cannot be verified. The numbers and types of people killed by drones is unknown – even by the local authorities – due to the lack of communication with outlying areas. The Waziristan area where most attacks occur are impossible for any outside groups to enter. Their information is culled from local reports whose reporters are necessarily influenced by the local power groups of tribal leaders, al Qaida leaders and the Taliban.

    The Yemneni, Pakistan, and Somali governments both approve of and simultaneously decry US drone attacks. Some drone attacks may actually be executed by the country’s own military.

    In public, both Pakistani military and government officials routinely and vehemently condemn the strikes. But in private, a handful of senior Pakistani generals are “read into” the program, according to American officials.

    The United States gives the Pakistani military 30 minutes’ advance notice of drones strikes in South Waziristan. However, it gives no notice in North Waziristan, considered a bigger hub of Taliban and Qaeda militancy, and also a major base for the Haqqani Network, which carries out attacks in Afghanistan, one senior American official said.

    This murkiest of all murky wars is difficult to make blanket assumptions about.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03....._r=1&

    I can only assume Professor Gilbert’s projects concerning black Americans involvement in the Revolutionary war influence his opinion on the theory that the US, and a black president, have less concern about killing “brown” people than “white” people. The proposition that we are carelessly killing innocents seems to me to be a naive understanding of actions involved in almost all wars.

  6. The proposition that we are carelessly killing innocents seems to me to be a naive understanding of actions involved in almost all wars.

    I guess that would depend on your definition of “carelessly”, but I would take issue with your statement any case. If I’m not mistake the number of civilians killed in most wars is almost always higher than the number of military combatants killed.

  7. My definition of carelessly would be to take no extraordinary precautions to avoid civilians such as this program seems to be taking. I think you are right that civilian casualties are always higher in all out war as opposed to targeted assassination attempts since it is impossible to separate civilians from combatants when bombing enemy troops and munitions factories, etc.

    Former Rep. Harmer believes the Geneva Convention needs to be revisited to reflect when non-state combatants are involved. The new phenomena of non-state combatants has led to new situations and may need new rules as well.

Submit a Comment