[SOC] presidential lies

[Lloyd Lachow]

Monday, July 14, 2003, 12:00 A.M. Pacific

Permission to reprint or copy this article/photo must 
be obtained from 
The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail 
resale@seattletimes.com 
with your request.

Letters to the editor


First casualty of war

Truth be told, the president's words must be justified

Editor, The Times:

If lying about sex (with) a White House intern is an 
impeachable 
offense, how can the invasion of a sovereign country 
not be an 
impeachable offense if it is justified with lies? 
("Iraq report doubted 
'from day one,' " Times, News, July 11.)

The bottom line is, if George W. Bush looked you and 
me in the eye and 
lied to us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, 
he and his 
administration may be responsible for thousands of 
wrongful deaths. If 
it is shown that the citizens of the United States 
were lied to, 
Congress must either consider impeachment or redefine 
the phrase "high 
crimes and misdemeanors."

I have no doubt Saddam Hussein was a monster and 
needed to be dealt 
with. I also have no doubt that one Gulf of Tonkin per

lifetime is more 
than enough.

If the citizens of the United States were lied to, 
Congress must act. I 
only hope our president's words were based on fact. 
The alternative is 
too terrible to contemplate.
- Mike Borfitz, Seattle

Waltz of the tin soldiers

Once there was a bungled burglary that a sitting 
elected president lied 
about. It was the proverbial tempest in a teapot, 
but... The result? He 
was eventually forced to resign that lofty post to 
avoid being 
impeached. Nobody died, anywhere.

Then there was a downright slapstick liaison between a

sitting elected 
president and an idiotic intern, about which the 
president lied. The 
result? After costing taxpayers millions of dollars 
and months and 
months of wasted time, he was indeed impeached. (The 
whole world 
wondered if America had totally lost its collective 
mind.) Nobody died, 
anywhere.

Now we have a sitting appointed president who lied � 
tough if you don't 
like that phrase; he did lie, repeatedly � about the 
threat to our 
country and, ergo, waltzed us into a pre-emptive war 
which shows no 
signs of being justified in the foreseeable future. 
Thousands of Iraqi 
civilians have died, their country is in ruin, 
sentiment is escalating 
on a daily basis against us, the invaders. And 
hundreds of our terrific 
service people have died and continue to die on a 
daily basis.

And the sitting president and his cohorts do not want 
a thorough 
investigation?
- Jean L. Hohnstein, Port Townsend

Don't ask, do tell

It is very ironic that the Bush administration finally

admits to lying 
about the WMDs, which was the main reason for 
attacking Iraq ("White 
House: Bush was wrong by saying Saddam sought uranium 
in Africa," News, 
July 8), but calls the Iraqi people who want U.S. out 
of their occupied 
land either "terrorists" or "Saddam loyalists." How 
could you call 
people who fight an invasion force occupying their 
homeland "terrorists" 
but not the invaders? And why would they have to be 
"Saddam loyalists" 
for wanting an invasion force that has ruined their 
country out of their 
home?

The twisting of facts and lying never stop and the 
surprise is that 
people of the world are asking questions and are mad 
but not people here 
in this country. Do we have to ask "Why they hate us" 
around the world, 
or is it pretty obvious?
- Farokh Talebi, Kirkland

Light on doubt

Our president "dismisses criticism of false 
intelligence" and has " 'no 
doubt' going to war was right" ("Bush dismisses 
criticism of false Iraq 
intelligence," News, July 10). President Bush, and 
British Prime 
Minister Tony Blair, apparently feel the end justifies

the means.

Forgive me, sirs, but I don't think we've seen the end

of the Iraqi 
tunnel yet. Some of us, however, have begun to see the

light.
- Constance Chaplin, Seattle

Truth movements

Last spring, Times' headlines screamed with President 
Bush's 
declarations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

and was an 
immediate threat to the U.S. Bush claimed in his State

of the Union 
address that Iraq had tried to buy large amounts of 
uranium from Africa 
in order to make nuclear bombs. On July 8, the story 
that Bush lied when 
he made this claim got exactly three column inches in 
a sidebar on page 
A9. Do you think your readers care so little about 
such an egregious 
offense, a lie that has led to hundreds of dead 
people?
- Aaron Katz, Seattle

The pen is mightier

George Bush, trying to deflect inquiries about his 
claims that Iraq had 
tried to purchase nuclear materials in Africa, tells 
African leaders 
that those trying to find the truth are "rewriting 
history" ("Bush 
dismisses criticism of false Iraq intelligence," page 
one, July 10).

Pardon me, Mr. Bush, but I do believe that lying is 
your attempt to 
rewrite history. It is the Bush administration that 
has been rewriting 
history all along, exposed in its lies about Iraq's 
WMDs.
- Denise Bowden, Seattle



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com