Letters to the Editor

No legitimate reason to go to war

It is becoming clearer and clearer to Americans that President Bush and his group manipulated intelligence and misled us on the Iraqi invasion.

When any agency or expert would doubt certain claims of WMD that Iraq had, Bush and Vice President Cheney would disregard it and even sent then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the U.N. with pictures of trucks that could have been some kind of lab that made secret chemicals for warheads. What a bunch of baloney.

We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq at that time looking, and they couldn't find anything. We had spy satellites parked overhead that can read a license plate from space and we could fly spy planes at will 24 hours a day and none of these picked up any WMD.

Yet Bush used this as his reason to invade Iraq. When the troops couldn't find anything, he tried to tie Hussein to the terrorist of 9/11, and when that was disproved, he said Hussein was a bad man and that is why we invaded them.

If our intelligence is that bad, a drunk staggering down the street knows more about what the other guys have than the CIA, and I can't believe that. Why wouldn't people suspect Bush of going to war knowing Iraq was no threat? Americans gave him the benefit of the doubt and thousands have been killed and injured because of it.

Congress gave him the benefit of the doubt and gave him authority without the long process of going over all intelligence piece by piece because Bush was in a hurry. Bush and Cheney even had a group of top advisers set up to sell this war to the public. Why do you need to sell an invasion of another country if you have a legitimate reason? If you look back at the evidence for this war, there was no good reason for it, just a lot of hype from Bush and his guys trying to sell it to us.

- Terry Gilbreath


Let's finish the job we've started

George Morin's letter ("Government should be held accountable for actions in Iraq," To the Editor, Nov. 15) is more regurgitation of the Democratic Party line.

Democrats love to use the word "quagmire" whenever possible to denigrate the Republicans and particularly President Bush. The definition of a quagmire is "a difficult or inextricable position" and that doesn't fit, by any stretch of the imagination, of our position in Iraq.

We can cut and run, as some advocate in this country, or we can support our troops and finish the job we've committed to. The Democrats on the Hill have lost not only their memory but also their backbone. They would like to rewrite history concerning their initial involvement in the months preceding the invasion of Iraq. They saw the same information from the intelligence community as the president and they came to the same conclusion. With the 2006 election looming in their future, they are scrambling to save their behinds. If this isn't a good case for term limits, then I don't know what would be.

Morin seems to forget that Islamic terrorism against the United States didn't begin Sept. 11, 2001. It began as early as the 1970s and escalated because Congress and the White House decided to treat these acts as crimes instead of the war it became.

I respect Colin Powell, but it's been proven that appeasement rarely produces the desired results. The jury is still out on Donald Rumsfeld, but at this point he still has my support. Only a few seconds of listening to Sens. Edward Kennedy, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, and I'm amazed that anyone could embrace the Democratic Party. In my opinion, anyone buying the rhetoric of these Democrats is stuck on stupid.

- Richard Stanford