Recent letters in the Roundup have demonized President Bush. Typically, it is alleged he involved us in a war with Iraq by a lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
This claim should not be an issue in this presidential election, for three reasons:
First, there is no convincing evidence to support the truth of this claim. Secondly, it may unnecessarily involve our country in terrorist attacks and other hostilities because terrorists will have been misled about the resolve of the American people. Thirdly, many people in the United States respect President Bush, and such an argument may result in their voting against the Democrat candidate because they consider such a claim to be unfair and baseless. Is this claim, plus empty promises, all they can offer?
On the basis of events up to this point, it is more likely that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction than they don't. They consistently blocked, delayed and denied access to United Nations inspectors. It was pointless to do that if they had nothing to hide. Saddam Hussein was too smart, and too power hungry, to provoke a war over a non-issue.
Chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction are sufficiently compact that they could easily be hidden in a country much larger than Arizona. For security reasons, very few people would know the location of weapons of mass destruction. Those people would be unlikely to reveal the location of such weapons for fear of being killed by radical terrorists. Such weapons may recently have been moved out of Iraq to a friendly neighboring country.
Campaign debate on weapons of mass destruction issues may suggest to terrorists that America is weak, divided and undecided. Consequently, they can attack our vital interests with impunity.
They may believe that a Democrat administration will bring the troops home immediately. If a civil war arose in Iraq as a result, they might consider that Iraq would be a very good location for their international operations. If Democrats followed their pattern of reducing military appropriations, American intervention would be unlikely.
The terrorists might think that, as in Spain, they could manipulate the American election results by a major attack immediately before the election that would be even more damaging than the 9/11 attack. Of course, the object of the attack would be to produce an election result they considered favorable.
With today's weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist mentality, the current debate on the Iraq war involves a huge risk.
Jim Winter, Payson