Questions about war linger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally published May 23, 2003
Four months ago, as President Bush and his advisers were trying to persuade the United Nations to support war against Iraq, Americans were carrying on their own debates on editorial pages and in letters-to-the-editor columns in newspapers across the country.
At the time, this page printed a few of those exchanges from newspapers in Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and Montana. Now we take a look at what people in those towns are saying today.
Now, as then, people are mostly engaged in matters of local concern - schools, roads, taxes, economic development. But just as it was then, Iraq is claiming a share of attention and worry, and some are wondering what happened to the assertions that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that directly threatened the United States.
- Compiled by Kathy Lally
The week of January 19, the Lima News in Ohio wrote a skeptical editorial about possible war in Iraq. It concluded:
"If the administration can use diplomacy and patience to deal with North Korea, it can do the same with Iraq. Keep on inspecting, by all means, but let's have an answer of substance to 'why' before saying 'war.'"
Now, the paper's editorial page is saying:
"Apparently, much of the world is finding the U.S. and British attempts to locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to be quite laughable. ...
"Yet where are these weapons that supposedly were such a threat to the United States? We never doubted that Saddam Hussein had some sort of weapons program, and we won't be surprised if something really nasty is found sometime soon.
"Still, there's a sense that the inspection efforts are mainly designed to justify a completed war. Clearly, the regime, awful as it was, never used whatever WMDs it had, even in its final throes. Makes us wonder what threat Saddam ever posed to the United States, although it is clear he routinely abused his own people. ... By all means, the world is a better place with Saddam Hussein out of power, but we are troubled by the prospect that the United States launched an offensive war based on a faulty, or exaggerated, pretext."
In January, the Cincinnati Post wrote:
"First, there has to be some mechanism in place to ensure that the world is not trading one dictator for another, that the successor government to Saddam is representative and committed to due process and human rights. And, second, aggressive arms inspections must continue until the U.N. resolution calling for elimination of weapons of mass destruction is satisfied."
Now, the Cincinnati paper is mostly sorting out local issues - school finance (it's not equitable), the Greater Cincinnati Foundation (it's doing well on its 40th anniversary), panhandling (the only way to stop it is to stop giving) along with the weaker dollar ("It's no big deal as long as the American economy is fundamentally strong, which it is, and the United States remains the safest place in the world to invest, a distinction that the administration and Congress should zealously guard"). Its most recent editorial on the Middle East discusses the suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia:
"The Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York City showed the need for all decently governed nations to stand up as one and to say such acts cannot be tolerated. ...
"Instead, such old American allies as France and Germany would not even join in facing down Saddam Hussein. ... A major issue for al-Qaida was the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. They are being withdrawn, an act made feasible by the victory in Iraq, but their withdrawal did not stop the mayhem. The quickest, most effective way to do that is for the civilized world to unite in the cause."
Letters in January to the Missoulian in Missoula, Mont., argued that North Korea was the danger, not Iraq, that oil and ambition were behind the desire for war and that it was doubtful Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
This week, letter writers complain about ties between the Bush administration and corporations benefiting from the war ("America's taxpayers should be up in arms at the procedures that got us into this war, and the cost of the post-war repair jobs contracted without bidding"); upbraid detractors of the war ("Why do you gleefully and continuously harp on the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found so far in Iraq? Finding Saddam's arsenal of chemical and biological and perhaps even nuclear weapons will take time"); and raise criticism of the war ("A 'mobile' weapons laboratory with tireless wheels? ... Please, give us a break! Or better still, give us regime change right here at home.")
An editorial in the paper argues:
"Americans supported this war, albeit not without significant dissent. We don't believe Americans would send their young men and women into battle and dig deep into their pockets merely to liberate Iraqis. But they supported the war because they trusted the president's allegations about weapons of mass destruction and their potential use by terrorists against the United States. It's a pretty big mistake if those allegations are wrong. If President Bush was mistaken about that, what else might he be mistaken about? Let's hope it's not the belief that this question isn't important."
In January, the Hannibal Courier-Post in Missouri asked its readers whether North Korea was a bigger threat than Iraq. Nearly 300 responded, and 68 percent said that North Korea was the larger threat.
Yesterday, the paper asked whether Saudi Arabia has done enough to combat terrorism. Ninety-four people replied, 86 saying no and eight saying yes.
And what are they saying in Peoria?
In January, a columnist for the Journal Star in the Illinois city wrote about a Korean War veteran who was circulating a petition against the war. There seemed to be little support around Peoria for the war, the columnist, Mike Bailey, wrote.
This week, the Peoria paper has one editorial and a few letters on the situation in the Middle East. The editorial says, in part:
"In the last year and a half the United States has fought two wars - one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq, both on the grounds that they were necessary to keep the world safe from terrorists. Deadly bombings last week in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Israel and Russia, too, and the anarchy that prevails in Iraq, call into question any claim of success."
Letter writer Burt Raabe complains that "Halliburton Inc., Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer, has now received no-bid contracts for the most lucrative oil fields in the world. ... What is bad is that American troops are used to do this business and are poorly compensated for it."
Tom Pugh, a retired Peoria newsman, writes:
"President Bush's impulsive (and unfinished) war against Iraq coupled with his glaring misdirection of America's relationships with the majority of the nations of the world have refueled the suicide bombings. Telling the world to go to hell while we went to war in Iraq has brought back the crazies. Bush's people now have to put their finally drawn road map for Palestine and Israel on hold, but do they yet have one for Iraq? Perhaps they can use Bush's map for the United States - the one that calls for going it alone in an endless war against bin Laden and more tax cuts for the rich."
Finally, Earl Sears of Tiskilwa, Ill., asks the weapons question: "With the unrelenting mantra of 'weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's hands' before the war, we now need to know the truth about whether they ever existed. It seems clear that if they are not found by now, or by the U.N. weapons inspectors before the war, they must never have existed. This country likes to celebrate a winner, but was the cost in American and Iraqi lives built on false information?"
Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun
sunspot.net |
