In regards to Karl F. Stephens rant against “liberals” and Bob Kerr (“On Bush and WMD, Kerr’s still in dark,” May 28, 2005), could you kindly explain what the “M.D.” at the end of Mr. Stephens name is? Is it a reference to the (W)MD’s that were allegedly in Iraq is 2003? Of course, Mr. Stevens’ erroneously states that everyone thought the weapons were in Iraq in 2003. Oh, people worldwide knew the weapons were there….since we ourselves armed Saddam with them in the 1980s under the Reagan Administration. However, not everyone necessarily knew they were in Iraq in 2003 [see Ambassador Joe Wilson‘s comments on nuclear arms and WMDs from BEFORE the war].
So have (W)MD’s become a faddish suffix? Or is the signature a reference to President Bush’s “Mass Deception”? I ask, of course, because one’s degree in medicine has nothing to do with the politics of the war in Iraq. By signing his name “Karl F. Stevens, M.D.” the author has merely communicated his allegiance to Bush by tax-bracket. I hope all readers keep that in perspective while reading the attacks on journalists and the unabashed praise for an administration of lies. These lies have manipulated the media and the release of information (re: the Pat Tillman’s tragic death for one). Should I sign my letters with suffixes identifying my two bachelor degrees and two post-graduate degrees? No, I will let my words and the facts stand on their own.
On Bush and WMD, Kerr’s still in dark
01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, May 28, 2005
Since the false Newsweek story and its tragic aftermath, I have been skimming Bob Kerr’s columns, anxious to see how he would manage to make President Bush responsible.
Unfortunately, for my reading pleasure, he must not be in a creative streak at the moment; he merely resorts to regurgitating the liberal talking point: It’s no different from Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction (“We might never know the real reason,” May 18).
Last November’s presidential election showed that most Americans “get” the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue, but evidently it needs to be explained again, for those who don’t:
— Bush didn’t “lie.” The intelligence services of not only the United States and Britain but also France and Russia believed the WMD were still there, and no responsible president would ever ignore so many experts.
— All agree that Iraq had them at one time. And even though the delays caused by the French and Russians, trying to protect their oil deals, allowed Saddam Hussein to temporarily (he thought) get rid of them — apparently by sending them to Syria, dumping them in the Tigris, or some other means — no sane person doubts that the minute we turned our backs, he’d have been making them again.
“Chronic and Delayed-Onset Mustard Gas Keratitis,” in the April issue of Ophthalmology (aaojournal.org), presents vivid photos as evidence that Saddam possessed — and used — WMD. They also make one realize that any leader who does not take every step necessary to spare his populace the agony of these individuals would truly be criminal.
KARL F. STEPHENS, M.D.