Opinion Iraq was a threat

Eric Dolson's reply to Mr. Williams (The Nugget, August 4) begs for rebuttal.

You said the push for war in Iraq following an attack by an enemy based in Afghanistan was like declaring war against Argentina after being attacked by the Japanese.

In fact, it was the attack by al Qaeda that opened the eyes (of some) to the magnitude of the threat posed by terrorists worldwide.

A better analogy would have been to point out that the attack by the Japanese opened our eyes to the risk posed by Germany and justified our entry into that war.

You said, "there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction (so far)."

In fact, there were such weapons used by Saddam at least 10 times since 1983. (Sandy Berger, former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, February 18, 1998).

Madeline Albright also noted, on the same date, "Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

A rather prominent democrat, Al Gore, said September 23, 2002, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry said, October 9, 2002, "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Finally, as Mr. Williams correctly stated, Russian, British and American intelligence agencies were all convinced of the existence of such weapons.

The fact that we have not yet found the weapons now in no way invalidates the perception of risk then.

You said, "There was no firm link between Saddam and al Qaeda."

In fact, the 9/11 commission report , widely accepted by both sides, documents such links (though none specifically with 9/11).

You failed to rebut the most important justification for the war: that Saddam had violated more that a dozen U.N. resolutions and that the U.N. was unwilling or unable to enforce its own sanctions.

You said, "Bush Corporation pushed for this war to change the balance of power in the Middle East and get rid of a threat to Israel."

Given Saddam's history of brutality in his own country and invasion of Kuwait, I submit that the regime change was a laudable goal -- and if it lessens the risk faced by other countries in the Middle East, so much the better.

You said, "(By pursuing the Iraq war) we have failed to win in Afghanistan..." I believe that our objectives have been met in Afghanistan: the Taliban has been displaced, that al Qaeda leadership and training camps have been decimated and that they are much less capable of posing a major terror threat.

You said, "(By pursuing the Iraq war) we destroyed relationships with allies..." While some former allies are estranged, that was of their choosing and may prove to be a good thing.

I believe the ongoing investigation of the U.N. scandal will show the theft of billions from the Iraqi people to line the pockets of French, Russian and German businesses and politicians as well as some U.N. leaders. Such "allies" are better considered enemies.

You said, "We had no plan for the aftermath." This totally unsupported conjecture asks readers to believe that you know the absence of plans of our state department, military, and other government agencies. Do you mean that there is no plan or that you do not agree with the plan?

You said, "Bush put Enron in charge of writing energy policy, drug companies in charge of writing Medicare law and Halliburton in charge of planning for post war Iraq."

These wild and outlandish accusations are completely unsupported with facts or logic and do not belong in a serious debate.

I would like to join Mr. Williams and others who have challenged you to provide more balanced editorial content.