To the editor:
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm tired of hearing the holier-than-thou crowd complaining about the "unjustified pre-emptive strike" Bush launched against Iraq. The moral of their story seems to be: The evil tyrant didn't have some specific weapons that we thought he did, so we were wrong. (And should put him back in power?) I am glad as heck that we got rid of that evil man and removed him from power. We were right, period.
There weren't any biological, chemical or atomic weapons (that we can find in the vast sandbox yet), but Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction! How many more people did he have to torture and murder before you consider that "mass destruction"? Perhaps you feel it was right to allow him to continue to rape, torture and murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but I thank God there are countries and leaders in this world with the guts to stand up to the paid-off United Nations and stop a weapon of mass destruction by removing him from power.
So your rationale would argue the following: A convicted felon parent is abusing his children, unbeknownst to the authorities. They receive a tip that he owns a firearm (illegal as a felon). They raid his house based on the false information and discover no weapons, just badly beaten children. You are telling me I am wrong to step in and defend those kids because he isn't guilty of what I originally thought? Sad.
Susan Mangan,
Lawrence
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.