Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

LETTERS TO THE TIMES

Americans' Trust in Bush

November 22, 2003

Regarding the Times poll (Nov. 21), I find it astounding that Americans trust President Bush on national defense and terrorism after he and his administration lied on evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; after he misled Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11; after he launched his preemption policy, which encourages governments like Iran's to rush to develop nuclear weapons as a defense against invasion; and after he insulted Europe, the United Nations and NATO. Why do Americans trust a man like that? He's dishonest and dangerous.

Steve Synnott

La Canada Flintridge

*

On Thursday in Britain, Bush said his goal was to bring terrorists to justice. He supposedly has terrorists in Cuba, but he hasn't brought any of them into a courtroom.

Derek Lovett

Torrance

*

Re "Doubts Create a Voter Split Over Bush," Times poll, Nov. 20: I suggest that readers simply read your numeric chart of poll results. That way The Times' left-wing, liberal headline writer can skip his or her editorializing, and your reporter won't get a headache trying to spin a few insignificant bits of poll data to hide the fact that the Times poll shows that most Americans approve of and respect the president of the United States and the very difficult job he has in protecting our country.

Leslie Earley

Laguna Niguel

*

Re "Iraq War Was a 'Duty,' Bush Tells Britons," Nov. 20: Bush says it was his duty to attack a country that posed no direct threat to the U.S. He must be removed before duty calls again!

Hans Grellmann

Palos Verdes Estates

*

I am not sure if Matthew Miller is serious in wondering why Bush did not go the last (or even first) mile in trying to put together the coalition his father had on Desert Storm (Commentary, Nov. 20). Bush didn't seek help because he was convinced beyond a doubt that we would be welcomed by the Iraqis (why share the glory?); we would find weapons of mass destruction (legitimizing the deal); Iraqi oil production, filtered through Halliburton, would pay for reconstruction (why share the wealth?); and the Iraqi army would collapse under the weight of the world's best military (thanks to Bill Clinton). Hey, one out of four isn't bad.

Pat Ormsbee

Newport Beach

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|