Troops needed at home

To the editor:

In a recent letter, U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson said: "It is dangerous to prefer inaction to a defense of our nation against terrorists" As much as I'd like to believe our action in Afghanistan and Iraq is for our protection, evidence points to the possibility that other factors might have been our motivation for these actions.

Jean-Charles Brisard, writer for Salon.com, wrote in an article that both the Clinton and Bush administrations negotiated with the Taliban to get its oppressive regime to widen it's government and co-operate with U.S. companies' attempts to construct an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. When talks stalled in July 2001, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals.

If this is true, then there were already plans to invade Afghanistan prior to the 9-11 terror attacks.

We are told that our mission in Iraq is now humanitarian. China comes to mind as a country with an oppressive regime with a horrible human rights record, yet we grant them most favored nation trade status.

President Bush supports a policy that sends our troops around the world, (to date well over 135 countries) while refusing to seal our borders and promotes a plan to legalize 8 million to 13 million illegal aliens. What kind of policy sends our troops away from the country while at the same time increases the vulnerability of our country to further attacks?

CLINT E. LACY, Vice Chairman

Missouri League of the South

Marble Hill, Mo.