I'd like to respond to Lynn Hawkins' letter concluding Bush lied about Iraqi WMD intelligence, ("Quit making excuse for Bush's errors in Iraq," YourViews, Nov. 29).
During the Clinton administration, the U.N. passed resolution after resolution to try to get Saddam to comply with the weapons inspection program. The U.N. talked tough, but was afraid to confront Saddam militarily. Even some Democrat senators chimed in that Saddam was a threat to the world. So, the Bush White House had good reason to be discussing plans to invade Iraq from day one.
Additionally, Democrat congressmen looked at the same intelligence as the Bush White House before many of them voted to approve the invasion of Iraq. Yet today, they act as if they had no part in the decision to go to war. They blame Bush for the faulty intelligence, but he's not the cause.
The intelligence problem stems from the Clinton administration when the CIA was neutered courtesy of Clinton appointee Jamie Gorelick. Under Gorelick's directive, the CIA was banned from paying certain people for information. This choked the flow of valuable and reliable information.
Of course, the Democrat-controlled media yawned at this news. Had this happened under a Republican administration, the media attack dogs would've had their teeth into this for weeks. And certainly, the 9/11 commission would have concluded this was why the CIA failed to connect the dots.
We could debate the merits of the decision to invade Iraq for years to come. However, it won't change the situation our troops are facing now. Democrats continue to whine about the war and attack the Bush White House. Yet, the only solution they offer is for our military to retreat and accept defeat.
What would this world be like today, if Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt or Reagan chose that option? To the whiners, let's hear some viable solutions.
Jerry L. Funk