It seems that the author of "If Saddam had a weapon he would have used it" (April 18 letter) is suffering from tunnel vision. He either cannot or will not see the other explanations for why Saddam did not use weapons of mass destruction.

It may be that he did not have any to begin with, but it could also be that he knew that using them would give legitimacy to the United States.

Perhaps the order was given to use weapons of mass destruction, but when the Iraqi leadership was decimated in the opening days of war, the order was never followed.

The author also claims that U.S. troops should have already found weapons of mass destruction by now, if they existed.

But Iraq is not the size of State College; it's a large country with many hiding places. The small number of soldiers actually looking for weapons cannot be expected to turn up all of Iraq's secrets in days.

But the most outlandish claim the author makes is that "Saddam is a gentleman who values the lives of U.S. soldiers more than his own."

There are thousands of Kurds, Shiites, Iranians, and even members of Saddam's own family who would disagree. But they can't because they were tortured and killed, some of them by weapons of mass destruction. But if the author still feels that Saddam is so great, then he should go to Iraq, find him (if he is alive) and tell him he just came from America to meet him. I am sure Saddam will be a perfect gentleman.

The author claims that if Saddam is not a gentleman, then "the attack on Iraq was due to imperialistic designs." However, the United States has just completed its removal of Saddam's government and its intentions are not clear.

If the United States does stay and try to rule Iraq, then I will join with the author in saying America was wrong. But time is needed to see what will happen.

So far, the Bush administration has been true to its word, and I for one, believe they will continue to be.