Intelligence, or Lack Thereof, on Iraq

Re “A Flawed Intelligence,” editorial, Jan. 27: It is actually The Times’ opinion, and not the administration’s interpretation of weapons of mass destruction intelligence, that is flawed. The Times failed to mention the two primary prerequisites to a proper understanding of the Iraq WMD issue. The first is the inherent imprecision of intelligence gathering. The history of the CIA is full of faulty methods and false conclusions. The second is the well-documented history of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which included all manner of WMD, a nuclear weapons program and a program to conceal it all from the world’s attention.

Even if the CIA had concluded in 2003 that Iraq was free of WMD, the administration would have had to believe that Hussein had finally decided that the U.S. was right after all, that he really didn’t need to have these weapons and that he was going to destroy them and behave himself ... but just not tell anybody about it. Now, if they had believed that, there would be true justification for criticism of the administration.

Roger Moshgat

San Diego

*

Michael Ramirez’s “Look no further ... ,” showing Hussein as the “weapon of mass destruction” (editorial cartoon, Commentary, Jan. 27), would make a lot more sense if it had President Bush in the picture with Hussein. After all, both leaders defined their administrations by opposition to each other, led their nations into war for no good reason and pitted various groups within their nations against each other to stay in power -- all the while claiming to be unifying and beloved leaders.

Kit Stolz

Upper Ojai

*

Re “A Reclusive Cleric Holds the Power,” Commentary, Jan. 27: Yitzhak Nakash’s call for the Bush administration to give Iraqis “a chance to articulate the working of an Islamic democracy” is alarming.

Like the U.S., Iraq is a multiethnic and multireligious society that, for millenniums, has been home to Christians and Jews -- even before the advent of Islam. Should such people be subjected to a national law based on Sharia, or Islamic law, just because they do not make up a majority? In establishing a new Iraq, the religious freedom of minorities must be safeguarded; otherwise democracy and freedom will never flourish and the region will remain as unstable as ever.

Damian Bacich

Los Angeles

*

The Democratic Party needs to build a bridge and get over the war in Iraq. Democratic administrations have been in charge of the government through four wars: World War I, World War II, Korea and part of the Vietnam War. Terrorists and insurgents know they can’t win the war in Iraq, but they hope a victory can be won on American soil by liberal protest. Domestic issues are fair game. The freedom of 25 million people from a brutal, murdering maniac should not be a matter of political debate.

Patrick L. Paulsen

Arroyo Grande

*

How many deaths must there be in Iraq in a single day for it to be mentioned on the front page? “Baghdad Hotel Hit by Suicide Bomber” (Jan. 28), on Page A8, reported 14 deaths in Iraq, with six American soldiers and two CNN employees among them. It was apparently deemed less newsworthy than the front-page stories on Miramax being shut out of the Oscar nominations for best film, the comeback of the wine industry and the efforts to revive the Rapa Nui language.

Charles M. Knobler

Los Angeles

*

Missing from “Bush Defends Iraq War, Intelligence Agencies”(Jan. 28) is the president’s most shocking statement made that day. Referring to Hussein, Bush said, “He chose defiance ... he did not let us in.” This has got to be news to Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspection team.

David Baird

Los Angeles

*

Regarding the juxtaposition of “Powell Says Iraq Arms an Open Question” and “5 U.S. Troops, 4 Iraqi Civilians Slain in Sunni Region” on Jan. 25: One story told of the former chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay and of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell all but confirming the falsity of Bush’s stated reason for the Iraq war. The other related the most recent deaths in that war. Bush’s lie and its consequences -- all on one page. This raises several questions. For The Times: Why wasn’t the account of Bush’s heinous duplicity featured on the front page instead of buried inside? For Congress: Where are the impeachment hearings? For Americans: Where is the outrage?

David S. Ettinger

Oak Park