Of War and Inspections: Which Way on Iraq?

Re “Iraq Excludes Palaces From Inspection Sites,” Sept. 22: For over a week I was overjoyed at hearing the news that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein reached an agreement that would give U.N. weapons inspectors unconditional access. We now learn from Iraq that the agreement was not unconditional at all. That being the case, why was Annan not forthcoming in pointing out that what Iraq and the news media had reported was not accurate? Annan has lost credibility. The Bush administration was correct in its assessment of Iraq’s skewed definition of “unconditional.” As a lifetime Democrat, I am thankful that George W. Bush is in the White House. He has my wholehearted support.

Michael Warren

Los Angeles

*

No matter what else is accomplished, if this administration’s plans to attack Iraq go forward, the gates of hell will be opened wide and we will all suffer, for many generations. Cooler heads must prevail.

Barry Greenfield

West Hollywood

*

Instead of talking about attacking Iraq and making more problems by going to war with Iraq, why not let the U.N. inspection teams go back into Iraq? Just warn Hussein that if he refuses to let the inspectors inspect certain sites (i.e., the palaces) then the inspectors will use a satellite cell phone to report it, and the U.S. Air Force will bomb any site that the inspectors aren’t allowed to go into within a few hours. That should put the pressure on Hussein to let the inspectors go where they need to go, without any limits.

John F. Howard

Los Angeles

*

We may be justified in doubting the wisdom and intelligence behind the current administration’s war plans. But as November approaches it is obvious that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney do know one thing about war: how to create an effective diversion. Too bad they’re using it on their own country.

Donald C. Litton

Chatsworth

*

I am frankly scared and puzzled by the Bush administration’s new foreign policy plan (“Bush Describes Tough Foreign Policy Vision,” Sept 21). Leaving aside the Orwellian implications of a policy like “preemptive self-defense,” can we reasonably expect that if the United States establishes this precedent it won’t catch on? What happens when China decides to get preemptive with Taiwan, or India with Pakistan? Am I supposed to feel safer now?

We need a foreign policy that creates lasting security, not one that sets destabilizing precedents.

Aaron Campbell

Los Angeles

*

After reading “Bush Puts Democrats on the Spot With Resolution on Iraq War” (Sept. 20) and “We Need Answers, Mr. Bush” (editorial, Sept. 20), about Bush’s request for a resolution on Iraq, I have come to one conclusion: Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer plus the editors of The Times are cowards. It is because of their attitudes that 9/11 occurred. They do not want the United States to do anything until another catastrophe occurs.

Allan L. Griffith

Glendale