To the editor:

In an AP article on Saturday, Slobodan Lekic writes, “A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction.”

Lekic further writes, “If true, it would indicate there was no imminent unconventional weapons threat from Iraq, an argument President Bush used to go to war.”

That is not an accurate statement.

President Bush used the word “imminent” in his State of the Union address as follows: “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?”

Here is how the president actually characterized the Iraqi threat: “The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.”

It is clear that the president stated that the serious and mounting threat had to be stopped before it became imminent.

Lekic also writes the aide claims that, by the mid-1990s, “it was common knowledge among the leadership,” that Iraq had destroyed its chemical stocks and discontinued development of biological and nuclear weapons.

If that is true, why did John Kerry and 13 other Senate Democrats in October 1998 urge President Clinton to launch missile strikes on Iraq in response to “the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program”? And why did President Clinton order those strikes in December 1998?

Kevin Groenhagen,

Lawrence