War questions for Rep. Emerson

To the editor:

In February 2003 prior to the war, an analysis of the likely consequences of an invasion and occupation of Iraq was sent to U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson. This seven-page document advising opposition to the invasion was signed by some 60 8th District constituents. Many more would have signed, but the writers felt compelled to get the document to their representative quickly.

This analysis was rebuffed by Emerson, who defended her pro-war position using the same lame, exaggerated and extremely naïve arguments that the administration was then touting to promote the war.

Currently, more than 500 Americans have died and several thousand have been wounded (many severely). We have spent many tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at a time of record budget and trade deficits. The occupation is likely creating more terrorists in the long. Most importantly, there is no end in sight to the cost in lives and tax dollars.

Now, nearly everyone admits that there was no link to al-Qaida, no WMDs, and no threat to the United States.

The constituents of Missouri's 8th District deserve an explanation from their representative. Why did Emerson support the invasion? Why does she continue to support the Bush administration? Does she feel any remorse for the deaths resulting from her endorsement of this unnecessary war? If she too was misled, why isn't she calling for a serious, immediate investigation into the misuse of intelligence? Emerson's constituents deserve candid answers to these and other critical questions.

ROBERT POLACK JR.

Cape Girardeau