by Moddey Screbbagh » Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:05 pm
letter-to-the-editor in today's NYT makes an interesting point, which makes sense to me:<br><br>(link may require sign in)<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/20/opinion/l20dowd.html?_r=2&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fLetters&oref=slogin&oref=slogin" target="top">NYT letter to the editor</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>To the Editor:<br><br>Re "The Decider Sticks With the Derider" (column, April 19):<br><br>There's a conundrum hidden within Maureen Dowd's column about the failure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. It's one I've been puzzling over since the Bush administration began its drumbeat for war in Iraq.<br><br>There is now considerable evidence — from Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and other former members of the administration — to support Ms. Dowd's statement that <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Mr. Rumsfeld "wanted to invade Iraq because he thought it would be easy."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br>But if Mr. Rumsfeld and his colleagues truly believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, how easy could the invasion be?<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Common sense suggests only one answer: We invaded Iraq not because we thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but because we thought he didn't.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br>The administration would like us to think that it was simply mistaken about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein; but that's yet another lie, and perhaps the biggest one of all.<br><br>Jack Lechner<br><br>New York, April 19, 2006<br><br>The writer was an executive producer of "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara." <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>