Dear FRONTLINE,
Whether one supported the rationale for the Irag war or not (I did not), the fact remains that enormous and completely avoidable mistakes were made in the prosecution of the war and its aftermath.
For the life of me I cannot understand why the administration, once they decided to go to war, did not prepare for multiple possible outcomes.
For example, the program last night (Monday) described the now well known story about the existence of the state department's post-war planning process. The neo-cons maneuvered to discredit those plans in favor of their idea to install what they thought would be a fully formed government made up of members of the INC led by Chalabi. In an administration characterized more by it's destructive inter-agency competition than any kind of collaboration, the opportunity was squashed to develop both approaches, decide which to implement first and then have the other waiting in the wings to implement quickly should the first approach falter. It was all or none for the neocons in the Bush administration.
In addition to the sleazy, dishonest salesmanship of a war the American people should never have bought, the neocon element of the Bush administration will long be remembered for its know-it-all hubris and abject incompetence. What a tragic and lethal combination.
Coos Bay, Oregon
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your staff at PBS have shown again why "Frontline" is the best program on television cable or free. I am currently writing a book on Presidential policy success and failure as it relates to our modern administrations. What is interesting about the failure of the Bush White House and its Iraq policy is how it was a series of leadership breakdowns. President Bush did not step forward and try to do something about the groupthink that had taken over his cabinet in regards to its Iraq policy. This tunnel vision was being advanced by Cheney and Rumsfeld as they manipulated CIA intel to fit a preconcived series of notions about Iraq.
This failure of leadership at the top by George W. Bush sent a strong message to other members within the administration. George Tenet gave in to the pressure from the VP and Sec. of Defense. Colin Powell gave in to those same pressures, as did Gen. Tommy Franks when he changed his original order of battle for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.Leadership by Condi Rice was AWOL during this time and she never stood-up to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. Sending a red flag to the President about the flaws in the Iraq policy was her duty to the leader of the free world.
Classic example of a foreign policy failure by a modern President,equaled only by the Johnson administration and its march of folly into Vietnam. We do have examples of foreign policy success by modern administrations. Wilson at Versailles, the Truman Doctrine, JFK and Cuban Missile Crisis, Nixon opens China,Carter and Camp David, Reagan-Gorbachev in Iceland, Bush the elder and Desert Storm, and finally Clinton with regards to Kosovo. Perhaps this White House should have taken a closer look at these case studies before marching blind and ignorant into Iraq. This administration has never learned what the State Department is used for and how it can be an effective tool with regards to foreign affairs.
David Campbell
DeRidder, Louisiana
Dear FRONTLINE,
To those who cry foul, I would only ask: Haven't we observed the results of this decision for war? Bush's justification was WMD! The "facts" were adapted to fit the policy. War first,last and only.I have become disillusioned with this administration and its failure to get it right. The truth will out above all else.
Richard Hilton
Oswego, New York
Dear FRONTLINE,
Part I of the series depicts Bush as a victim, one who is weak, stupid, manageable, and increasing controlled by Cheney. Missing is the predisposition of Bush to race headlong into war with Hussein, and the serendipitous convergence of purposes among the hawks against Hussein. Unlike the story in your program, Bush was not persuaded to drift from the intelligence agencies to Rumsfeld. Instead, Bush temporarily had expanded his realm of consideration to include the intelligence agencies before he quickly retreated to his obsession.
Yesterday, the producer was interviewed on "Fresh Air." He answered an excellent question about what he would like yet to know about the administration and its war by answering that he wondered why these people were the way they were. The answers sought by the producer are easy to discover if you closely examine the people most involved. The players fit together like pieces of a puzzle, each bringing an essential element to the body of work. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Bush, are the principals. No one else ever had a chance to make a significant difference.
Robert Adams
Longwood, FL
Dear FRONTLINE,
The first half was very good and I am looking to seeing the final half tonight.When I watch shows like this, I just get the feeling that citizens of the US don't get much of a say in government these days.
The Senate and the House were both asleep on this Irag matter and absolutely did not do their jobs. The sad part is they are only interested in getting re-elected to keep their do nothing jobs.
Mequon, WI
Dear FRONTLINE,
Yes, the lesson to be learned is that the media and Democratic leadership will continue to sell America down the river given any opportunity. The media is our worst enemy at war or at peace.
It remains unbelievable to me that the Democratic leadership and the media continue undercutting the American war effort. "Bush's War" retrospective(?) is treasonous by timing alone. We remain with soldiers in the field of war. This piece serves only one 'useful' purpose and that is to give encouragement and energy to America's opposition. You have justified and re-enforced the oppositions desire for killing rather than cooperating with coalition soldiers in the field.
Had the 2nd Iraq war ended with the first bombs striking Saddam and sons in the first bunker and Iraq had became a peaceful democracy full of wine and roses overnight this 'retrospective' would still contain the same 'venom' but hold on a minute all of the turncoats trying to salvage their own reality thru commentary for "Bush's War" wouldn't have had to turn coat would they? And I doubt that they would have turncoat under better circunstances either.
Should such a 'retrospective' be made? YES. Should it be released before our men and women leave the front -ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Finally, no matter how self-righteous the producers of "Bush's War" wish to view themselves-no one has the power to assess the world today if Saddam maintained his $25,000, or increased, bounty for families of suicide bombers of Jews and Americans, Manila had not finally began rounding Al-Qaeda militants kidnapping Americans and European tourist for bounty to release but murdered instead, Libya had not relinguished its nuclear program, neighbors of Formosa Straits had not began rounding up the pirates, had Singapor, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia all not gotten serious about rounding up terrorists after the coalition invaded Iraq.
Get off of America's back, NOW. President Bush is America's backbone and I am greatful that he is a strong person because the Democratic and Republican leadership and the media are snivelling mush boned step-children to America's hope in the world.
I have not seen one piece in the media that tries to assess the global picture. Every piece has no credibility because it has the "we are trashing Bush" stamped on the cover. If there is no one left to convince then why was this piece produced. If there are holdouts that the media is still trying to convince, but not yet, to be anti-Bush maybe an open media mind to their view of the world may have been a better 'retrospective'.
Bill Graves
Denver, CO
Dear FRONTLINE,
In 2003 I had misgivings about going to war with Iraq, but wanted to believe my government. Your program last night confirmed my fear that I was misled - and after growing up during Vietnam, I didn't think I could be. I'm saddened by seeing the egos of men like Rumsfield and Cheney, but even more saddened by the lack of presence of our president during all this - while the title is "Bush's War," he seems like a minor character in this program.
Thank you for running this - based on this program, I plan to start contributing to PBS. We need this kind of journalism.
St. Paul, MN
Dear FRONTLINE,
While I enjoyed Part One of the documentary what I thought was missing was any discussion of the role of the Political Arm of the Bush Administration (Rove, etc). I think that you could make a good case that much of the activity surrounding the build-up and execution of the Iraq War is related to getting Bush re-elected in 2004.
This begins with the (in my opinion) false linkage of Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, and proceeds to the reduction of military actions to campaign-style sound bites (e.g., "Shock and Awe," "Mission Accomplished," "Bring Them On") as well as the stocking of the CPA with only like-minded right-wingers. ...
Todd Foust
Alexandria, VA
Dear FRONTLINE,
Frontline, as usual, did an excellent job of exploring the nuances that led to this disastrous debacle in Iraq. There were a couple of moments that leads me to consider a little sympathy (only a little) for some of the characters who messed up so badly:
It's understandable how VP Cheney could distrust the CIA after they completely missed a real nuclear facility in the first Gulf War in addition to their many goofs over the years. But Cheney's mistake was thinking defense intelligence would do any better.
What happened to Tenet? At one point he was skeptical of the WMD claims, but perhaps got too friendly with Bush and lost his objectivity. At Camp David, when even Bush recognized there was only slim evidence of Iraq's WMD, what made Tenet decide it was "a slam dunk?"
Colin Powell comes across as an amateur and was easily out-manuevered by everyone including the French.
Bob Graham got it right. Why didn't more in the Senate get it right? I'd like to see a roll call of which Senators actually went into that locked room to read the (CIA, or State Dept I canpt remember) report that cast doubt on the WMD claims.
Once again Frontline proves that TV is not inherently a shallow medium, but, done right, can shine light on nuanced issues.
David Smith
Decatur, Georgia
Dear FRONTLINE,
It is remarkable that you seem to be the only entity to televise an investigation of such import, substance and challenge to our great nation. Constitutional checks and balances sould provide the disclosures and transperancy necessary to avoid this insanity that is the Bush War, had Congress done their job. We gave the keys of the casino to the mafia on this one, in November it'll be time to take them back.
Richard Begley
Omaha, Nebraska
Dear FRONTLINE,
Bush's War should leave one wondering, why. Reporting what appears to be nefarious activity on behalf of the Bush administration, PBS then neglects to make the anticipated case of corruption. What was the motive?
Absent that, it would seem logical that PBS would make the case why the deposed regime was desirable.
John Amos
Jaffrey, NH
Dear FRONTLINE,
I found the show last night as I was flipping the channels. As a Republican I can say I was floored. This show should be mandatory viewing in social studies in the school system. The biggest part was "Bush stating is this all you got" referring to the intelligent information on deciding if the US should go to war.
Jim T
Indianapolis, IN
Dear FRONTLINE,
I've been watching frontline for as long as I can remember and I've been a Republican for as long as I can remember. Up until the Iraq war debacle I like and supported the views of the neo-conservatives. Even now there are still elements of the neo-conservatism that I like such as advocating democracy for all.
The war on Iraq was a mistake, but regardless of how the war was started, we now have an obligation that we can not shy away from. It saddens me to see the same close minded attitude that lead to us to a war we don't need being used against Frontline and PBS.
No where in this documentary did Frontline call into question the patriotism of the people who made the decision. Regardless of the outcome, I got a sense that everyone involved in the events leading up to the war are equally patriotic and differs only in their approach. If we can not logically analyze an event without resorting to using political labels we will not learn from our mistakes.
John Wang
Los Angeles, California
Dear FRONTLINE,
You asked if there are any lessons in it for us and/or the next US president. You bet there is; we should require that our next president surround him or herself with a platoon of organizational psychologists!
Considering the running inter/intra-agency turf battles [White House,State, DOD, CENTCOM, CIA, FBI], it's no small wonder that the effectiveness of our response was compromised.
Jon Ballew
Eugene, Oregon
Dear FRONTLINE,
The title alone should tell everyone what type of program this was. It was blatant anti-Bush, anti-America, reporting. Many of the people interviewed were from the news media and many of the military and civilians interviewed were full of "I believe what he meant" or "I believe what was said was".
Your so-called facts are totally wrong. You talk of the al Qaeda captured as some poor political prisoners who were mistreated instead of an ememy that we successfully deemed intelligence from that nabbed other terrorists or saved lives. You missed the fact that the "16 words" of President Bush's speech did not come from the CIA yellow cake intelligence but was from the British and European intelligence that has been proven to be true. I will be interested to see if in part 2 you mention that the WMD was found by our troops in Iraq and parts were shipped by convoy to Syria. But I'm sure you will say the same old tripe coming from the left.
This could easily be mistaken for a Michael Moore movie.
Champaign, Illinois
