Iraq Is Dean’s Line in the Sand

Re “Democratic Candidates Find Themselves Caught in a Hole of Their Own,” Commentary, Dec. 16: Max Boot is always good for a laugh or two with his shoddy logic.

Commenting that “the Bush administration has made more than its share of mistakes in Iraq, but the Democratic candidates have no plausible alternative plan” is like saying that the guy who broke into the liquor store shouldn’t go to jail because his buddies don’t know what to do with the loot. Regardless of how often people trot out the old excuse that Saddam Hussein was evil and the world is better without him, the president’s ends don’t justify these means: stonewalling the 9/11 investigation, lying to the American people about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda connections to start a war, outing a CIA operative and awarding fat no-bid contracts to administration cronies.

Lon Shapiro

Granada Hills

*

I will support Howard Dean in 2004. He is the only Democratic candidate who did not try to play it politically safe when Hussein was captured, but stuck to his morally and legally justified position (Dec. 16). It was sickening to see his opponents, especially Sen. Joe Lieberman, hurry to embrace President Bush’s war.

How can they justify spending $150 billion-plus, killing thousands of Iraqi civilians, destroying the infrastructure of the country, sacrificing 450-plus young American military personnel -- not to mention the thousands wounded, some maimed for life -- to catch one man? A man who had been wooed and supported by the U.S. governments of Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush.

Therese Ballet Lynn

Laguna Beach

*

Despite his lamentable track record, Michael Ramirez hit a new low with his despicable depiction of Hussein wearing campaign buttons for Democratic candidates for president and an “I love the U.N.” T-shirt (editorial cartoon, Commentary, Dec. 16). Considering the far right’s longtime association with Hussein (can anyone forget that photograph of him happily shaking hands with a beaming Donald Rumsfeld in the 1980s?), Ramirez’s hypocrisy is almost as appalling as his lack of talent.

John Nelson

Santa Monica

*

Re “Bush’s Political Gain Must Pass Test of Time,” news analysis, Dec. 15: Democrats must not allow Hussein’s capture to divert Americans from recognizing that the real danger facing the country is the reelection of Bush in 2004. Bush’s unwise, radical, far-right domestic agenda and his arrogant, unilateral foreign policy are a far greater threat to the U.S. than Hussein.

To win, it is critical that the Democratic presidential candidate get this message across to the American voters and convince them that he or she can stop the Bush express and get America back on the right track.

Sylvan Gollin

Claremont

*

“Party May Be Over for Centrists,” by Matthew Dallek (Opinion, Dec. 14) appears to be another step in the right-wing takeover of the media.

Saying that Dean’s portrayal of Democratic war supporters as being too cozy with Bush is “specious” is to say that opposing a war that was promoted with lies and motivated by politics is dishonest. Claiming that “in the world after Sept. 11, 2001, defense is the paramount issue” is an attempt to claim that Bush’s militaristic, unilateral policies in some way will be effective at reducing terrorism, even when Iraq has clearly become a more hospitable environment for it. Saying “Democratic moderates still have a chance to defeat Dean” is clearly an attempt to label Dean with the poisoned term “liberal,” even though Dean is a strong supporter of balanced budgets and gun owners’ rights. Dallek threw the first punch, and I won’t take that sitting down!

Scott Peer

Glendale