With Iraq, Do Ends Justify the Means?
To the Editor: You quote Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, as saying, ”Does even the most left-wing Democrat want to defend the proposition that the world would be better off with Saddam in power?” (”Republicans Dismiss Questions Over Strength of Evidence on Banned Weapons in Iraq,” news article, June 18). Of course no one wants to say the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein’s sadistic and brutal regime in place, but that isn’t the question on the table. The issue is whether or not the end justifies the means. Yes, removing Saddam Hussein is ultimately a good thing. But if deceit and manipulated information are what got us to this point, we must cry out against it. We have no guarantee of being ”better off” the next time our government uses such tactics. Allowing our leaders to set this kind of precedent would be playing a dangerous game. We must refuse to play; that is the heart of the matter.
