Ignorance is bliss for Monday, Crews

Like it or not, Iraq was supposed to be a stepping stone to engage Iran and Syria. President Bush doesn’t have to openly discuss his war tactics in detail with the general public if he doesn’t see fit. I believe he didn’t say this at the time because he didn’t want the left wing media (about 80 percent of all media) to make a circus out of his plans.

What is a WMD? The term “weapon of mass destruction” encompasses nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, which don’t distinguish between soldier and civilian. After invading Iraq, everyone found enormous stockpiles of WMDs that had been given to Saddam by mainly the French and Russians. I do believe Saddam possessed nuclear WMDs because there is so much overwhelming proof. Why did Iraqi scientists openly admit they had WMDs? Why did weapons science labs have computer drives wiped clean before inspectors came? Why did Iraqi General Georges Sada admit Saddam had nuclear WMDs flown on civilian aircraft to Syria before being found? What about the massive underground networks built for the purpose of secretly moving across Iraq? The NY Times even admitted Iraq was only about a year from producing nuclear WMDs themselves, let alone possessing them by other means.

Mr. Monday, the reason we aren’t in Darfur is because Darfur is a UN problem, not a US problem. It’s a pity the UN is so weak, yet liberals still need their permission to go to war.

Mr. Crews, I know all about military axioms and Just War Theory. According to Just War Theory, Bush had justifiable reasons to go to war. The troops in combat did have chemical warfare suits; I don’t know where you get your faulty information.

Mr. Crews and Jim Perrington suggest that if the enemy possesses a weapon that causes mass casualties and we cannot neutralize it, the military shouldn’t send troops to fight. So, is the implication we just roll over and play dead and perhaps give some lip service to the enemy in a situation like that?

David Meyers