Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Iraq's WMD were a mirage, despite claims to the contrary

There is no dispute that Iraq used chemical weapons against its own people in the 1980s and in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein was most threatened with regime change.

But has letter writer Michael DeCicco, who accused The Sun of hiding this fact, forgotten that some of those weapons were bought from the U.S. ("Iraq's chemical weapons stocks were well documented," Dec. 28)?

None other than Donald Rumsfeld flew to Iraq to seal that deal in 1985. Your critic contends The Sun was "pants on fire" when it claimed Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. He seems to be forgetting that if that were the case, such weapons surely would have been used on American soldiers occupying the country over the last eight years.

At the very least, such weapons would have been found. Mr. DiCicco's criticism is an artless post hoc rationalization for a preemptive war that never should have been waged. He could go one-on-one with anybody when it comes to reckless disregard for the truth and wishful hyperbole.

Paul R. Schlitz Jr., Baltimore

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Lessons learned in Iraq, Rwanda

    Letter writer Paul R. Schlitz Jr. can't seem to grasp the fact that an acknowledgment of Iraq's potential to harbor weapons of mass destruction doesn't necessarily indicate current agreement with the decision to invade, nor does it require someone to justify the invasion ("Explain again why...

  • Confronting terrorism requires force
    Confronting terrorism requires force

    Regarding Barbara Risacher's recent letter on the war on terror, the least attractive option is to fail to respond forcibly to terror — a view the writer apparently favors ("New thinking in war on terror," Feb. 26).

  • Obama fails to recognize Muslim terrorist threat
    Obama fails to recognize Muslim terrorist threat

    I could care less what the global war on terrorism is called ("Not a holy war," Feb. 20). But two thoughts come to mind.

  • Islam is a religion of peace
    Islam is a religion of peace

    As an Ahmad Muslim, I believe Islam condemns terrorism and that there is no room for any violence in the name of blasphemy. The Qur'an constantly exhorts people to think while also telling Muslims to ignore the ignorant and provocative, not harm them.

  • Our real Mideast problem: Support for despots
    Our real Mideast problem: Support for despots

    I agree with both presidents Obama and Bush that the U.S. is not engaged in a war against Islam and that the Islamic State, or ISIS, does not represent a legitimate interpretation of that religion ("Not a holy war," Feb. 20).

  • Obama not standing up to terrorists
    Obama not standing up to terrorists

    I am a committed U.S. citizen who loves his country, a former U.S. Marine and a participating Jew, but I am currently feeling some concern and fear. I strongly believe that when leadership loses the respect and trust of the majority, it's time to re-evaluate or step aside. I believe that we...

  • With ISIS, give peace a chance
    With ISIS, give peace a chance

    Finding a president asking Congress for permission to go to war is about as rare as finding a liberal Republican. So it was a surprise to read that President Obama has formally asked Congress to authorize military operations against the Islamic State ("Obama seeks war powers," Feb. 12).

  • Oversight in the ISIS campaign
    Oversight in the ISIS campaign

    President Barack Obama's decision to ask Congress to formally authorize the use of force against the Islamic State, or ISIS, under the War Powers Act sparked the predictable partisan reactions, with Democrats complaining the proposed authority is too broad and Republicans fretting that there...

Comments
Loading