In response to the March 22 letter, “He didn’t lie, he got bad information”: Is the writer seriously equating Clinton’s denial of having sex with Bush’s determination to go to war no matter what anyone said? Let’s face it, he fought tooth and nail to get elected in order to finish the job his daddy started, namely, get Saddam, to prove he was a better man. How many people have died from that? After all his publicly stated reasons for war (WMDs, al-Qaida, etc.) were refuted, it boils down to “The world is better off without Saddam.”
Well, the world would be better off without a lot of the dictators who are in power. Do we declare war on all of them? He is also “spreading democracy and freedom,” but those things can’t be forced on people, they have to come from within. Did anyone come along and kick out King George for us?
The letter says Democrats are still smarting from having to excuse Clinton’s behavior. I, for one, have never excused his behavior. Why is she excusing Bush’s behavior? In the time-honored fashion of answering a question with a question, I ask the letter writer, how naive can you get?
Greta Peterson
Marysville
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
