In his original letter, Bourget said “I am also tired of politicians’ and news media’s comparing this war to Vietnam. I think it should be compared to World War II…On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists launched an unprovoked attack on New York City and Washington…The United States went to war to remove terrorists, and sever their support from host countries” (March 23, 2006). Then, in the second letter (which the ProJo afforded him the opportunity to print), Bourget said “I did not say in my letter that Iraq was connected to 9/11” (April 7, 2006 ProJo). Quite simply, Bourget is changing your argument. It was strongly implied that Bourget was linking 9/11 with Iraq. If he was not then why did he include all the casualty statisics from it? We impeached a president for slicing and dicing the word “is” and Bourget would have us slice and dice the word “say” so he can distance himself from the implications of his original letter. I also talked with “Other people” who drew the same conclusions from Bourget’s piece and thanked me for pointing out the errors and misleading nature.
While I even agree with most of Bourget’s second letter, he can not deny what he said in his first. Even in his second, again, Bourget makes blanket statements that are not true “Everyone thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction prior to our invasion.” The UN Weapons Inspectors said there was no evidence of WMD. The US Ambassador to Niger, Joseph Wilson said the allegations of Iraq gettting enriched uranium from Africa were false. [And of course, we now know the President punmished Wilson for speaking the truth but ruining his wife’s career with the CIA and putting her life in danger by identifying her as a CIA operative.] “Everyone” did not think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; the correct statement would have been “Many people though Saddam HAD and wanted to develop WMD.”
And again, this is the danger of printing letters without including editorial notes. In Bourget’s piece on April 7th, there should have been an editor’s note that ran beneath that said not everyone thought Saddam had weapons. The failure to include such editing encourages misleading statements and artificially supports a war that is based on lies and assuptions.