To the Editor:
A letter writer on March 22 says it is “astounding” that some people who opposed the invasion of Iraq now support the action in Libya and posits that they base their judgments “purely on who was in the Oval Office.” That is not so.
The invasion of Iraq was sold to the American people on the grounds that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that were an immediate threat to the United States. The Bush administration also missed no opportunity to link Saddam Hussein wrongly to Sept. 11. Thus, the invasion of Iraq was undertaken dishonestly.
I am unsure of my support for the Libyan action, and President Obama may well be wrong in his decision to intervene, but the level of commitment and the urgency of the situation in Libya are not remotely like that in Iraq. Those factors are far more relevant than who is in the Oval Office.
Kenneth R. Robinson
Eugene, Ore., March 22, 2011
Note from KBJ: Two things. First, the letter writer is misinformed. The invasion of Iraq was "sold" on two grounds, not one: liberation of the Iraqi people and disarmament of Iraq. He needs to refresh his memory or stop lying. Second, at the time of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, everyone, including opponents of President Bush, believed (quite reasonably) that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). I can see how someone might have opposed the war once it was learned that there were no WMDs, but I don't understand how someone could have opposed the war before this was learned. I certainly don't understand how someone could have opposed the war before this was learned while also supporting the current war (military intervention) in Libya. Nobody suspects Muammar Gaddafi of having WMDs.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 