Rumsfeld’s Testimony on Iraq War Decision

In the weeks and months leading up to our preemptive attack on Iraq, the administration was unequivocal in statements regarding Iraq’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction.” Iraq absolutely was a clear and imminent threat to this nation and the world, we were told. Our allies claimed Iraq could mount an attack with only 45 minutes’ notice. Iraq had sought nuclear materials from Niger, in Africa, President Bush told us in his State of the Union speech.

Now Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, tells us that our attack wasn’t really based on any new evidence but that “we saw the existing evidence in a new light -- through the prism of our experience on 9/11” (July 10). Very eloquent. But still wrong. No matter how many times they say it, there is still no evidence Iraq was involved in the tragedy of September 2001 or that Iraq was a threat to the United States or our allies. Even worse, Bush says he is still “absolutely confident of the decision [he] made,” despite all the facts to the contrary.

With the majority of the country still supporting Bush and his war machine, please sign me absolutely, unequivocally proud to be so out of step with my countrymen.

Bryan Hays

Saugus

*

The spin doctors of our administration are at it again. In the congressional hearing, Rumsfeld baldly said that “facts change from time to time” when referring to Iraq’s allegedly trying to buy uranium from Niger. Bush had made this claim in his State of the Union speech, based on the unreliable evidence of a forged document, and Rumsfeld is now trying to get him off the hook. Aren’t facts immutable? Facts can’t change, though I guess that if enough spin is put on our involvement in the Iraq war the administration thinks the public can be made to believe anything.

Nate Rubin

Los Angeles

*

Bush oxymoron: What did he know and when did he know it?

Ritas Smith

Torrance

*

It would be simpler if the administration would admit that the war in Iraq was a show of force to prove to countries in the Middle East and around the world that we will not stand for their support of terrorism or the development of nuclear weapons and will act unilaterally to stop them.

I feel that Iraq was a convenient target. It is small, weak and has a lot of oil. And George Bush Sr.’s grudge against Saddam Hussein would be avenged.

The lack of opposition by the Iraqi army was probably a deliberate plan by Hussein to get the U.S. bogged down there for an indeterminate period.

The Iraqis have unlimited patience and are counting on our lack of resolve in the face of daily casualties and the prospect of an endless (as in Vietnam) war. I hope that we have more success in finding Hussein than we did in Afghanistan with finding Osama bin Laden. I wonder what we have accomplished with all of this.

Arthur Friedman

Newport Beach