Iraq Investigation Should Be Nonpartisan

Re “Bush Will Name Panel to Probe Intelligence,” Feb. 2: I do not believe President Bush should appoint the entire panel intended to investigate the obviously flawed intelligence from the CIA concerning the presence or, as we now know, the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Given that this is directly related to the administration’s deliberative process underpinning a preemptive war with Iraq that circumvented the constitutional process, if Bush appoints this entire commission, I and no doubt many other Americans will not believe the conclusions of the panel.

It is essential that this investigative commission not lean in any given political direction, and it requires the presence of people of trusted character, such as former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), former CIA Director Robert Gates and preferably David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector.

Having watched the evolution of policy go from imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, with a veritable mushroom cloud appearing outside my kitchen window, to, now, “intentions” of potential WMD programs in the future, there is an obvious need for this commission to not only assess the transit of intelligence provided to the administration but to equally assess the decision process that resulted in war with Iraq -- a war in which Bush has committed billions of our taxpayer dollars and in which we are losing our loved ones at the rate of nearly one soldier per day.

Jacquelyn

Beauregard Dillman

Newport Beach

*

Gary Schmitt’s “Our Basic Instincts Were Sound” (Opinion, Feb. 1) is 5% fact and 95% “spin.” Our intelligence failure to assess the presence of these weapons in Iraq (in 2003) is clearly overshadowed by the failure to correctly assess Saddam Hussein’s intentions regarding their usage. The Bush administration has yet to satisfactorily address the question, “Why didn’t Iraq use weapons of mass destruction in 1991, when it had the opportunity and means, against the U.S. forces or in Scud missile warheads against Israel or Saudi Arabia?” The answer to this question undermines the whole myth of a Hussein “threat.”

John F. DeYulia

Nipomo, Calif.

*

“A Culture of Corruption” (Feb. 1), concerning the ongoing corruption in Iraq and our apathy toward it, only goes to prove what I’ve been saying is right. We didn’t go into Iraq to toss Hussein out because of his alleged weapons of mass destruction. And we didn’t go there to save his people from a tyrannical ruler or to make the world safer. We went into Iraq for one reason and one reason only: to toss Hussein out so that we could set up a U.S.-Britain-friendly government that would give us all the oil we want. We couldn’t care less if the new government is more corrupt than Hussein’s. All we want is the oil.

Thomas Cresswell

Lakewood

*

“The Lies That Bind Us to Iraq” (Commentary, Feb. 3) comments about one of the primary lessons of Vietnam. That is, we must be wary of claims that we must invade a country to save it. I believe another lesson is just as important. As with the Vietnam conflict, we could leave Iraq precipitously and still retain our prestige and power. Isn’t it right to save lives by leaving Iraq now?

Gene Menzies

Rodeo, Calif.

*

Intelligence. The president proclaims that he wants the facts. And if they lead us to the conclusion that Bush sacrificed innocent civilians and soldiers just to enact regime change regardless of the facts, the only intelligent thing to do is to let the impeachment begin.

Mark Andresen

Los Angeles

*

It makes me sick to my stomach that our media are demanding an explanation on behalf of an outraged electorate for being duped into believing our president’s justification for war. The real outrage here should be the thousands of innocent civilians lying dead in Iraq.

Mike Severa

Pasadena