To the editor:
I must point out factual inaccuracies in three letters on Wednesday's Opinion page.
Jim Maginel incorrectly states that "evidence strongly suggests that President Bush is acting out of greed for Iraqi oil." If Bush were acting out of greed, he would be looking for a diplomatic solution that would protect Iraq's oil fields. Going to war would result in the decimation of the oil fields by Saddam Hussein.
Adam Cox is inaccurate by stating that the government is "speaking of ideas" concerning a "pre-emptive" strike or an "independent war." Both ideas are ludicrous. Bush has said repeatedly that it is a "coalition of the willing" which includes a long list of countries such as Britain, Australia and Italy. It would not be a pre-emptive strike. It would be a resumption of hostilities by Iraq, which did not abide by the terms of disarmament.
Dennis Taylor was factually inaccurate when he said we were busy lynching blacks while fighting Hitler's regime. When did FDR authorize such lynchings? It was a few ugly racists who did that. Taylor also states that Bush has been "let off the hook" by all the terrorism attention. President Clinton did absolutely nothing in response to the numerous terrorist attacks prior to Sept. 11, 2001. Any response he made was an effort to draw attention away from his extramarital activities.
I urge us to support our president instead of making incorrect allegations against him.