The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Clearing the Air

6.20.03 @ 12:01AM

WHAT'S MISSING
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Repellent and Impertinent:

Thanks. That needed to be said.
-- Tim Botkin
Muncie, IN

I am a Southern conservative who has voted Republican since the Nixon years. That said, I am disturbed by the insinuation that to question the motives of invading, and it was an invasion, Iraq are impertinent. Our president told us Iraq was a threat to Americans, that Saddam was in the process of developing nuclear weapons. This is a direct statement made during his State of the Union speech. It was unambiguous and clearly stated. So why is it repellent to now ask, "Where are the weapons?"

It would appear Mr. Tyrrell is upset because Kerry and Dean are calling Mr. Bush a liar. What do you expect from two ultra-liberals. I am upset because several hundred thousand men and women will have been put in harm's way under a false pretense.

In this period of post-war reflection are we not free to ponder, having found no evidence of WMD's, why we went to war?...

Finally, if an invasion can be justified because a country is being run by a murderous dictator, what the hell is Castro still doing in Cuba? How about North Korea, China and the entire continent of Africa?
-- Don Smith

Re: "… suggestions that Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush are liars."

I suppose that would depend on what your definition of WMD is.
-- Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, PA

A reading of UN Resolution 1441 reveals that there never was a mandate for the UN or anybody else to find any WMD. The burden of proof from the end of the Gulf War was on Iraq and its "benevolent" ruler's Ba'ath regime to show conclusively that there were no more WMDs and to provide evidence that those which were known to have existed in 1998 had been destroyed. It said:

"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; "

Needless to say, that did not happen. Saddam Hussein had not only not complied, he had continued for over 12 years to lie, obfuscate, and obstruct all attempts by the UN to obtain his compliance.

So the "coalition of the willing" provided the serious consequences and Saddam Hussein's regime of terror is over. In his wake we have found evidence of massive atrocities against the people of Iraq which were even worse in kind and extent than previously had been reported or suspected. Mass graves are showing up everywhere.

The WWII Allies didn't fight against Hitler's Germany to stop the Holocaust, but to liberate the people of Europe. They succeeded, at least in Western Europe, but in the nick of time they also ended the Holocaust everywhere. The United States and the Confederate States didn't fight the Civil War either to end or preserve slavery, but to preserve or end the Union. The Union was preserved and slavery came to an end.

We have found no WMD, but we sure as hell have ended the atrocities. Should we apologize for that?
-- Fritz Steiner
Huntsville, AL

LOCATION, LOCATION
Re: Paul Beston's Communication and the WMD Mess:

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Iraq, Africa, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons