War on Terror

Once again it is nice to hear from you and let me start by saying that just because you disagree with the President's strategies I know that doesn't make you agree with Hussein or any dictator for that matter and if anyone accuses you of that they are ignorant and naive. With that said I must state that though you have a valid point that their are many other dictators that have yet been touched by us, I would agree, but you must realize we had so much evidence to go into Iraq and people still give the US grief whether it is foreign governments and their disapproval of our country or whether it is democrats and their disapproval of the Bush administration advocating another conflict with another dictator could tear this country apart even farther. Now you state that their are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but we know their are still some or they have used some because the US gave them chemical weapons to combat Iran. Just follow this link to quotes from the Clinton Administration regarding Saddam and the state of Iraq <http://www.snopes.com... If you need any further evidence you can go to the following link to see a written dialogue of President Clinton's address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and also Pentagon Staff regarding the threat Iraq poses with its weapons of mass destruction. <http://www.cnn.com...; Dealing with the torture you say we do and how deadly it is follow this link you will see that our supposed torture not only saves American lives and the lives of all of our allies <http://www.ibdeditorials.com...;. It is far less dangerous and inhumane then the treatment that is being seen from terrorist upon civilians ex. Beheading of Nick Berg. To compare water boarding or putting underwear on prisoners heads to what terrorist do is very misguided and I feel you are slightly miss informed. By the way here is a torture guide book found by US Armed forces showing how Al-Qaeda tortures. Although I couldn't find an exact number the following is a new clip found in the Washington Post (8/28/98): The Washington Post's Gas Attack Today's outrage was yesterday's no big deal By Seth Ackerman In the midst of the 1998 standoff over Iraqi weapons inspections, an almost frantic editorial ran in the Washington Post (8/28/98). Brimming with urgency, the editorialise declared that "22 days have now passed without United Nations inspections of Saddam Hussein's weapons-making capabilities. That is 22 days during which he could work unimpeded to develop chemical, biological and nuclear arms. This is a dictator who has used chemical weapons, on his own people and on his enemies, and who would use them again." It wasn't the first reminder from the Post that Iraq has used gas. From time to time the editorialises drop references to "Saddam Hussein, who used chemical weapons against his own people" (3/13/02). "He has used such weapons before," they note (1/7/99), "against his own people." "Saddam Hussein has indeed used poison gas to murder thousands of his own people" (2/3/02). "He is a man who had used chemical weapons on his own people" (6/8/91)--and he also heads "a regime that has used poison gas on its own people" (11/13/97). Saddam Hussein's use of poison gas in the 1980's is, for the Post, Exhibit A--proof that 1) Iraq poses a terrifying threat to the world; 2) the global oil embargo on Iraq must be maintained; 3) the U.S. and other countries should periodically bomb Iraq when it is seen to be defying Washington; and 4) the U.S. should overthrow the Iraqi government by force when the right moment arises. "Only Saddam Hussein's removal from power can ultimately erase the threat that Iraq currently poses to its region and the world," the Post wrote in a typical editorial (12/17/98)--proving the point a few paragraphs later by once again recalling Saddam's use, a decade earlier, of the aforementioned "weapons...against his own people." It has been almost 15 years since Iraq last made use of chemical arms. If the memory of Baghdad's use of poison gas in the now largely forgotten Iran/Iraq War (1980-88) still conjures up such violent reactions from the Washington Post more than a decade later, one wonders: What must the paper's fury have been like at the very moment of the deed, in the aftermath of the carnage, when the horror of Saddam's cruelty stood fresh in the mind, without years of distance to mellow the shock? How did the Post react when Iraq actually used poison gas "on his own people and on his enemies"? Thank you for the time and I will await your response good night.