George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, and the UN. (Letters to the Editor).

Frequently THE NEW AMERICAN criticizes our president, especially regarding Iraq. I would never side with Saddam Hussein against George Bush. Perhaps you are on the wrong side of this issue. President Bush says he will act whether the United Nations goes along with him or not. He said that the U.N. risks becoming irrelevant. This is what we want! Let's support our president and hope he puts the U.N. where it belongs -- on the ash-heap of history.

DR. JAMES C. WARNER

Rockford, Illinois

THE NEW AMERICAN has frequently made clear that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator. In fact, part of our criticism of U.S. policy is that we aided and abetted Saddam's regime prior to the Gulf War (see "Building the Beast of Baghdad" in our October 21st issue). If we hadn't helped him consolidate power then, lie likely wouldn't be a threat today.

But Saddam is just one of many dictators throughout the world who hate the United States. To oppose a pre-emptive war against Saddam is no more pro-Saddam than opposing a pre-emptive war against china is pro-Jiang. Yet the U.S. is now abetting the butchers of Beijing just as it once did the beast of Baghdad.

If we go to war against Iraq (or China, or Cuba, or any one of a number of threats to the U.S.), it should be based on defending the US. and its citizens. Moreover; Congress, not the president, should make the decision via the constitutionally required declaration of war.

But this is not what congress did in its recent "use of military force" resolution against Iraq. That resolution authorizes the president to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to... enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Put simply, the resolution amounts to giving the president a blank check to enforce UN dictates.