George,

In response to Mr. Sewell's questions:

1. While Joe Clancy is not thanking President Bush, the families of over 400,000 murdered Iraqis do.

So do we line up the families of all the people George Bush and George Bush Jr. have murdered in carpet bombings of the Middle East? Some of them don't like George Bush. Really, wrapping our actions in nobility when they were self-serving is about the only intolerable crime. I am really unable to distiguishbetween these two gentlemen. Both have acted brutally in the world to advance their own causes. Honesty is simpler and more clear.

2. The United Nations sanctioned Saddam, he did not obey.

Neither did George Bush when he proposed invading Iraq and he couldn't win approval. Do his actions merit further approval just because he was coy enough not to ask for it. For the Bush Administration and anyone who supports them to refer to to the United Nations, which earlier this year it flaunted flagrantly is ludicrous. I actually understand exactly why he did what he did. The organization didn't approve him in any way - it was political maneuvering. The reports from the U.N. inspectors were cast aside. If you dismiss the U.N. in the morning you can't call them your supporters in the afternoon. Hypocrisy at its highest.

3. Sadaam is a WMD, ask the families of over 400,000 murdered Iraqis.

Why do we keep counting the ones he killed as executions and the ones we kill as collateral damage? Define murder. Because there are alot of families who were sitting at home when American bombs destroyed their lives and families earlier this year, all because we opposed one man. What about the families of every American soldier who has died in this war that was an initiation by our government and not a defense,

4. Stay tuned for more evidence.

You know, they've been looking for that evidence for over a year now.That's a long episode of Murder She Wrote. I've been tuned, gone to get chips, baked pies, broiled steaks, had children, and still there's no evidence, so I figure if I held my breath I would be dead a thousand times over.

Of course, in justifying the war they said they had evidence. Many times they said they had evidence. Always using the present tense and the past tense. No one ever said , "We WILL have evidence" until after the war had started. The evidence they "had" was the justification for the war in the first place. And they don't. It's a little like having the police raid your home because they have evidence when they don't. Imagine that they've been looking in your house for a whole year.

5. What would you prefer Joe ... Sadaam in power?

To be clear, I don't oppose President Bush's actions. They are totally understandable in the context of history. Why should he obey the U.N. if he doesn't have to? I can think of some reasons why it would be a good idea.

I oppose his dishonesty. I believe lies create prisons of misunderstanding that can incapacitate human beings for centuries at a time. To wrap this war in the blankets of nobility is a disservice to the intelligence of all human beings.

I actually believe if he was honest about his intentions he would find a great deal of support. I even hypothesize that many of his supporters recognize his dishonesty and accept it for what they believe it is "the noble lie". A good friend claims to believe in peace as much as I do - he simply believes that the road to world peace is through world domination.

It is a legitimate point of view. But to kill others while standing on lies is morally unsound.

If Saddam was in power still many people who are dead now would not be dead. I do not begin to think that Saddam Hussien was a noble man. The question is not whether Saddam is guilty of crimes.

The question is whether or not our government is justified in lying to us and to the world its efforts to depose him.

One justified lie begets another.

I would rather die by the hand of an honest villain than be saved by a liar.

yours,

Joe Clancy (electronic mail, December 18, 2003)