My thoughts exactly - Iraq

Rarely do I find it worthwhile to read the letters to the editor, for any magazine. I got bored, so I read Newsweek's 2004-04-19 editions, and came across this gem from Allen Markham of Caldwell, N.J. Couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. Markham.

Through eight long years of the Clinton administration and eight short months of the Bush administration, the United States failed to invade Afghanistan, a country that was harboring terrorists who might have committed terrorist acts. And for failing to invade Afghanistan so that 9/11 might have been prevented, we accuse President Bush and his administration of acting irresponsibly. Two years later the U.S. launches an invasion against a country with a history of attacking its neighbors, using chemical weapons, violating 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, circumventing sanctions to acquire billions of dollars to fund its illegal activities and that appeared to be building or obtaining weapons of mass destruction. And for invading Iraq before something devastating happens we accuse the Bush administration of acting irresponsibly. What have I missed? Can the president be equally irresponsible both for not invading Afghanistan based on limited information (primarily obtained and not acted upon by the previous administration) and for invading Iraq based on more extensive information?

Written by Andrew Ittner in misc on Fri 23 April 2004. Tags: commentary, international