Wow

I found the following doozy (sp?) in today's letters to the editor at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Baffled by support

That the war in Iraq is losing support does not surprise me. What does surprise me is how the support figure stays as high as it does.

I cannot understand how anyone can support a war against a country that had no army of any significance, no navy, no air force, little or no connection to 9/11, had not attacked our country and was not an imminent threat to our security.

Granted, Iraq was brutalized by a ruthless dictator, but if that is the reason for the attack, that should have been the issue debated by the people and the Congress.

Warren Spannaus, Minneapolis

I supported the war, Mr. Spannaus, because I believed that we needed to neutralize Hussein before he did become an "imminent threat." On this canard, see Donald Luskin's latest fisking of Paul Krugman: "In his state of the union address this year, Bush was at pains to disclose that the Iraq threat was not imminent, but that a controversial pre-emptive strike was nevertheless justified. Bush said, 'Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?'"

And last time I checked, the war was debated: Congress approved the use of force against Iraq last fall.