The Nattering Nabob

Letters page, NY Times:

President Bush endlessly repeats the claim that we are safer without Saddam Hussein in power but offers evidence that does not support his assertion.

Saddam Hussein's being a dictator or using weapons against his people or wishing to acquire the capacity to get weapons of mass destruction are not logical pieces of evidence to support Mr. Bush's assertion.

Simply put, how exactly was Saddam Hussein a threat, and why are we safer with him in custody?

Against the reality of the mess in Iraq - now a magnet for terrorists, a beacon for anti-American rage, a killing field for Americans, Iraqis and others because of Mr. Bush's invasion - one can reasonably conclude that we are much less safe since Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Mr. Bush's repetition of his assertion to the contrary is not only wrong but also nonsense. He is either utterly incompetent in his inability to understand the fundamental reasoning flaw in his standard defense of the war, or he assumes that much of the electorate is.

John E. Colbert
Chicago