U.S. Ignores Iraq at the World’s Peril

Re “President Bush’s Wag-the-Dog Policy on Iraq,” Commentary, May 7: I am a lifetime liberal and a frequent fan of Robert Scheer, but at times I wonder to what planet he has moved. Saddam Hussein must be removed before he does great damage to the world. Whether he was involved in Sept. 11--and the evidence seems to show that he wasn’t--is irrelevant. He exports terror and dreams of the day when he can do worse.

I can sympathize with Scheer’s desire to expose a political motive behind the Bush hardliners’ campaign, but whether I like them or not--and I don’t--in this case they are right.

Jim Turner

Granada Hills

*

Scheer’s commentary is clearly another anti-conservative, anti-Israel and anti-Bush piece of leftist rhetoric. Why has Bush made “ousting Hussein the centerpiece of his otherwise undefined foreign policy”? Is it perhaps that in the region of the world most antagonistic and murderous toward innocent Americans, Israelis and Christians, Hussein’s Iraq has demonstrated the single greatest threat to long-term U.S. security?

Scheer seems to spin every issue to make President Bush and the administration look bad or inept while taking every possible chance to glorify the corrupt former president who happens to share his political worldview. Truth does matter, even if it apparently doesn’t to Scheer.

John Langstaff

Whittier

*

I wonder if Scheer’s psychiatrist can explain how he developed his delusional denial of Hussein’s threat? How much evidence does it take?

Walt Miglinas

Marina del Rey

*

Am I completely out of it to consider discussions such as William Arkin’s “Planning an Iraqi War but Not an Outcome” (Opinion, May 5) horrifying--the consideration of something deeply immoral? Iraq was generally condemned for its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait in 1991 and was punished for it. Now the administration is considering an unprovoked invasion of Iraq--which would deserve the same condemnation.

What principle would we be following? That might makes it OK? Aside from such small matters as managing a suitable political outcome in Iraq and an exit strategy, and the incalculable consequences in the Middle East and with regard to Arab and world opinion, isn’t there just plain morality? Shouldn’t we be working toward a world of justice and law? Only this can bring peace and stability; certainly power politics won’t.

Charles Crittenden

Lake View Terrace

*

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the world community to the evidence the U.S. is presenting regarding Iraqi missile production (May 4). If the Israeli experience is any guide, we should not expect that anyone will be swayed.

Compelling evidence of Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat’s sponsorship of terror and procurement of illegal weapons are downplayed by an outside world that resists disturbing its preconceived notions and policies. Scurrilous charges of Israeli massacres, on the other hand, are accepted at face value and are later only grudgingly disavowed. Ah, for the good old days of Sgt. Joe Friday’s “Just the facts, Ma’am.”

Larry Eisenberg

Los Angeles