Alan Gerowe, in his letter to the editor on Jan. 6, said, “we were attacked.” Gerowe is correct, but we were attacked by al-Qaida, not Iraq.

Unlike many of my friends, I supported President Bush when he responded to the Sept. 11 attacks by going after Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan. Bush was right to pursue Mullah Omar and his Taliban government, which was harboring terrorists.

But Iraq is a different matter. Bush has been unable to establish a convincing connection between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks. There is no doubt Saddam is a bad man, but if we attack all the bad men in the world, we will be at war forever.

Our target should be bin Laden’s terrorists, not Saddam. On Sept. 13, 2001, Bush said, “The most important thing for us is to find Osama bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority and we will not rest until we find him.” On March 13, 2002, Bush said, “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

Could is be that Bush is going after Saddam because he is easier to find than bin Laden and Mullah Omar? Or is a pre-emptive war just easier than the hard work of diplomacy and international cooperation? Does America wish to go to war every time we don’t get our way, or are we better than this?

Rev. Mark Worth

Ellsworth