Open letter to Senator Don Nickles

Toward the end of June I sent faxes to my representatives (via MoveOn.org) concerning the on-going controversy over the nature of the intelligence used to support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. As I recall, I received a form e-mail from Representative Jim Imhoff's office. I received a letter from Senator Don Nickles' office, which attempted to defend Administration policy. A pdf version of Senator Nickles' letter is available here.

You'll find an html version of my response here; however, since my letter is three pages long, you may prefer to review this outline of points I hoped to
make:

1. Why Weren't Weapons Used?
1. Self-preservation
2. Gulf War suggests
1. Will fire on superior force
2. Strong sense of self-preservation


2. Other reasons Saddam may have not allowed unfettered inspections
1. Sovereignty
2. Tactical, similar to “mutually assured destruction”
3. Examples cited date to 1998
1. Week prior to strike, Iraqi cooperation increased
2. Military build-up may have encouraged this cooperation
3. Combination of military threat and inspectors may have ended with better results


3. My own questions
1. Why did U.S. oppose increased inspectors
2. Why was U.S. intelligence not shared with inspectors
3. Why was strike necessary at this particular time




4. Penultimate statement asks for more time
1. Ironic, given the world sought more time to allow inspections to work
2. Odd, given several in the Administration claimed our intelligence “knew” where weapons were located




5. Problems with intelligence
1. Niger
2. Evidence that conditional statements were reconstructed as statements of fact


6. Need for transparent government
1. Past scandals (Watergate, Whitewater, etc) marked by attempts to “coverup”
2. “Politics as usual”
3. Contributes to increased public cynicism
1. Government seen as “us vs. them”
2. Should be “we the people”
4. Best resolution is open, bi-partisan, independent commission