Dear FRONTLINE,
I want to acknowledge frontline for it's willingness to bring the facts and the truth about our Invasion of Iraq. We americans now know that this war was not based on the presumptions our President provided but on a calculated 'selling" of the war to the public with false information.
We now know for a fact that the nvasion and war was one of choice and not necessity. There was no immediate threat, no WMD's, and no Al Quida connection. Why did the administration want to go to war? What was and continues to be the real reason behind this war on Iraq?
That needs to be the next installment for Frontline to investigate and bring to the light of public scrutiny.
Larry White
Ukaih, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your program Truth, War, and Consequences provided an indepth and though provoking exploration of the questions raised by the general media on the outcome of the war to remove Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, the credibility of its content was ruined by the onscreen interviewer's obvious bias. He questions to those he interviewed were peppered with leading statements, opinions, and body language which was clearly inappropriate.
This is exactly what leads many Americans to find a political bias in PBS and to discount its reporting. More time dedicated to the successes in Iraq would have also helped make the program more intelligent and informative.
John Ganino
Fremont, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
An excellent program. Your presentation of some of the pieces to this puzzle of US involvement in Iraq was very interesting. I was surprised to see the candor of some of the people you interviewed. There is no ultimate truth, but I appreciate the questions you asked and the format.
I read over a lot of the other viewers' responses and was amused at the different conclusions and reactions that people have. Just as it is difficult to be an unbiased journalist, it is obviously difficult to be an unbiased viewer.
My bias is that I saw no nexus between 9-1-1 and Iraq; I felt we should have continued to allow the UN to perform inspections; I think preemtive attacks are dangerous and in this case totally uncalled for; I believe Hussein was a monster but we could have dealt with him via the UN; I do not trust President Bush nor his Cabinet; I think that war and violence should not be sanitized for the public; I was appalled at the post war looting and violence and lack of security. From my biased point of view, I thought you did a super job of letting the people you interviewed tell an interesting story. Keep up the good work. I look forward to more of your documentaries. Thank you.
Alice Sullivan
Aiken, SC
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your program was outstanding. Key players in the U.S. government--those willing to be interviewed--were heard from, directly in their own words admitting U.S. policy errors. No propaganda there. The Iraqi people were heard from, calling the U.S. what it is, an occupier and imperial power. No propaganda there. The lies of the Bush administration were clearly dissected and the consequences shown in living color. No propaganda there.
The red blood, not a shade darker or lighter in color, of U.S. soldiers and of Iraqi men, women and children alike was shown spilled in the name of lies, power, and imperialism. No propaganda there. It will be generations before the costs of this war to the U.S. in terms of reputation, credibility, alliances, and revenue will be paid. And it will be generations upon generations before the costs to Iraq and the Middle East are paid and the scars of an illegal intervention are healed. Frontline is the most important mainstream news program available to the American people.
David Brookbank
Spokane, WA
Dear FRONTLINE,
Having just watched your program, I come away with an impression of bias. I enjoyed the presentation and thought it was informative and fairly balanced in content. However, what bothered me were two things. First, the nature of the questions asked by your main host were negative and almost anti-American; as if there was an unquestioned agenda - never any predispositon that maybe there were positive things happening in the midst of what could be expected in such a short period of time.
Second, and more bothersome, was the constant use of terms that were untrue such as referring the the prime reason for the invasion as as result of an "imminent threat" That was never the case and your interviewer constantly used that language. President Bush specifically said actions were required before it became an imminent threat. It seemed you pushed the truth to make your point- the same as you were accusing the US government of doing.
David Hunzicker
Santa Monica, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
As I watched the program unfold, I saw all of the pieces of the Administration's duplicity fall into place. I had seen all of the information presented in bits and pieces over the last year. To see it all brought together like this was heartening. Perhaps this will help open the eyes of the American people to the truth of the Adminisrtations utter lack of understanding of the region, its politics and its history. Not to mention the furious spinning and distorting of intelligence in order to justify a war of aggression .
As for those who see it as merely an attempt to discredit the Bush Administration, I believe the Administration has already done a pretty thorough job of discrediting itself.
Mark Schrider
Columbus, OH
Dear FRONTLINE,
This program was a blatant misrepresentation of why we went to war for (not against) Iraq. I missed about 15 minutes of the program so maybe I missed the interviews with people who had been tortured by Saddam and his regime, maybe I missed the part about the families who have dug body parts of their loved ones out of mass graves, maybe I missed the interviews with the parents of young and innocent children who have been released from PRISONS! Maybe I missed the interviews with families and husbands and brothers and fathers about the rape and torture of their wives, sisters and daughters. Maybe I missed the part about UN Resolution 1441 and all the prior resolutions by the UN Security Council to hold Saddam Hussein responsible with serious consequences if he did not abide by his agreements to destroy and account for his WMD. He arrogantly and comtemptably refused to do so. Maybe I missed the part about how the previous administration and the house and senate ALL agreed back in 1998 that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world and had to be dealt with BEFORE he became a danger to the United States. But they did nothing and left that problem for someone else to deal with. I understand the war on terror and I understand the Bush doctrine. I do not want all of these things happening here in the United States. Our President is doing everything he can to prevent it. Also, maybe I missed the correction on the "immiment threat" issue. President Bush NEVER said that Iraq was an immiment threat to the US. He DID say that we could and would not WAIT for Iraq (or any other country) to BECOME an immiment threat. I saw Martin Smith on the news this week and when asked if this program would present a fair look at the good that is being done, as well as the bad, he faltered, and weakly answered "well, we will continue to report on this issue". It is unbelievable that a program of this magnitude could not tell both sides of this historic happening in our world. Instead, it presented that the United States was mostly at fault for everything. How ungrateful you people are for the freedoms that we have, and you take for granted, to present such a biased presentation.
Linda Watkins
Wilmington, North Carolina
Dear FRONTLINE,
I'm sad to say that I feel that maybe I was a supporter of a just cause without a just enough cause.
I would like to know who was responsible for the decision of spinning non-factual intelligence into a convincing white lie of WMD. I know the only alternative was to tell the truth but we all know that the majority of the Americans don't buy humanitarianism when their military and money is involved. The White House knew that if, initially, they had leveled with us solely on the idea of military action in the name of liberation of the people and promotion of democracy that we wouldn't have bought it. They seem to be dead on in the reasoning that we don't have the mental capacity to see our own freedoms as possible intellectual gifts to oppressed nations of the world. Case in point, they actually have to verbalize that exact point in a speech to the American people.
In the first days of the war I was sad to see pumped up military personnel talking excitedly about "wanting to kill some Iraqis", not "The Enemy". I felt sorry for any of the poor bastards that came within 100 feet of those misguided jackasses. Moreover, I was sad to see on your report that they're getting every chance in the world to kill innocent civilians and destroying property without suffering any repercussions. I'd be screaming mad if I were an Iraqi citizen right now and I don't think I'd feel very proud of my newfound gift of freedom of speech from the government that's letting it's storm troopers stomp my towns and slaughter my people hoping to eventually hit the bad guy.
I'm also sad to see that our government still doesn't realize that, even in this day and age, democracy isn't like some fancy plug-and-play gadget to be installed on every nations infrastructure. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's about none of this stuff is it? I remember now, I don't have the capacity to understand.
Kevin Williams
Dallas, TX
Dear FRONTLINE,
War always involves the killing of innocent men, women, and children. Though our sophsticated precision munitions reduce the amount of 'collateral damage' that occurs, innocent people will still die. Thus, before a country decides to wage a war one should first (1) exhaust all the possible diplomatic solutions to the dispute; (2) determine all the costs and benefits of the war to ensure that the benefits will be worth the cost; and (3) inform the public of all the relevant facts so that the public can decide whether the war is justified. With regard to the Iraq war, I do not believe the administration fully performed these steps. In fact, it appears that we have been mislead by our presidential administration. This type of behavior is unacceptable in a free and open democracy. George Bush commonly touts the virtues of 'transparency' yet he has given fewer press conferences than any recent President.
Thank you for giving us this view into the details of the administration.
Dag Johansen
Palo Alto, California
Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you for your indepth look into the players behind this war and the consequences of their lies. I was particularly happy to see Chalabi put in the spotlight and asked some very tough questions. Afterall, it was his intelligence sources the Bush administration chose to believe over our traditional intelligence apparatus. Now it appears he can't even produce one document to back up his claims and is attempting to break away from our occupation there and encouraging the Shia population to do the same. I'm sure Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle must be feeling very betrayed.
I know Clinton funded Chalabi in the late 90's as a means of support for an Iraqi opposition effort, yet our very own CIA began discrediting him as a reputable source for information, after he was, by absentia, convicted of bank fraud in Jordan. It is beyond me to understand why his word was more credible than our own intelligence analysts. This is the crux of the matter facing this administration and I look forward to their explanation as to why they committed to this war based on such shaky evidence presented by a criminal.
Kathryn Weddington
Troutville, Virginia
Dear FRONTLINE,
Hopefully the producers of Frontline have enough integrity to some day show a program on the benefits reaped by the Iraqi people as a result of the overthrow of Sadam Hussein. There was no "truth" as stated on this program only a one-sided attempt to discredit the U.S. Government. The interviewer during this program was biased and obviously against the war. WMD's were not the only basis for the overthrow of a maniacal dictator. When Sadam had WMD's in his posession he used them against his own people. If he still had them it does not matter. What does matter is the safety of the American and Iraqi people. If WMD's are not to be found (and that still has not been ruled out) can any rational individual actually believe that if Sadam were still in power that he would not use them again? Just that shear doubt in the minds of the majority of American and Iraqi people justified this war. PBS should remember that it's existence depends on public funding from the American People a majority of which think the same way I do. Hopefully, as stated above, you will show a subsequent program that shows how this war was justified not on the basis of WMD's but on true feelings of most American people after 9/11.
Fiory Cruciani
Voorhees, NJ
Dear FRONTLINE,
Good program, but it looked like Frontline itself was beating the drums of war earlier this year with it's very one-sided pieces on Iraq, especially those outlining the crimes of Saddam Hussein. Those who pay attention to human rights know that many despots and thuggish regimes supported by the United States have killed and tortured proportionately as many of their own citizens as has Saddam. US armed and backed paramilitary clients in Guatemala and El Salvador have slaughtered the inhabitants of entire villages, including infants and children with machetes and guns. So helping the Iraqi people was hardly the foremost motivation of the Bush Administration, although its the one they cling to now. So we have bombed a city of five million people and killed over seven thousand innocent civilians throughout the country. We have dropped cluster bombs accidentally on the little Iraqi town of Hilla and shredded many people including all six children in one family. The US is refusing to pick up the unexploded bomblets or clean up depleted uranium or compensate the families of civilians killed. Meanwhile Ahmed Chalabi and his cronies want to sell off state owned assets to foreign bidders before a functioning democracy is set up and Iraqi citizens can make their opinions known.
BJ Kalmbach
madison, wisconsin
Dear FRONTLINE,
Martin Smith's "Truth, War and Consequences" was one of the most thoughtful, well put together and informative pieces of television reportage that I have ever seen. The quiet dignity of the presentation made it compelling. The program presented many points of view from various players and let them speak for themselves. PBS should be commended for presenting this sort of intelligent work. I will make a contribution to my local PBS station in honor of this program, as I am sure the right wing zealots will be clamoring to cut off PBS funding in retaliation for such honest reporting. Thank you for presenting this program.
Judith Rogers
Montgomery, AL
Dear FRONTLINE,
How tragic is it for our country that an organization we subsidize with our tax dollars takes that money and uses it to produce blatantly anti-American propaganda? Where does the interviewer on this show get off from being so blatantly anti-Administration? How much longer will the people of this country continue to fund these effete snobs at PBS so that they can continue to essentially undermine the American people?
It's clear that the United States went to Iraq with good intentions. Things have been difficult because, once we got there, we ran into a lot of people with very bad intentions. The Bush Administration SHOULD BE PRAISED for what they have tried to do. Instead they meet with a constant, withering line of sneering, second-guessing and public rebuke by a PBS management that clearly operates unconstrained by basic human decency.
Certainly if the people of this country really wanted to have a stream of anti-American propaganda, all we need to do is have Al Jazeera with sub-titles as a cable TV outlet. At least then we would know that the constant spew of anti-American propaganda was not being paid for by our own money.
Sven Parnell
Orlando, FL
Dear FRONTLINE,
Dear FRONTLINE,
As a student of the largest university in the nation, sharing the same college with Jenna Bush, located in the capitol of Texas where George Bush served as governor just a stone's throw away, in the "heart of Texas" about an hour's drive to the largest army installation in the country, Fort Hood, and as the wife of a veteran reservist, I write to you, saddened by your glossed and shoddy production, as well as the self-satisfaction apparent in your online addendums. Only eight months ago, as the United States prepared to escalate the twelve-year old war it had waged by both siege, daily sorties and bombings, I participated in the largest and most coordinated act of communication by the people of the world to the leaders of this country and Great Britain, when millions upon millions of citizens took to the streets to peacefully demonstrate against a full-scale attack of Iraq. Beginning in Sydney, the demonstrations followed the sun in its course around the earth, including even the international outpost in Antarctica. I am saddened not by your bias (an inevitable and inherent characteristic of journalism that any rational person should expect), but by the shallow, superficial treatment you have given to such a grave issue of national import (no pun intended). Where was the information that led most church leaders, city councils across the nation, student governments across the nation, etc., and countless individuals to so vehemently oppose this war? Your references to them are something I would expect from an eigth grade schoolchild gleaned from quick google searches online. You insult the intelligence of your viewers, and mislead them with your shallow treatment and mock moralizing toward the subject we all should more seriously grapple with.
Shannon Clark
Austin, Texas 
| 
