In the past two editions of the paper, Mr. Scott Wacholtz has written a letter to the editor in regard to my columns. Both columns in question dealt with my feelings about war with Iraq and the Bush administration. As a disclaimer, my response comes with the utmost respect for Mr. Wacholtz who, as a Marine Corps Sergeant in Desert Storm, was much closer to Hussein than I ever hope to be.
Let me first say that his criticism was well taken. I realize that perhaps my ranting and raving against Bush may overshadow my real message. So, allow me to clarify my position on the war to avoid further misunderstanding.
I believe that Hussein is an evil man and I wouldn’t blink at his assassination. I don’t think that his administration deserves protection or should be dealt with lightly. I do not see Iraq as completely innocent, and I believe they could be a possible threat.
What I disagree with is Bush using the events of September 11th to garner support for a war against Iraq. The people who flew the planes into the WTC and Pentagon were a sect of religious fanatics with a wish to destroy America. Iraq, on the other hand, has a secular government that seeks mild control over its region and has indeterminate aims towards us. Although President Bush says that there is no difference between these two enemies, I see a huge difference and believe we should fight the one that attacked us.
Secondly, I am vehemently against Bush’s proposal allowing us to preemptively attack nations thought to be developing weapons of mass destruction. This gives our government a very dangerous power to pursue any political war in the name of war on terrorism. And it is not corrupt government officials who are going to die in these wars, it is American and, presently, Iraqi citizens.
Presently, Iraqi citizens are also going to die by the thousands. It is not Hussein who will be hurt by war, rather the Iraqi people, and I believe that is inexcusable. I hope this necessarily abridged explanation makes my stance clearer.