Dear Editor, I remember when the president declared that Saddam Hussein had 2,000 gallons of anthrax, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, and an ongoing nuclear weapons program. He asked Congress to pass a bill making "regime change" in Iraq a national priority. He also wanted to spend $97 million to begin sending war material to Iraq. The Senate voted unanimously to pass the bill. Representative Ron Paul was the only member of the House who stood up to argue against the bill. Bill Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act passed in October 1998. Two months later Clinton ordered the cruise missile bombing of Baghdad. Four years later President Bush cited the Iraq Liberation Act in his request for authorization to send in troops. Sen. Hillary Clinton supported Bush's expansion of Bill Clinton's undeclared war. Recently I heard the Republican presidential candidates asserting their readiness to make war on Iran – except Ron Paul, who disavowed any intention of starting any wars. Shortly after the debate ended, President Obama made a statement that "everything is still on the table" if and when he decides to make war on Iran. (That means that he will nuke Iran if he feels it is necessary.) His chosen secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is doing everything possible to ignite a war with Iran. Are Democrats going to re-elect a known warmonger? Can the Chronicle say anything nice about the only pro-peace candidate? Ron Paul is also the only candidate who opposes torture, bailouts, NAFTA, debts, corporatism, and the war on drugs.