WMD as a Justification for War

Re “High Crimes, Misdemeanors,” Commentary, June 17:

Robert Scheer’s column is an important one, especially as a contrast to Michael Ramirez’s cartoon on the same page.

It is easy for the debate over weapons of mass destruction to be misdirected into being a proxy for whether the invasion of Iraq was justified. Regardless of the outcome of the weapons hunt, I and millions of others will continue to believe that the war was wrong. Scheer keeps a proper focus on the inquiry.

There must be a thorough and impartial investigation regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, particularly whether the president was truthful when he assured us of their existence. But the results will not determine the propriety of the war. Rather, they will tell us whether a special prosecutor and an impeachment hearing are necessary.

David S. Ettinger

Oak Park

*

Mr. Scheer, consider the following questions: Did you truly believe the Hussein administration was going to comply with United Nations diplomacy? If weapons of mass destruction are not found, isn’t the world, especially the Iraqi people, eventually going to be better off without Saddam Hussein anyway? If the members of the Bush administration are as evil and corrupt as you insist, why have they been honest about not finding WMD?

Andy Radden

Venice

*

When [former Nixon White House counsel] John Dean says that President Bush is “cooked” if he lied to the American people, Dean is simply wrong, because middle America simply doesn’t care.

No weapons of mass destruction? So what! A sea of red ink? -- yawn. Nukes in North Korea? -- ZZZZZZZ. However, if Bush were to be caught with an intern, Hail President Kerry!

David Strauss

Arcadia