President's folly in Iraq continues

I was taken aback by your editorial concerning the mother who wanted to know why President Bush killed her son ("To a grieving mother," Aug. 10).

You say that Bush didn't kill her son; the terrorists did. But Bush is the one who sent him there to die. Bush started the war for one reason: to avenge Bush Sr.: "After all, (Saddam Hussein) tried to kill my dad." Bush tried to say that Iraq was behind 9-11, which it certainly was not.

Stories about "contact" between Osama bin Laden and Saddam were just trumped-up tales. Bush twisted facts to support his goal of overthrowing Saddam, which he had even before going to Washington.

Then there was the myth of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors were on the ground, finding nothing. That didn't stop Bush. War preparations were underway months before, including building airfields in Kuwait.

You try to draw a parallel between Bush's war and World War II. There is no parallel. World War II started for us when Japan attacked us, which led to our declaration of war against them. A few days later, Germany declared war against us.

Iraq didn't declare war on us. We attacked them. They were no threat to us, despite Bush's posturing.

You urge us not to dishonor Cindy Sheehan's fallen son by failing to complete this "critical" mission. I assume you mean it will be completed when Iraq becomes a Western-style democracy, and all the bloodshed stops. That might happen in 100 years, but I doubt it.

What is most likely to happen is that some U.S. president will decide that enough is enough, and bring our troops home - exactly what President Richard Nixon did in Vietnam. It will not be Bush. He is too pigheaded to admit any mistakes. Until then, hundreds more Americans and untold numbers of Iraqis must die to perpetuate Bush's folly.

Vernon Johnson, Mesena