Searching for Answers on Iraq’s WMD

Re “U.S. Ends Hunt for Hussein’s Weapons,” Jan. 13: Let me see if I understand this correctly. President Bush never found the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons he insisted Iraq possessed or was developing, yet he stubbornly maintains the invasion was “absolutely” the right thing to do because the world is better off with Saddam Hussein in a prison cell.

Well, forgive me for observing the obvious, but we’d all be a lot safer if Osama bin Laden were in that prison cell instead. And just how safe are we supposed to feel when the president who claims he’s trying to protect us doesn’t know which countries have weapons of mass destruction and which ones don’t?

Gary Garshfield

Irvine

*

Perhaps Democrats should not be so hasty in condemning the president -- in August 2003 the Associated Press reported that 30 Iraqi jet fighters were found buried at Al Taqaddum air field west of Baghdad, giving an idea of the ability for Hussein to play hide-and-seek with his weapons.

Later, in June 2004, the Associated Press also reported that the U.S. Army uncovered nearly two tons of partially enriched uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb.

So it is reasonable to assume that while the president was trying to meet all the politically correct requirements imposed by the U.N. and the liberal media’s entourage of obstructionist pacifists before invading a country that posed an imminent threat, Hussein was busy removing the rest of the weapons to a more hospitable location. Or you can just believe that he was actually telling Dan Rather the truth.

Miguel A. Guanipa

Whitinsville, Mass.

*

How quaint that the search for weapons of mass destruction has been called off just in time for the inauguration. The war was worth it to the president, not because of any desire to unseat brutal dictators; he is a friend of many others across the globe.

It was worth it to Bush because it caused more than half the electorate to put him back in office. He would not be anywhere without Bin Laden and weapons of mass destruction. France was right; Old Europe was right.

That this colossal failure of leadership, lying to the public and flip-flopping on why we are at war has been rewarded with four more years boggles the imagination.

Stephanie Georgieff

Santa Ana

*

President Clinton ordered bombing attacks on Baghdad and surrounding areas in December 1998 because Hussein either had or was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Furthermore, Hussein had never provided U.N. inspectors with full disclosure that all materials were destroyed and programs discontinued.

Hence the U.N. passed Resolution 1441 and every major country believed Iraq had weapons and a weapons program.

So what happened?

Nicholas Yanuzzi

Thousand Oaks

*

No weapons of mass destruction have been found. There was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Therefore there was no reason for a war that has killed as many as 100,000 people and maimed countless others.

Currently, preparations are being made for the inauguration of the man who ordered this war; security precautions are astoundingly tight. Yet our president tells us almost daily that we are safer now than we were before the war on Iraq.

We’re being told by the same man that we are facing a financial crisis in our Social Security program. How long will it take for the press and the public to catch on to his methods?

Bruce Barnbaum

Granie Falls, Wash.