Bush Meets Up With Hard Questions About Iraq

Re “Bush Concedes Flaws in Iraq Weapons Data,” Feb. 9: President Bush’s “vision” for what he wants to do with the country evidently does not include the need for evidence. On “Meet the Press,” he told Tim Russert he “expected to find the weapons” while admitting “there [was] no such thing” as “ironclad, absolutely solid evidence” when it came to Saddam Hussein. Yet the commander in chief saw fit to send in the “young ones,” ultimately leading to 530 deaths and 3,000 casualties.

The president maintains that “every life is precious,” though proof of WMD apparently is not. Bush also asserts that “we are welcome in Iraq,” but with daily, numerous attacks on U.S. soldiers, where is his evidence? The only ironclad evidence we have now is of the (White) House of cards collapsing.

Eric Burgess

Monrovia

*

Russert asked Bush about twisting facts to get us into war with Iraq. Bush sidestepped the issue of facts, stating, “we had the best intelligence possible.” Does that mean it’s OK to extrapolate and fabricate and lie to Congress? It is apparent that Bush wants things his way, and he thinks that since so many American voters favor him as president, they will condone his lying and maneuvering if he wins his battles. Russert did a good job of putting the facts in front of the president. Too bad the president won’t come clean.

Greg Golden

Van Nuys

*

Why do the mainstream media continue to ignore Saddam Hussein’s acknowledged and even avowed links to terrorism inside and outside of his country? In my view, unprovoked bombing of civilian population centers and actively supporting suicide bombing in Israel clearly qualify as terrorism. In this estimation, we do not need to consult with the CIA, because the Iraqi leadership has been quite deliberate and open concerning this terror.

Of course, we know the sad answer to this question. To the international community, especially to the United Nations, terrorism committed against the Israelis does not count as such.

Carl Groner

Irvine

*

I’m getting very weary of Bush’s defense of his bellicosity by invoking the rhetoric of “freedom” and “liberty.” Is he talking about our freedom to marry whom we wish, or freedom to medicate, smoke or ingest what we choose, or freedom to talk on the telephone without his eavesdroppers overhearing our conversations, or freedom to check out library books without the risk of defending our choices before his tribunals? Is that the freedom and liberty our soldiers have died for?

Floyd Sherman

Encino

*

Maybe they’ll find George’s missing military records with the missing weapons of mass destruction.

Robert Steward

West Hills